TSTOG (Too Stupid To Own Guns)

by Categorized: Uncategorized Date:

This is a national news story now.

If you don’t know that the grieving father gets to give his testimony, unimpeded, you are TSTOG.

If you think yelling “Second Amendment” during anybody’s three minutes of testimony is acceptable behavior, you’re TSTOG.

If you think that by yelling “Second Amendment,” you are introducing some novel, essential, unforeseen element into the debate, you are TSTOG.

The thing about people who are TSTOG is that they’ll show up at a hearing like that and insist that the problem is not guns but mentally unbalanced people. And then they’ll do something that suggests they’re mentally unbalanced — like yell stuff during the grieving parent’s testimony.

The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on courant.com articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

21 thoughts on “TSTOG (Too Stupid To Own Guns)

  1. Cynical Susan

    “…insist that the problem is not guns but mentally unbalanced people. And then they’ll do something that suggests they’re mentally unbalanced — like yell stuff during the grieving parent’s testimony.”

    Very similar to something I said to a friend last night.

  2. Jason

    The gentleman made quite a few attempts to elicit a response, which all went unanswered, the final time he turned away from the panel and addressed those that had assembled in the room. While I wasn’t comfortable with anyone reacting to this distraught man who may never heal, he stepped away from rhetoric and actively engaged the audience by affirming that the prior lack of responses were indeed supportive of his claims. Not a single person in that room had ever caused the man injury, and he had everyone’s sympathy. Sympathy and reverence doesn’t entitle you to blind agreement.

    You need a new abbreviation for your lexicon, TMAPTBAJ (Too Much A Propagandist To Be A Journalist).

    1. cmcenroe Post author

      So Jason, I’m confused. Are you saying he kind of had it coming? BTW I’m not a propagandist. Just a man with an opinion. Like you.

      1. Jason

        I already stated that I was uncomfortable with the departure from decorum.

        What I was trying to say is that the repetition of his statement and then turning to the audience probably invoked a phonic tic that is typical of spoken words of such gravity, sadly it wasn’t something that was sympathetic to his statements. I almost wanted to shout out in support of him, out of pure empathy.

        Now the title of Ken Dixon’s article stated that the father was heckled, not that there were a two or three insolent boobs (who may or may not deserve opposing thumbs never mind firearms) out of a generally civil public assemblage. The article itself did very little to more accurately represent the truth.

        I’ve never thought of you as a propagandist before, in fact I’ve never viewed your writing or show to be anything but insightful, introspective, and inquisitive. You, to me, have always seemed to be someone who could always explore any topic and find typically overlooked nuances of a subject.

        Perhaps I am wrong and you are not a propagandist. You are also not just a man with an opinion, you are amongst the members of the press in this state that I tend to respect the most and thousands echo that sentiment. Perhaps this is just too divisive of an issue.

        My most sincere apologies to you.

  3. Patrice Fitzgerald

    I wasn’t there; maybe Jason was. I saw the video. It seemed to me that it was a rhetorical question (perhaps one of several) and that the bereft father wasn’t trying to “engage” the audience as much as pleading that they understand his grief and horror over the factual results of gun availability.

    The other father who said nothing needs to change? He boggled my mind.

  4. Jason

    I was there, and I maintained decorum…never deriding in disagreement nor applauding those of similar sympathies. The whole event was actually much more civil than the snippets that have been paraded around so far. Amongst those that were there testifying on behalf of themselves there was actually some brief socializing between opposing views…which I viewed as positive since both sides can retreat to a defensive stance quickly.

    I think the overall civility during the proceedings was a little too boring for the media though…doesn’t sell enough print.

  5. Jason

    Actually, no father stated there isn’t a need for change. The first father vocally asked for enforcement to improve.

    No matter where you stand in this divisive issue lack of enforcement is a huge problem that we have and can’t be overlooked any more.

  6. Leo Canty

    TSTOG – often correlates with TSTK-TAS…
    It’s more common than ever these days for people to adamantly project strong beliefs and personal confidence as fact, intellect, knowledge…smarts… Dunning-Kruger effect -look it up – gives us a sense about humankind and explains the growing cadre of folk who do/say stupid things – believing for every confident moment they live they are smarter than….the guy who stayed at a Holiday Inn…… Any cognizant recognition that they may be -Too Stupid To Know – They Are Stupid… is erased by their confidence that their beliefs are intelligence based.
    Kudos to CTN as they offer another dose of the texture of humankind.

  7. Roy

    The issue of enforcement requires notification that includes improvements in (effective) communication by use of plug and play documentation with capable instruction and clear direction. Was any of that talked about?

    1. Jason

      So, the bureaucracy can’t function because the instructions aren’t clear enough, but the legislature can’t write clear instructions because they’re not subject matter experts, so the bureaucracy can’t function….

  8. Glen

    Great, and informed, response Jason! Too Stupid to Call People Stupid might be a better turn of phrase. Gun control isn’t about the guns…it is about the control.

      1. Glen

        He wasn’t heckled…go watch the unedited video, if you don’t mind a little Journalism. He spoke for over 12 minutes about his pain and anguish over the loss of his son, interrupted only by a fire drill. Towards the end of his speech he DIRECTLY addressed the crowd:

        Heslin: “I ask if there is anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question…Why. Anybody. In this room needs to have one of these assault style weapons, or military weapons or high capacity clips?”

        The audience is completely silent at this point. Mr Heslin then raises his voice and says:

        Heslin: ”Not one person can answer that question.”

        It is at this point that a few voices can be heard, Mr. Heslin looks over his shoulder and acknowledges a “heckler” by raising his hand and saying: “alright”.

        Supposed Heckler: ”It’s our right.”

        Again that was said in DIRECT response to Mr Heslin’s question. Maybe not forum etiquette, but nevertheless it is ONLY heckling if you believe everything you read without doing your own research.

        Too stupid to call people stupid? You decide.

  9. Kerry

    I have yet to hear a good response to the question “why does anyone need clips/magazines that shoot 30 rounds”. We need to stop the emotional, mindless outbursts like “second amendment” and come to an agreement about how we can limit the horrific damage that some of these weapons cause in the hands of the wrong people. I am truly frightened by how seemingly unbalanced many of the NRA people I have seen interviewed really are. Anyone who becomes irate and can’t control their anger while having a discussion about guns should not own guns!

    1. Glen

      In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.

      At Virginia Tech in 2007, Seung-Hui Cho again showed the futility of regulating magazine capacity when he carried nineteen ten- and fifteen-round magazines in his backpack as part of a carefully planned massacre.
      Cho used seventeen of the magazines and fired approximately 170 rounds—or ten rounds per magazine—from two handguns before killing himself.

      Like Eric Harris before him, Cho demonstrated that a magazine’s capacity was incidental to the amount of death and injury an unopposed murderer could cause in a “gun-free zone.”
      Although the Virginia Tech massacre was and remains the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history, it resulted in relatively few calls for new gun control, possibly because so-called assault weapons were not used.

      According to Senator Feinstein, so-called assault weapons have been used in 385 murders since the AWB expired in 2004, or about 48 murders per year. But there were 8,583 total murders with guns in the United States in 2011, meaning so-called assault weapons were used 0.6% of the time.

      ~not my work, but it answers your questions

    2. Jason

      I’ve had my alarm trip at my house, received a text notification that the police have been dispatched, driven 35 minutes and beat the police here…that was during the day with peak staffing.

      now at night, when half asleep and then stressed by having multiple assailants in your house, magazine changes suck…can literally cost you your life. then figure that you’re using light bullets so they don’t penetrate walls and exit the structure or cause collateral damage, but this also presents the issue of not having enough kinetic energy to stop an assailant surely…if they present you a clear, stationary target that you can hit three times in a row. now put multiple armed assailants in a position where they’re trapped…

      how many bullets do you want to protect your spouse and children, knowing the police could take quite some time to show? how many bullets would you wish your spouse had to protect themselves and your children? how about after you learn there’s been multiple multi-assailant home invasions within a short distance of your house? 30 doesn’t seem like that big of a number any more, now does it? 50 doesn’t even sound like a lot.

      the travesty is that most people aren’t actively engaged in how to defend themselves and their families…so they just become victims.

    3. Rally Against Guns Feb 14 at Capital

      Kerry; my outbursts are not emotional. They are well thought out and reasoned. I will assure you that the move to reduce clip capacity will have absolutely no effect on a killer. Restricting assault-type rifles or banning them will make a killer acquire semi-auto guns like the Gluck.

      And we don’t know where all this legislation is going to be appealed. if it is the Supreme Court, then good luck with our limitation of guns. The 2nd amendment was really not supposed to allow everyone to have any kind of shooting device they ever wanted. But the current crop of conservatives could overturn. I don’t know how to gage this since I am not a constitutional lawyer.

      But since so many gun owners always cite the 2nd as their right when asked why do they want a Bushwacker, then this amendment is the route of all evil and should be abolished.

      I am not stupid to realize that it won’t be abolished. But I do feel that the seed should be sown to abolish. At least open the dialogue. If this was England, that is exactly what they would do. And they outlawed all guns. And gun casualties are down.

      No sir, my comments on abolishing the 2nd are anything but emotional. But I guess this medium of expression allows the writer to make silly statements about another as you have about me. And not very intelligent.

      Lastly, I’m affraid that all these efforts to reduce gun casualties will be met with diminished success if guns are not collected and banned. Even in this most optimistic situation, it will take decades and maybe 100 years to clean up the gunless in this gun-producing country.

      And one last comment is that yes, I agree that improved mental health services is important component to the cause of reducing gun violence.

  10. Bill Shortell

    “Assault Weapon” is a useful term. They are no good for hunting, They are only meant for dealing with a large group of enemies in war…or to slaughter defenseless people. I agree that getting rid of them …if this were even possible, there are so many…would do little to stop the epidemic of gun killings in the US.

    The point in banning them, and big clips, is to draw SOME kind of line in the sand. I believe that fundamental social change is necessary in our country to end the alienation that has drawn people to worship violence.

    I believe that in the future, this outcry against the ownership of assault weapons by private individuals, for fun and heroic fantasy, will be remembered as the beginning of America finally turning toward peace and unity.

    1. Glen

      An “assault weapon” is a baseball bat if it’s used in an assault.

      Uninformed people don’t like assault-style-rifles because it makes them feel bad. Must ban that which makes us feel bad. Even though such a ban has already come and gone with ZERO appreciable impact on gun violence. Good plan.

  11. Richard

    Here we go: trouble.

    I don’t like guns. I have no use for them. But they are clearly legal.

    OTOH The Democrats who failed to raise the roof after Omar Thompson in Manchester killed 8 in 2010 should be ashamed of themselves. They had an opportunity to leverage and pass all the legislation they needed in 2011 after the 8/2010 shootings. Why did the most vocal ones today cower back then?

    The problem: Jewish Bosses and a Black underling claiming racism and then the Black contingent in Harford further subtlety calling it a justifiable act of racial retaliation. Sickening stuff. The literature Omar read and his Mother still pedals should be labeled hate speech.


    The politicians who silently pass the legislation should be respected. Those in the press gathering headlines should be coated with pigs blood.

    Those proposing race dividing victimization lit be banned from CT schools: even better. Kudos!

    Wars can be won reading Toni Morrison. Wars will be lost reading James Cone’s wayward descendants.

Comments are closed.