Latest Breaking News

You certainly have a point, a very valid one about jobs and sales being chocked in that sector in your state because of such a roster.

I also have a better understanding of how you feel this relates to the SYG legislation, my take now, (please correct me if I am mistaken) is "the law would have had very little effect anyway due to the limited roster of firearms to choose from". That sounds perfectly reasonable if one is a firearms enthusiast, certainly understandable.

I think you overstated the extortion angle, perhaps (in fact most likely) without meaning to. It would only be extortion if the state profited from the exclusionary gun roster regulations. I believe the opposite is true, the state loses revenue because of the limited sales in that sector, so in my opinion that charge is overstated.

On whether or not less gun sales is a good or bad thing, I hope you are one do be able to amicably agree to disagree, I feel less gun sales are better, even if some jobs or revenue is lost, I favor less weaponry in the hands of people as I see it as a temptation to resolve conflicts in a less civilized manner (and in a more deadly manner). I imagine you feel the opposite and neither will ever convince the other. This does not mean we need must be enemies, in fact in Mass. you and your peers and not I will decide these matters as it is not my state.

Thanks again for responding, and your points regarding job and revenue are very good points that can stand on their own.
Peace