Boston Globe: The nation of the armed

Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
2,145
Likes
160
Location
Brentwood, NH
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e.../articles/2009/05/18/the_nation_of_the_armed/

Pretty much your usual "liberal newspaper columnist tries her hand at shooting and explores gun laws" article.

They almost always begin like this...

When I first pick up an unloaded revolver, my hand trembles, and it takes me several attempts to pull the trigger...

And, quite a few actually end like this (with the exception of those written by Steve "Ow! My vagina's killng me!" Bailey and John "Turnpike" Rosenthal).

...I loaded a .22, raised it and squeezed the trigger. I hit the target five times out of five. If the magazine had held more bullets I'd have kept shooting.

I left my two cents already (RKBA_in_MA).
 
But drive only 45 minutes north and everything changes. In New Hampshire, money and a valid ID will get you a handgun, although the dealer - a Federal Firearms Licensee - will conduct an instant background check by phone. Assuming you are not a prohibited person, at age 21 you can buy a gun and carry it openly.

I do not plan to make this drive

The author makes it sound as if a Massachusetts resident could drive to NH and buy a handgun with only a background check.

Of course, most of the sheep in MA will believe it.
 
The author makes it sound as if a Massachusetts resident could drive to NH and buy a handgun with only a background check.

Of course, most of the sheep in MA will believe it.


She has no clue. Somebody should post that she would need to be a NH resident with a valid ID to get a gun in NH.
 
Come on guys, this is the Boston Globe we're talking about here. By their standards, and track record on this subject, this was a pretty good column.

RELATIVELY SPEAKING.

Bruce, I want to know why you keep torturing youself by continuing to read that liberal left-wing mouth-piece when you know it only aggravates you? [wink]
I stopped reading it years ago and I'm far better off now.
 
What's odd is that it doesn't really go anywhere. There are no real conclusions. The only thing out of the ordinary (and positive) is that she explains to the sheeple that there really is a sane rational world out there more concerned with why she hasn't wanted a gun till now than why she wants one at all.
 
Why arent they out of business yet?

Didn't you get the memo? You are supposed to read their editorials and columinists and you're gonna like it 'cause its good for you and its what you need to hear! They are the elite, educated newspaper editors and sophisticated journalists, and they know how you should live your life! Thats why you pony up your hard earned cash--so they can think for you, because your brain is too weak to do it on its own.
 
What a horrible and boring article. I'm not sure what the point of it was, besides further misinforming an already misinformed audience.
 
What's odd is that it doesn't really go anywhere. There are no real conclusions. The only thing out of the ordinary (and positive) is that she explains to the sheeple that there really is a sane rational world out there more concerned with why she hasn't wanted a gun till now than why she wants one at all.

This is typical intellectual fair. It is supposed to say so much while yet saying so little.
 
Come on guys, this is the Boston Globe we're talking about here. By their standards, and track record on this subject, this was a pretty good column.

RELATIVELY SPEAKING.

You're right, it was a good thing to see in the Globe, but the MSM has not been our friend in recent history, so saying good things about it might not be the first thing we think of doing. Saying bad things wouldn't really fit the article either, so I imagine most people will just read it and move on. It wasn't huge news, it wasn't largely anti or pro gun, it was just stuff we all know. The writing quality wasn't spectacular, the information wasn't 100% clear, the writing style itself seemed like a short story or work of fiction, mostly entertaining for youth.

Maybe I'm just overly critical. [thinking]
Good find, maybe the globe will change its direction on the issue, as what they've been doing so far has led them to the edge of failure.
 
Don't worry. I don't "read the Globe". I'm not one of those [STRIKE]238[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]201[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]133[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]93[/STRIKE] 64 people.

The article came up on one of the Google News alert notifications I have set up to help me find good, blogworthy material.
 
Come on guys, this is the Boston Globe we're talking about here. By their standards, and track record on this subject, this was a pretty good column. RELATIVELY SPEAKING.

Agreed. This is the 2nd firearms article in the Globe in the past month that has been gun-neutral. I'd almost go as far as to say this article was... positive [shocked]

I disagree with you guys that said this article had no point or conclusions. She says clearly that due to the increased gun violence in recent months she was curious what acquiring a firearm actually entailed in MA. Many readers who know nothing about firearms in MA might actually have the same curiosities. And she goes on to tell the sheep what she's learned. You have to realize that this article wasn't written for us gun owners in MA... it was written for the sheep, by a sheep... so in this context, I'd have to say it was pretty positive.

Her points that I took away were:

1. There's no quick way to legally acquire a firearm in MA.
2. A gun safety course is required before getting an LTC in MA.
3. Firearms instructors are thorough.

What she said she's realized:

1. That being a gun owner isn't that scary after all; It's actually quite fun to go shooting
2. Gun owner's point of view: It's not why would you want to protect yourself... it's why wouldn't you want to.

Pulitzer prize winning? No. But positive? I think so.

WEIRD. [grin]
 
Looks like they disabled comments on this one. Gee, why does that always seem to happen with the gun articles??????[rolleyes]
 
I thought it was a decent (yet too short) article on 1 persons attempt to step foot into the gun culture.

She could have provided more facts sure, but its a start at least. I think it's irrational to expect a pro-gun editorial to come from the Globe, so I applaud this one for at least not being anti-gun.

People like this woman should be embraced by gun owners as they can help to remove the "big scary gun" ideas from her constituents (stereo-typical liberals) minds.


I applaud her. (and start to wonder if she's cute, for some unrelated reason)
 
Why do their hands always "tremble?" WTF is with that, anyway? Whose hands "tremble" when they pick up an inanimate object? Did they tremble when she first picked up a set of car keys?
 
Why do their hands always "tremble?" WTF is with that, anyway? Whose hands "tremble" when they pick up an inanimate object? Did they tremble when she first picked up a set of car keys?

The nervous excitement of knowing the kind of power they are now holding. To many people, it makes them nervous. The first time I fired a handgun (.38 special) my hand was trembling and shaking all over the place. Only after the first few shots did I get it under control.

For many people, handguns are only something they hear about on the news at night. When they finally get the opportunity to handle one they know is loaded, the first thoughts running through their heads are probably: "so this is what those gang bangers out in LA use to kill people."


I was certainly excited when I got my first set of car keys. Don't remember if I was trembling, but I was certainly excited (just wasn't the nervous excitement associated with a firearm).
 
Why do their hands always "tremble?" WTF is with that, anyway? Whose hands "tremble" when they pick up an inanimate object? Did they tremble when she first picked up a set of car keys?

I remember distinctly how disappointed I was when my dad first let me shoot a 22 Marlin when I was 10 and found out it had zero recoil. I trembled with sadness! [grin]
 
I think she relates many of the feeling a first time shooter might take. The first time I fired a handgun I was nervous too...It really wasn't that bad considering the source and ignoing factual errors
 
To someone not familiar with our gun laws, this editorial probably made it sound like for a $100 and some paper work that you get an unrestricted Class A LTC (from Cambridge). That alone made the article suck in my mind.

I may have misread it (as it was painful read), but she was just PRETENDING to want a gun for self-defense as some sort of journalistic experiment, right?
 
Back
Top Bottom