Skip to comments.Bay State gun bill echos British attempts to take guns in 1775
Posted on 06/12/2014 7:02:13 AM PDT by rktman
The bill by Massachusetts Speaker Robert A. DeLeo to restrict gun rights in the Commonwealth is not only a wrongheaded policy that will make the state less safe. It is also provides sad closure to the time when Massachusetts was a laboratory of democracy and a place where liberty was cherished.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
So does the quartering of the Tyrant’s Army of criminal
And so does the removal of Law by the Tyrant and the
Massachusetts General Court.
No surprise, both followed the Tea Party, then, too.
I know what you mean. It boggles the mind when you realize the Founding Fathers came from Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and the rest of the northeast. When you look at how far left those states are today it’s sad to realize how much our country has deteriorated.
Kind of funny and sad. A few years back, I had a job at a DOD defense contractor. Position I was in was eliminated so I had to find a different position. Upper management called me in and told me I had to move to the Northeast - NJ/NY/CT. Part of this was having to sell my house - no choice in keeping it. I would have planned to return at a later time when the market turned around, but mgt said no, move or be fired.
I have no desire to live in the Northeast and besides anyplace you go to, you have to dress up including on weekends. I won’t dress up except for a funeral. That is it.
Sad how the northeast went from where they wanted to be free to being enslaved like with work, high taxes and massive regulations. In fact the manager I had who was awful, he even required you to get permission to even use the bathroom and I don’t ask !
From the article: “The speaker claims that he is working to make the state safer. But, guns in the hands of regular citizens are what make communities safer...”
Not surprised that this is happening in MA, the cradle of nanny state politics in America. The writer understands the issue, and the fallacy of the proposal, quite well.
The Second Amendment becomes more and more important with each chunk of liberty and freedom legislated from the people, whether at the federal or the state level.
It’s one thing to propose a law, another thing to enact it.
This is still far from a “done deal.”
The demand for big gov is driven by population density. Once an area reaches 1,000 people per square mile, big gov lovers take control. The reason for this is it requires more government for people to get along in closer quarters. American style freedom doesn't work in a big city. The average population density of the USA is 84 people per square mile, so the vast majority of the country is in conservative hands. The northeast has been at it longer so the population density has reached European levels.
People that live in high rise big cities are actually living a communist lifestyle. They own little personally, share most everything, and have few freedoms that don't upset their million close neighbors. Most political conflict comes from city communists trying to impose their big gov lifestyle on rural areas, and conservatives trying to impose their morals on Sodom and Gomorrah. If we had two independent governments, one for cities and one for Americans, everyone would be happier.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.