I find it funny

S

SC4006

New member
So before I begin my, I guess rant, I want to give some background information. I've been in the NH Army NG for a little over a year and a half now, and in that time have done quite a few drills at Fort Devens in Massachusetts. Fort Devens is a very small fort compared to say Fort Benning, we're talking about 5000 acres vs about 182,000 for Benning. It's still a nice place to train at. All the ranges are nice and have the latest technology, and everything is maintained extremely well. I digress. Anyways, many of you know that Massachusetts is a very anti gun state. In NH the gun laws are very relaxed, how they should be, but the second I step over the border into MA it's like I'm entering some communist country.

Here's what I find funny, and quite idiotic. When I'm doing a weekend drill with my unit, we head down to Devens on busses with a plethora of scary weapons like M4's, M249 Saws, and M240's, and that's perfectly fine for us of course because we're a government agency.

The thing is though, the second my drill is over and I take my uniform off, all of a sudden I'm practically treated like a criminal if I step over the border into MA with just a pistol. How is it that a bunch of guys can take all these scary weapons into MA on the weekend, but all of a sudden these SAME GUYS would be criminals on Monday for taking any weapon over?

I just don't get it.

(Yes I know all the firearms we use during drill are government property, not ours, but you get my point.)
 
The urban populations in MA and NY, for instance, support gun control and they drive the laws of the entire states.

It's that simple, sadly.
 
I was stationed at Ft. Devens in the late 70's when it it much more than it is today.
I had my personal 870 Wingmaster in the unit (642nd Engineer Co. - Heavy Support) armory along with the ammo.
I decided to get a hunting license and go duck hunting with a couple off civilians I knew.
I had to go to the local LEO's and get a temporary permit to take my shotgun of post and they counted my ammo supply.

I shipped the gun home after that trip.
 
Good-guy, Bad guy "Loophole"

I refer to situations like this as "The good-guy and bad-guy, loophole." .... :rolleyes:

It happens under differing scenarios. For example;

I have a friend who had a carry permit for the past 20-yrs. in Iowa. Got a heck of a deal on a house and moved to Illinois. Is now going through their expensive process of obtaining his Illinois permit. Over a period of a weekend, he went from being a good guy to being a bad guy, if he carries. ...... ;)


Life's not fair, so;
Be Safe !!!
 
I'm a fine upstanding citizen at my house....

A mile away I could be a crime perpetrator

Borders are a funny thing...

Gun laws are not about controlling criminals. Criminal have already crossed that line.
Laws are for controlling the controllable
 
The urban populations in MA and NY, for instance, support gun control and they drive the laws of the entire states.

It's that simple, sadly.
Click to expand...

Add in CA, OR, WA, and for the most part, CO too......
 
I'm not sure, but living on the border of two states is a pain....

I see the Columbia river from my living room and the peoples republic of portland beyond... But dang it! They got some good eats there.
 
I recall when Washington state wanted to reduce the drinking age to 18. One rationale was if an 18-year old was old enough to be in the Army and die for his country, why couldn't he have a beer?

Of course, that logic doesn't apply to such things as firearms. If he's approved by the Army to carry an M240 SAW or operate the missile battery, why can't he get a pistol permit outside the gate to the Fort?

RickyRick : it bugs me when I go down to Portland to visit Powell's Book City, just two miles over the center of the Columbia River and state border. Legal on one side of the bridge, not legal on the other. No one has been able to explain to me how Portland is any safer than Seattle.
 
The thing is though, the second my drill is over and I take my uniform off, all of a sudden I'm practically treated like a criminal if I step over the border into MA with just a pistol. How is it that a bunch of guys can take all these scary weapons into MA on the weekend, but all of a sudden these SAME GUYS would be criminals on Monday for taking any weapon over?
Click to expand...

Your attempting to apply logic and common sense to public perception, politics and resulting laws...
 
Your attempting to apply logic and common sense to public perception, politics and resulting laws...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess that's where I went wrong in my thinking.

What Glenn said is totally true, western Massachusetts is absolutely nothing like the Boston area, yet the laws for the entire state basically reflect that of the Boston area. Boston is definitely a great city to visit and all, but it's really unfortunate that they feel disarming the average citizen is the smart thing to do.

On the news I hear about some sort of shooting in MA almost every other day it seems, yet in my gun friendly state shootings are much less common. It's pretty simple to figure out I think.
 
What is hard to understand. In uniform, you are part of a government entity. Out of uniform, you are not.
Click to expand...

Well yeah I get the technical aspect of it; government agencies are exempt from certain restrictions. I don't get why it's okay for me to take a machinegun over the border while serving a weekend with that government agency, but any other day I can't even take a .22 over. I'm still the same person. Nothing changed besides my uniform. I guess that leads to the broader question of why the government can do what we can't.
 
Felt the same way in Germany. I left a deployment to Kosovo early to PCS (Transfer) to Kansas. And on my way home out of habit I walked into a German gas station with an M16 slung over my shoulder instead of leaving it with the driver. It wasn't till I noticed the terrified looks on the other patrons that I realized my mistake.
 
Well yeah I get the technical aspect of it; government agencies are exempt from certain restrictions. I don't get why it's okay for me to take a machinegun over the border while serving a weekend with that government agency, but any other day I can't even take a .22 over. I'm still the same person. Nothing changed besides my uniform.
Click to expand...

Apparently, you don't get the technical aspect of it. First, the technical aspect is the legal aspect.

Second, your own military doesn't trust you with military weapons in your off time here in the US and on most bases around the world that are not in active theaters. You are only trusted with them in supervised capacities. So why don't you ask WHY to your superiors first? Look at what happened at Fort Hood. Look what happened on the Cole.

Third, all that changed ISN'T the uniform, but your exempt status, and you don't seem to be understanding this at all. Ask why soldiers aren't armed on base or why active duty soldiers are not sent home with their weapons when they go on leave. Go ahead. Ask your superiors.

I guess that leads to the broader question of why the government can do what we can't.
Click to expand...

Really? You are in the military, even part time, and wonder why the federal government can do things you can't do as an individual? I think some remedial civics may be in your future.
 
This brings up memories of being a soldier and traveling home for weekends and leave and such.

Back then I remember trying as much as I could not to look like a soldier.

If I looked like a soldier, I would get harassed, asked for money and things like that. Mostly people asking for money. But even in the best of times, people hated soldiers. Also, soldiers are always subject to be robbed. Even gangs around El Paso are challenged to get dog tags from soldiers.

But a soldier cannot have a personal firearm... Not without locking it in the arms room. I remember a guy in one of my squads got into trouble for a novelty crossbow and blowgun was on his closet in the barracks room
 
SC4006 said:
On the news I hear about some sort of shooting in MA almost every other day it seems, yet in my gun friendly state shootings are much less common. It's pretty simple to figure out I think.
Click to expand...
This might have something to do with it:

Population in 2014:

MA = 6.745 million

NH = 1.327 million
 
I'm still the same person. Nothing changed besides my uniform. I guess that leads to the broader question of why the government can do what we can't.
Click to expand...

Its about control.
When your on the road with your fellow soldiers you are under the direct control and supervision of someone else. You can't just say, "Hey ya'll, I'm gonna grab a burger over at McDonalds" and walk on in carrying a M249 by yourself.
You are generally surrounded by others, who would control you if you lost control of yourself.

Other days... your autonomous, no one is watching or controlling what you do.
 
Well, at least some people understand why I'm trying to say. I could care less about the legal aspect, it has nothing to do with why I'm trying to say. I, as well as everyone else, should be able to enjoy the same rights no matter our status, or where we are within this country. That's why I called it more of a rant than anything.
 
I don't get why it's okay for me to take a machinegun over the border while serving a weekend with that government agency, but any other day I can't even take a .22 over. I'm still the same person. Nothing changed besides my uniform.
Click to expand...

Nothing has changed except your uniform, FOR YOU. But its not about you, as an individual.

The root cause is TRUST. Or rather the lack of it, in the elected officials that created and support the laws. They simply do not trust ordinary people (aka citizens) with guns. They allow people to have (some) guns after they have earned their trust, by complying with laws, obtaining permits/FOID cards, etc.

When you are on duty, military or police, they trust you. NOT as an individual, but as part of a trusted group. The same people who shudder in horror at the thought of an 18yr old with a single shot .22 running amok in their realms are FINE with that same 18yr old with a machinegun, or grenade launcher when that 18yr old is in uniform.

On duty, you are CONTROLLED by "ADULTS" (meaning your superiors and the entire system) in their view. Off duty, you are the same as everyone else, in their view, and absent their idea of earned trust, they see you (and I) armed, as a danger to public safety.

That's how they see it, and they have the laws to enforce that attitude.

On a general level, all gun control is about this. They don't trust individuals. They don't know guns, they don't like guns, and they don't trust themselves with guns. THEREFORE, NO ONE else may be trusted with guns, either.

They do trust organizations. People in organizations (military, police, licensed private security) may be trusted, not because they trust the individual, but because they trust the organization.

If the Army gives you a machinegun and you run amok with it, the politicians of MA are not responsible. They Army is. (note, YOU are not responsible -in their view). IF you run amok with an "assault weapon" (or anything else), while not in uniform, in their state, THEY are "responsible", because they let you run around with it. Which is why they put in laws so you cannot run around with it, unless you get licensed, from them, first.

Again, this is just my take on their viewpoint, but as an explanation of why they behave that way, it makes sense to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top