NEW ENGLAND has a centuries-old tradition of both gun manufacturing and gun control. It shouldnâ€™t have to pick between the two. However, at least one manufacturer is trying to force the matter. Proposals to require that guns be made suitable for micro-stamping, a technology which would allow shell casings to be traced back to the exact gun they were fired from, have been introduced in the Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts legislatures. These have drawn significant criticism from gun manufacturers, at least one of which, Colt, is threatening to move out of New England if such legislation is adopted.
The rest of this sorry article admonishes the manufacturers for holding jobs hostage. Like the manufactures owe the hostile New England states a living, and are required to continually bend over and take it. No blame for the politicians pushing a completely unproven and dubious technology? It’s the politicians threatening the jobs, you ignoramuses at the Globe, not the manufacturers.
But not only is does the Globe show ignorance of who to blame, they show an ignorance of history as well. The Globe describes gun control in New England as a “centuries old tradition”. Reality is, it’s not even a century old tradition, at least not for the kind of gun laws that the Globe regularly speaks in favor of. Most of it, in fact, is less than a half-century old, and much less than 25. Centuries old Boston gun control was regulating where and how one could set up for target practice on Boston Commons, or the old Boston ordinance that said if you’re going to store your rifle, musket, pistol, bomb grenade or artillery piece, it would be nice if you stored it unloaded/deactivated so as not to cause fire hazards. It was still, until the 20th century, legal to carry a loaded pistol around Boston. Does the Globe favor returning to that gun control tradition?
This is not a tradition, Globe Editorial Board, it is a thoroughly modern hysteria. The legal framework this hysteria has produced, is in the process of being dismantled, using our very real constitutional tradition. Imagine that, Globe Editorial Board.
7 thoughts on “Quote of the Day: Gun Traditions”
“Colt, is threatening to move out of New England if such legislation is adopted.”
Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t the State of Connecticut own a fairly significant share of Colt Mfg Co?
For state legislators in the northeast (Democrat and Republican) the decision to create an unworkable gun control scheme that won’t reduce crime and will cause gunmakers to flee is a no brainer. For them it’s not such a tough choice between keeping well paying manufacturing jobs or extending the web of ineffective and onerous gun control laws. Any guess where Colt will move to?
If they want to talk about centuries of New England gun control tradition, I don’t think that they mean laws like this or this!
I wonder how the Globe would feel about first amendment restrictions like…..
1. All newspapers must be licensed.
2. All newspaper employees must submit to background checks
3. Newspapers shall keep records of all sources, including confidential sources, for gov’t inspection
4. Newspapers will be subject to extra taxes, in addition to state and local taxes.
5. Local gov’ts can restrict the sale, possession, and distribution of newspapers
6. Newspapers will be limited to no more than 10 pages per edition
7. Every paper sold will require a record of transfer
8. Newspapers will be required to submit copies to the gov’t for testing – before sale to the public is approved.
9. The gov’t will determine who can own and read newspapers and under what conditions.
I’m heading up the first chapter of Reloaders who Approve Microstamping. RAMs goal is to further the cause of nefarious gun crime by collecting range brass from microstamp equipped firearms thus allowing us to murder without fear of reprisal.
But seriously, I thought micro-stamping was proven to be too much trouble.
Move out to Az, Colt. We just made your gun our state gun- seems like a good match.
The Globe is of course owned by the NYT. So much for the illusion of local control.
Comments are closed.