Gun Makers Issue Emotional Appeal As Other States Beckon

by Categorized: Jobs, Manufacturing, Politics Date:

Connecticut’s firearms manufacturers dramatically stepped up their campaign against proposals to ban guns Monday with a 25-minute video featuring three company executives and a dozen of their employees talking about their roots in the state, and the devastation a ban would bring.

The video, issued by the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports  Foundation, was in the works well before Gov. Dannel P. Malloy rolled out a sweeping agenda on Thursday.

Malloy’s plan includes an outright ban on the popular AR-15 semiautomatic, military-style rifles that have been at the center of the debate since an assailant used one to kill 20 children and six women in Newtown on Dec. 14. The shooter also killed his mother and himself.

Since Thursday, other states have stepped up their efforts to recruit these companies to move from Connecticut — an effort that’s constantly aimed at manufacturers of all sorts, with or without a controversy. Executives and employees in the video deal with the prospect of leaving Connecticut head-on.

“I don’t want to have to think about leaving here. This is our home. This is where our families are,” said Mark Malkowski, who founded AR-15 maker Stag Arms in 2003 in New Britain and now has 200 employees and dozens of local firms as suppliers.

“The rush to legislate, in my mind, seems very very sad to me,” said Jonathan Scalise, owner of Ammunition Storage Components of New Britain, which makes bullet magazines for Stag Arms and other gun companies — many of them the 30-round models that would be banned in Connecticut under Malloy’s proposal.

Scalise said the company, founded less than three years ago, will soon have 100 employees. He’s a third-generation New Britain manufacturer.

“We restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens in order to curb criminals and people who are insane … who are unaffected by those laws,” Scalise said in the video.

Trading public safety for jobs would be a non-starter, of course. The point the manufacturers are making is that a ban would not improve safety, and it would threaten jobs. In my column on Thursday, I said firearms bans should be national, not state-by-state.

The third executive in the video, Joe Bartozzi of O.F. Mossberg & Sons in North Haven, talks about the long family tradition of rifle-making at Mossberg, founded by a Swedish immigrant in 1919.

“So we have long roots in this state. In fact, Mossberg is the oldest family owned and operated firearms manufacturer in America,” said Bartozzi, the vice president and general counsel. “There are not a lot of layers of red tape between an assembler on the floor and the CEO, who is fourth-generation Mossberg family.”

The three executives all talk about the high skills of the workers they employ. They are among nine gun company managers and owners from Connecticut and Massachusetts who have testified twice at the state Capitol since Jan. 27.

The local industry has risen up before in Hartford, most recently over the last several years to oppose a proposed ban on magazine sizes and the mandated use of so-called “smart-gun” technology, which they said was not yet ready to be commercialized.

Some opponents, led by Malloy, say they value the firearms industry for its defense jobs and for the manufacture of non-military-style guns, but that weapons like the AR-15 — which they call assault rifles — have no place in the hands of civilians.

As hearings continue at the Capitol, it’s likely we’ll see more of the executives now becoming a familiar sight and also of employees in Monday’s video.

“I’m a single mother with two kids so I definitely need to have some financial stability,” said Sara Davis, an employee at Ammunition Storage Components.

In all, NSSF says Connecticut has 2,900 direct firearms industry jobs, and indirectly more than 8,000 jobs supported by the industry, which is responsible for $1.8 billion in economic activity here.

As for the other states, including Mississippi, which appealed to several Connecticut companies on Friday, U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal issued this statement: “This preposterous pitch to companies with long, successful histories in our state shows the need for national standards and statutes to reduce gun violence. Competition among states for less protective laws is a race to the bottom that should be avoided.”

Another worker from Ammunition Storage Components said he would tell lawmakers, “Don’t take our jobs away. … They should put theirself in our situation and see what would they do. They should try to do everything possible to keep everybody employed.”

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.

150 thoughts on “Gun Makers Issue Emotional Appeal As Other States Beckon

  1. Sally

    “This preposterous response by our leading inept Senator Blumenthal demonstrates a long successful history in our state of politicians playing every card possible to further their own career at the cost of the law abiding citizens”. I would love to see the Senator cite some of the infinite examples of gun control reducing crime in this country. Shall we start with Chicago or just move along to D.C.? Needless to say I don’t expect any intelligent responses from him, Murphy or Malloy. “Never let a good tragedy go to waste”, a cardinal rule of the Demo/Liberal Platform. The race to bottom should also be avoided since the State of Connecticut is pretty much leading that charge when it comes to any fiscal issues as well. You guys are doing such a bang-up job all around. God only knows what other follies you are capable of at this point.

  2. Tjt

    I hate to see anybody loose their job, but obviously the decision has been made by the general public that change is needed. Why anyone needs these weapons in Connecticut is beyond me. Public safety comes first.

    The gun lobby is wasting its time fighting this in Connecticut.

    1. Steve (CT)

      Tjt, please show me where in the US stricter gun laws has led to lower violent crime rates? Just as Ben Franklin said, if you give up freedom for more security you will lose both.

      You speak of ‘these weapons’ because I suspect you have little understanding about the difference between firearms & do not know the statistics. Did you know that between 2004 & 2011, all rifles (including so called ‘assault weapons’) were responsible for a total of 2 homicides in CT?

      Since 1978 when the FBI started splitting firearm homicides into different types, the % of rifle homicides has decreased by half from 5.6% to 2.8% in 2011. This flies in the face of those who claim that these ‘assault weapons’ are being used more often in crimes.

      1. Fed up

        Chicago and District of Columbia have bans. They are much safer than CT. Oops I guess they’re not safer.

    2. LC

      I suggest that Public Safety is not served by driving firearms manufacturers out of state. Nor is Public Safety served by harassing and demonizing responsible gun owners. The guns CT manufacturers make are used by Police and Military and Good Citizens. It is deplorable that Malloy is trying to circumvent due process and the legislative process in this witch hunt.

    3. Steve

      Just where did you get the basis for saying the general public has made a descision on this matter. I have only seen one group of 5000 people even presented by the media. There are 3.5 milliom people in the state of Ct, granted a good portion are under voting age, so let’s say 2 millon. 8,000 you just heard from saying they are against stricter laws which would jepordize their livelyhood. That overshadows the 5000 60% percent. Our legislators havetold us that there is overwhelming support for stricter laws but they have yet presented any proof of that or solid figures supporting their statements. The only thing you have correctly stated is that the decision has been made but unfortunately it has not been made by the people of this state just the governor and three of his liberal cohorts. Before anybody strips away my rights to anything I think is deserves a vote of the public, not just registered Dem’s & Rep’s but a general voting of the population. Stop the surveys and the sepeculation and get some real numbers.

    4. JohnZ

      No, Tjt, the decision has NOT been made by the “general public”. There are plenty of the general public who oppose any new gun laws in our already restrictive state.

      And for the record, it’s not about “need”. Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s right.

    5. Jarhead

      @TJt if it was you loing your job you might be more concerned. Then when a large factory like that closes, and they raise your taxes you with cry like sissy bitch that you are.

        1. Kim

          gunrally/wildbill apparently realizes that it’s time to use one of his pseudonyms to name-call and make personal attacks, in an attempt to make others believe that his views are widely popular. busted, jimmyboy. Just more forcefed pablum from your pen instead of honest, rational discussion. good for you

          1. Kim

            Jarhead: Remember that bill always lies. Read his ‘I’m not gay’ comment in that light

    6. Alan

      Tjt – The public has not decided, although you apparently have. I don’t know what you mean by “these” weapons, but civilan versions of military rifles are not military rifles by a long shot (no pun intended). Finally, public safety does not trump the Second Amendment; sorry.

    7. LaTxGuy

      to understand why someone would want these is easy for me, I do not understand casinos and the such. It is individual rights that we have as citizens. Actually i am finally happy to see those liberals getting what they have been asking for. It seems they make judgements on others without seeing consequenses for their actions. They would make poor leaders, OBama, and poor scientists indeed. The gun and ammo places need to act and not just suggest. they should go to user friendly states that will celebrate their arivals. I was raised and born in Connecticut. I still have family and strong memories there . however, have no regrets for being a new born southerer.

    8. Norm Scott

      Not that long ago, racists in the south said it was beyond them why any black person would need to vote. And that “public safety” came before allowing marches and demonstrations for civil rights under the Constitution.

      And that the “outside agitators” were wasting their time fighting that in the great state of (fill in the jim crow blank)

    9. hacksaw

      TO TJ, OBVIOUSLY YOU DO NOT LOOK AT THE FACTS. YOU SIMPLY VOICE YOUR OPINION ON AN ISSUE YOU DON’T HAVE A CLUE ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING. TOO BAD THE JOBS LOST WOULD NOT BE YOURS. MY QUSTION TO YOU: WHY DO YOU NEED A CELL PHONE, A FAST CAR, AN SUV, ANYTHING THAT IS NOT ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR YOUR SURVIVAL? I DON’T THINK ANYONE SHOULD USE CELL PHONES WHILE DRIVING. THIS IS DANGEROUS, IMPOLITE AND ANNOYING TO OTHERS. BESIDES,IT IS —ILLEGAL! OBVIOUSLY YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT –GOD GIVEN RIGHTS AS WRITTEN IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES! THE CITIZEN AND LEGAL FIREARMS OWNER IS NOT A THREAT TO ANYONE, EXCEPT THE CRIMINALS IN OUR SOCIETY. THAT IS A FACT!

    10. john.mazzotta@facebook.com

      When our currency is worthless and our government starts running things like a dictatorship. You will understand why we need assault weapons. The constitution is a guildline for the people and politicians. If the people have no way of fighting back why would the politicians follow it. Without a doorway patriotism could walk through at any moment there is nothing to stop our government from exercising absolute power. Look at recent legislation QE3 destroy the dollar, taking away assault weapons, repealing the 22nd amendment. These steps are exactly the steps used by many dictators. Take away the peoples money and defenses now we are completely dependent on the government. Then dispose of all legislation that limits a leaders power and time to lead. And i will end this with a quote from our president from a speach given at the white house in a lunch he had eith a group of corporate CEO’s. “The two things stopping me from accomplishing my goals are congress and the constitution.” When the time comes that we need these weapons and we don’t have them it wilk be a sad day in america

  3. CT2A

    “I hate to see anybody loose their job, but obviously the decision has been made by the general public that change is needed. Why anyone needs these weapons in Connecticut is beyond me. Public safety comes first.”
    - The Second Amendment isn’t about needs.

    If CT was serious about public safety, it would focus on actually prosecuting gun crimes and ensure proper sentencing.

    1. Time for Change!

      You will never see the existing gun laws enforced because putting criminals in jail seems to go against everything your governor apparently believes in–especially since he has been very busy opening the front gates to the jails and pushing convicted criminals back out into the streets by the thousands.

      1. Ian

        Shortly after Newtown, didn’t a Man in China seriously injure 20+ children with a knife – it only had one blade? Va-Tech was carried out with handguns that had magazines of <10 rounds each.

        The machines, parts of the machines and inanimate objects are not the weapons.

        The people are the weapons. Improper psychological care, or letting violent offenders out early is a Weapon unleashed by the Gov't.

        The monster didn't OWN a single gun – he KILLED to get them, just as a criminal would do.

        Criminals & Mental illness are the real factors at play here – why can't our officials try to fix this problem.

        Why haven't we writen a law saying that children under 18 can not be left alone with a Catholic Priest – how many children have they hurt?

        1. P-E-Z

          They created the problem by closing the state mental hospitals and having inmate earlier release programs. btw 3% of people of people who molest kids are teachers coaches ministers etc. Precebtage priests who molested minors was 1.5%…..lower than expected for others who work with kids.

    2. LaTxGuy

      you hit that right, they have strong gun laws as do the other lib states but no teeth in their laws. They rehabilitate, then release. the so called lesser restrictive gun states are reverse. If one does a gun crime, they will do the time or a visit to sparkie.

  4. Connecticut is dying too

    Welcome to one party liberal rule in Connecticut. Gay rights, rights for illegals, rights for state union workers, rights for convicted felons, pot smokers, and rights for the entitlement class outweigh rights of the rest of us. The ARB is yet another example of pushing the liberal agenda in the name of “public safety.” Will an ARB stop the mass killings in our streets with illegal handguns? Of course not.

    The liberals won’t stop until they’ve transformed this state into another California- flat broke and devoid of taxpayers/businesses. The liberal utopia is almost at hand- get out while you can.

    1. Mike

      those wimpy CT Republican governors, kowtowing to those evil dominant democratic legislation monsters for the past 20 years….

      fruitcake

    2. Kim

      connecticutisdying: A couple of years ago I coined the phrase ‘Obamanation’.

      I’d like to coin another phrase here. Instead of UTOPIA we should refer to CT as the METOPIA because it’s all about ‘what can the state give ME’ or ‘what can the state do for ME’, instead of doing what’s right for the entire state and country guided by the constitution

  5. jelk

    This video is outrageous in it’s attempt to hold the state hostage over gun control versus tax dollars. Which do we choose, tax money or the safety of our children? Talk about sinking to the depths of humanity….

    1. Bob Fortier

      “The safety of our children?” Look, we have laws on the books that are not used. Gun crimes should allow long prison sentences. If using a firearm in a crime got you 20 years in prison, gun crimes would be reduced. I will be leaving Connecticut asap. I will be moving to a state that is part of America…Texas…Florida…Arizona…

      1. Bob Sanity in the midst

        We have thousands of unused (useless) laws now crowding the “books”. Knee Jerk laws for a one time happening.
        No one has considered the millions maybe billions of guns in the hands of civilians throughout the country. Those are available to any mentally ill person who wants them.
        I prefer to see the recall of all volume magazines and the manufacture of 3 round magazines. Recall will not get them all but any reduction will help.
        Connecticut needs jobs. Clinton, Bush, Obama have worked hard to ship Manufacturing jobs overseas. Manufacturing was and is the life blood of this countries ability defend itself.

    2. Bob

      “The safety of our children” – give me a break!! One nutjob shoots up a school with a particular type of gun, and now they want to ban that type of gun. What if Lanza took a machete into that school, would we be talking about banning them instead? Do you really think that if he didn’t have an AR-15 he wouldn’t have committed this slaughter??

      See this for what it is, jelk – an attempt by liberal gun grabbers to exploit a tragedy for their own political gain.

      I don’t blame manufacturers one bit for wanting to move out of the state if the current batch of legislation goes through. After all, why should they stay in a state where the products they make can’t even be legally sold in the state?? Yes it would hurt the tax base, yes it would put people out of work at a bad time in our economy, but Malloy will have to live with those consequences.

    3. Deborah

      Jelk-put your evidence where your mouth is. Show us data and facts where safety of our children is supported by stricter gun laws?

      CT-WORST in the US for debt burden $49K/taxpayers. WORST in the US to retire in. WORST in job growth in 2011 & 2012.

      FUTURE-WORST IN US for rights for citizens and
      a GHOST TOWN—NO ONE LEFT TO PAY TAXES FOR SANCTUARY CITIES AND PENSIONS!

  6. America Is Dying

    The likes of Blumenthal and Malloy are dividing the country and America will have another Civil War before it’s citizens give up their Second Amendment rights.

  7. theo

    Both Nancy and Adam Lanza were law abiding responsible gun loving citizens until the rampage, how can you tell who will turn violent ?

    1. Fed up

      Actually that’s not true. Nancy might have been a legal gun owner but not responsible. Adam by law could never own a gun because of a known mental illness.His mother had a legal responsiblity to not give him access to those guns and you certainly don’t try to bond with someone mentally ill over firearms.

      1. P-E-Z

        Not true Adam was never committed to hospital, he had no criminal record. He would have passed a background check.

    2. CT2A

      “In a 2011 Gallup poll, 47 percent of Americans reported having at least one gun in their home. Of those, most (62 percent) said they had more than one.”

      - According to your logic, we can expect about 1/2 of the US population to be dead in a year.

  8. Jim

    It is so unfortunate that the grandstanding of Governor Malloy and Sen Blumenthal and their political ambitions are driving the good people and businesses from this state. I’m fed up with the tax and spend mentality and the dictatorial demeanor of Malloy. I think it’s time to take my business somewhere that won’t look at me as just an income source, someone to squeeze money out of. The proven liar Blumenthal is also a huge issue for me. He works from sound bites and only cares about issues where he can gain some face time in front of a camera. He’s already proved that he has no issue with telling untruths about his Vietnam service to the detriment of our proud veterans who actually served their country abroad. Also look at the number of completely foolish pieces of legislation that were proposed following Newtown. Make bullets illegal, force gun owners to buy extra insurance, break the law and publish law abiding gun owner’s names in order to further demonize them, confiscation of legally owned magazines… Please stop before proposing any more things that will only hurt our economy and drive tax paying businesses and legal gun owner citizens from the state. It only proves that we have fools in government who don’t place the best interest of the population first.

  9. Peter

    Cash out, get out while you can still sell your assets. This state is broke, and is always looking for new novel ways to grab your hard earned money. So, you want to own a gun? Let me add up our new ownership, insurance, and registration fees. So that will be $100 dollars per gun every year.

  10. Time for Change!

    I really don’t understand why these manufacturers stay in a state where they are despised so deeply. I am sure Governor Rick Perry would be proud to have them call Texas home, so why do they continue to create jobs and pay taxes in a state where they are clearly not welcome?

  11. Politicians Jump on Wagon

    Newtown, the birth place of my grandma, was a tragedy caused by a mentally ill individual.
    Now Obama and the Connecticut Governor is making political hay while this cloud shrouds intelligence. They believe they have an issue that will mis-direct Americans from the issues at hand. El Queda and Jobs. El Queda has not been destroyed and energetic men and women are on the cusp of starving without good jobs. Producing jobs are within the means of Obama, FDR created jobs out of thin air and put proud Americans back to work. But OUR Leaders chose to mis direct your attention.

  12. Eric

    All sorts of things are regulated: cars, boats, pharmaceuticals, securities, free speech, churches, non-profit companies, voting, etc., etc., etc. Firearms should be immune from regulations? Background checks, permits, age of ownership, etc are all reasonable regulations. Motor vehicle regulations won’t stop drunk drivers or any other criminal from misusing a motor vehicle – so we should abandon motor vehicle regulations?

    I want to make this clear: I don’t want your guns. Keep your guns. Enjoy your guns. But they need to be regulated and the owners thereof.

    What would be nice is if the NRA would just put HALF the effort in helping us tackle the problem of school/public shootings, other than just “put a guard at each school.” Fine, let’s try that, but what other suggestions do you have? One thing the NRA could do is go on an aggressive education campaign aimed at gun owners, driving home the MASSIVE responsibility involved with gun ownership. Sorry, but I believe that Lanza’s mom GAVE those guns to her son as gifts because he was underage (21) to buy them himself. There is no evidence that he stole them. It would be nice if the NRA reminded gun owners NOT to give guns to mentally ill people.

    It would be nice for the NRA to come down as hard on its own constituants for responsibility as it does on the rest of us who are merely want reasonable regulations.

      1. Bob

        We already have plenty of laws and regulations on the books regarding firearms… we really don’t need any more, especially the ones being proposed

        The NRA does stress safety, as do a number of other organizations, including the NSSF which happens to have its headquarters in Newtown. In the end, it all comes down to personal responsibility.

        And FYI please don’t compare firearm ownership to driving. Driving is a privilege, while gun ownership is a right protected by the Bill of Rights. Very different things.

        1. Eric

          Okay. I’ll compare it to other constitutional rights: free speech, free assembly, regulations as to what qualifies for religious organization under IRS regulations, search & seizure regulations, on and on and on. . .all consitutional rights. You have to apply for permits to assemble. There are regulations for that. You can’t protest in every public arena. There are regulations for that. Not everyone can vote and where you can vote. There are regulations for that. What the NRA wants is special treatment, not equal treatment. Other constitutional rights are regulated. So should firearms.

          1. Bob

            I don’t understand why you think they’re not regulated – they are, quite a bit. You can’t own machine guns (true “assault weapons”) without special permits and the gov’t crawling up your a**, anywhere in the U.S. You can’t buy a rifle or shotgun in CT from a dealer without going through a background check, and you can’t buy a pistol without obtaining a special permit that requires fingerprinting, multiple background checks, and the approval of your local police dept. and the state police.

            If you are carrying a pistol, you can not bring it into certain places (schools, gov’t buildings, etc.), and you have to keep it well concealed, lest some citizen get nervous and call the police – they you can get in trouble for “causing a disturbance”.

            Yes, I agree that the NRA can appear extreme at times. But they need to be extreme in order to engage politicians with even more extreme ideas.

            There are tens of thousands of laws concerning firearms on the federal and state level. I wonder how many laws there are concerning free speech…?

        2. Bill

          You must be joking, Bob. I don’t know the laws governing private buying and selling of firearms in this state. But in most states, this is very unregulated.

          But for most posters here, you just cannot connect the dots. No capacity. If you support availability of the heavy weapons that no one should own, then you have blood on your hands even if you are law abiding. Because you inevitably are part of the illegal distribution network,even if you have nothing to do with it. Example; if you purchase pot from Mexico, you are part of the Mexican crime wave because your purchase has gone to sport organized crime families from Mexico.

          Connect the dots, brothers. Then give up your weapons for the cause. But with the exception of Patrick “Kim” Henry, who no doubt sits on the barrel of his rifle for pleasure.

          1. Kim

            more pablum and guesswork by billyboy as follows with his usual dose of namecalling and personal attacks (his only strong suit – schoolyard bullying):

            1. “I don’t know the laws governing private buying and selling of firearms in this state. But in most states, this is very unregulated.” Kim response: you admit to not knowing the laws in your own state but want us to believe you know about ‘most’ other states

            2. “If you support availability of the heavy weapons that no one should own”. Kim response: Says who? You? What type of weapons are you referring to?

            3. “Because you inevitably are part of the illegal distribution network,even if you have nothing to do with it”. Kim response: The ‘illegal distribution’ of what? Currently legal weapons?

            You simply don’t have a clue jimmyboggs. You’re the only one (oh yeah, there’s Mike Robinson, too) who doesn’t seem to realize it.

            You also don’t seem to realize that your schoolyard bullying doesn’t work with adults and those who know how to stand up to bullies who hide behind skirts and the internet to exhibit their ‘courage’. The type of courage that makes them run to the nearest police station when their feelings get hurt, or have you forgotten that billyboy?

    1. Jim

      There is no evidence that he stole the guns? I wonder what Nancy would say about that? Oh yeah she can’t because Adam shot her several times when he took the guns. Firearms are already regulated in CT with more laws than motor vehicles. Nobody is enforcing the laws with regularity. I don’t have an issue with background checks but as some state senator has proposed, he wants to use the registration list of owners in CT to publish my name and location on some map to demonize me and for criminals to shop. The publishing of such a list is currently illegal, the senator is looking to break the law to do that. I will no longer trust the line,”nobody is coming after your guns.” That line was designed to placate gun owners into a feeling of false security. Gov. Malloy’s magazine confiscation program is a first step in taking guns away. First the magazine, next the gun. If you can’t see that, you are either deluded or blind. It has happened before in history, it can happen again. Just take a look at the pending list of new laws that may be enacted and see where gun ownership in CT is headed.

      1. Eric

        How do you know Lanza took the guns from the mother? The only evidence that has been stated was that the guns were stored in the basement and he lived in the basement. Is there one shred of evidence that he stole a key, or that he forced his way into a safe? Not at all. There is evidence that she wanted him to learn responsibility by learning how to care for the guns. I’m sure she wanted the guns also for safety. She probably wanted the other person in the house (i.e. – her son) to have access to the guns in case of an intruder.

        BTW, I have another theory about the mom being shot, she being the only person on the planet that cared for this maniac. I think he may have shot her out of some twisted sense of mercy. So, she wouldn’t live with what he was about to do. No evidence for this, but a theory nevertheless.

        More gun regulations than motor vehicle regulations? Really? Have you sat and counted both sets? If you had, then you wouldn’t have made that statement. There is a whole title of the General Statutes devoted to motor vehicles. Is there one for firearms? Uh, no. How about the regulations adopted by the DMV? How many regulations have been adoped by the CT Department of Firearm Control? That’s right. There is no such state department.

        Yes, the gun lobby is all concerned with the slippery slope: first, the magazines. . .next apocalypse. Can’t we find some middle ground on reasonable regulations for firearms?

          1. Eric

            Sigh. Again snippy. Again unnecessary. Does the Department of Public Safety have the same authority as other departments to draft and promulgate regulations pursuant to the authority granted by the Legislature?

        1. Jim

          @Eric – The State of CT has some of the most stringent regulations on firearms in the nation. I wish there was some middle ground. There isn’t right now. If a ban is successful on so called assault weapons, the next step as outlined by Diane Feinstein, is to go after handguns. It’s no secret that she has advocated for banning all guns. Look at some of the idiotic legislation proposed right now by the Democratic State Senators, it runs the gamut from making ammunition illegal, illegally posting firearm owners names and locations on the web, requiring gun owners to purchase non-existent insurance for gun violence victims, confiscation of guns. Why do you think firearms owners are defensive? Just look at what anti-gunners are advocating and you’ll get the sense that these people will stop at nothing when it comes to grabbing guns. That’s why we dig our heels in. Give them an inch and they’ll end up disarming all law abiding citizens in the US. You’ll always hear the question, “Why do you neeeeed that?”. It’s none of your business what I need because that’s my business, not yours. (not personally YOU, the general anti-gun grabbing “you”, no offense meant).
          I’m not breaking the law with whatever I own. I have gone through all of the classes, possess all the permits and safely store my firearms in a safe that only I have access to. My entire family has undergone safe firearms handling training and we don’t advertise the fact that we have guns to avoid making ourselves a target for thieves. All of my gun owning friends ascribe to this same model. So why is it anyone’s business what we legally own or why we need it?

    2. Fed up

      It would help if you actually knew the laws Eric. 21 is the age to get a pistol permit. A pistol permit has been required since 1995 to possess or buy a handgun. Longuns you only need to be over the age of 18. Adam did not need his mother to get the gun but if she did act as a straw buyer for him there are laws against that. There were also laws against him carrying a handgun and possessing one without a permit. There are also laws against carrying a gun onto school property or at a school function. So please explain to us with your infinite wisdom how more laws are gonna help? Gun violence is down in NY City because the police became proactive instead of reactive. Enforce the current laws before adding new ones!

      1. Eric

        No reason to get snippy. I am fully aware of the laws in the State of CT. Who would have had a better chance at passing a background check? Nancy or Adam?

        Look, I’m not trying to be adversarial here. What would be helpful from the NRA would be to be SUPPORTIVE of the laws on the books, instead of constantly undermining them by taking the position that “no regulations” will make any difference. Then, help us make a difference.

        It would be nice for a change for the NRA to produce commercials for their constituants that emphasized the responsibility incumbant on firearms, instead of fighting us on everything. Again, there must be some middle ground.

        1. Fed up

          The samething can be said about liberals. The committee in CT was for reducing gun violence. It was hijacked into gun control. Banning does not equal reduced gun violence.Chicago and District of columbia both prove that point.

      2. Melissa

        You are correct. The laws we currently have are not working. That is why assault weapons and high capacity magazines must be banned entirely. While this will not prevent all gun violence, it certainly will prevent mass shootings using the most deadly weapons of all – semiautomatic rifles with high capacity magazines.

        1. Fed up

          The laws we have aren’t working? How about they are not being prosecuted. Go to court sometime and sit there and watch. If someone is arrested for drugs and guns the gun charges get dropped to get the drug conviction. This is important because it makes the person a non violent offender. Someone who is a criminal by defintion isn’t gonna follow what ever law that can be dreamed up.

          1. Melissa

            Which law, exactly, would have prevented Lanza from getting his hands on that gun and executing 26 beautiful souls? You said it yourself, he only needed to be 18 to purchase the gun and wouldn’t have needed a license. And we all know criminals aren’t deterred by “gun free school zones.” What about background checks? Oh yeah, that wouldn’t have worked – the gun was purchased by his mother. Even if it weren’t, Lanza himself likely could have passed a background check. He had no criminal record and all indications are that he did not have a mental helath diagnosis either. Should we provide better access to mental health treatment? Perhaps, but that certainly wasn’t an issue in the Newtown case. Lanza was from an extremely wealthy family. He had access to the best care money can buy. The only way to reduce deadly MASS SHOOTINGS is to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

          2. Fed up

            Melissa like your own comments said “And we all know criminals aren’t deterred by “gun free school zones.”” Well why would a criminal or someone planning a mass shooting follow a gun ban either?

        2. Mike

          no, the problem is states like Mississippi and Arizona that allow straw purchases. Ask anyone from Chicago where the guns come from. We need national laws as regional ones don’t work. Too bad so much of this country has a delusional interpretation of “the old days” that didn’t actually exist.

    3. Kim

      Mike, you’re grasping at straws and groping blindly into areas of which you obviously know very little. It doesn’t make you look very credible.

      For example you say “One thing the NRA could do is go on an aggressive education campaign aimed at gun owners, driving home the MASSIVE responsibility involved with gun ownership.”

      What do you know about the NRA (notice the word ‘know’ not ‘think’ or ‘have heard’)? How do you know whether or not they stress responsibility to gun owners (I, an NRA member, can attest to the fact that they do)?

      You state “It would be nice if the NRA reminded gun owners NOT to give guns to mentally ill people.” Again, how do you know that they don’t?

      You also state “It would be nice for the NRA to come down as hard on its own constituants for responsibility as it does on the rest of us who are merely want reasonable regulations.” Again, you apparently don’t know very much about the NRA or its message. And to insist that ‘the rest of you merely want ‘reasonable’ regulations is quite the stretch. I’d like to see what you consider reasonable before making a judgement on this, however, instead of simply talking without merit or information.

      You say ‘there is no evidence that he stole the guns’ but you are willing to conclude (without evidence) that his mother GAVE them to him. Why is evidence needed for one argument and not the other? Could you be a little too subjective on this matter? It would seem so.

        1. Kim

          more supposition and unsupported pablum from the poopster billyboy/wildbill/jimmyboggs/gunrally. All he has is namecalling and innuendos – no credibility

    4. john.mazzotta@facebook.com

      Benjamin Franklin wrote, “They that can give up Essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” You get neither because, “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” To give up any of your liberties or freedoms for security, or safety, means to give someone else, or the collective, or law enforcement, or Government, or all of the above, power over you and others, that power can be corrupted and used against you, and you can lose your safety, your security and your Freedom.

  13. Tim Smith

    In this particular case (at least based on media reports) there were numerous “warning signs”. But, sometimes you can’t tell, that’s why (as current law states) it is the responsibility of the gun’s owner (in this case, Nancy Lanza) to insure that her firearms were inaccessible to her mentally disturbed son. We may, or may not, find out if Nancy Lanza’s guns were properly secured when the final report comes out… so, you’re assumtion that they were law abiding is unfounded.

    The “assault weapon” in the Newtown shooting was Adam Lanza, it was not the chunk of metal and plastic he was holding…

    The lack proper mental health treatment and Adam’s access to the firearms (whether voluntary or coerced), are the contributing factors in this tragedy, none of the proposed gun laws would have any affect (had the been in place prior to Dec 14th) on the outcome of the tragic event that occured.

      1. Kim

        that’s right PEZ. If I were Mike, for example, I could postulate (without evidence) that Adam tortured his mom into giving him the combination to the safe. I could also state it as if it were true (also like Mike) but don’t like to speculate on such important issues regardless of my feelings.

  14. Dociardi

    In response to jelk: the history of gun control is written in the blood of innocents who believed their government and its promises of safety. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” A free state means my status as a free person not just the state or nation. We have limited the right to bear arms by restricting felons, mental ill and
    incompetent people from obtaining, owning and using firearms. What has not been learned or accepted is that total restrictions affect only the lawfully compliant people while the unlawful ignore any and all restrictions. There is no half-measure;…take a little bit of this and take away some from that….ala’ Diane Feinstein and Blumenthal! There is no such thing as absolute safety!

    1. Mike

      a free state is one where the slaves outnumbered the slave owners.

      pay no attention to “well regulated” while you are twisting history

      1. Bob

        You’re twisting history, Mike – “well regulated” meant “disciplined”. The Supreme Court also agrees with that (see the Heller case).

        1. Fed up

          Well said Bob. District of Columbia vs Heller. The supreme court reaffirmed the rights of the indivuals to own firm arms. so the militia arguement isn’t a valid one Eric or do you chose to ignore the supreme court. We have checks and balances in our system for a reason.

          1. Melissa

            Why don’t you actually read Heller. The Supreme Court stated that “we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.” “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

            In case those words are too big for you to understand, let me sum it up. The Second Amendment is subject to restrictions just like every other constitutional right.

          2. Fed up

            Yes Melissa I read it . Now read what I wrote. I never said there was no restrictions nor should it be unregulated. My comment was in response to Erics about a militia. Nothing like sticking your foot in your mouth jumping down my throat.

          3. CT2A

            Scalia also explained in Heller that protected weapons include those “in common use at the time”. The AR-15 is one of the most popular rifles out there.

      2. Kim

        mike: before you pretend to know history, read Stephen Halbrooks “The Founders Second Amendment”. Of course you won’t because you won’t like the truth about history and what our founding fathers meant by the 2nd amendment. You prefer your agenda and the ignorance behind it, I’ll wager

      3. Kim

        Mike, you don’t seem to recognize your contradictions. If there are slaves, how can there be a free state? Your statement is ridiculous at best.

  15. susan

    We don’t need these evil things in our state, and everyone would be safer without these guns or the companies that make them. These workers can find employment elsewere. Safety comes first.

    1. Trey Fischer

      Susan wrote: “We don’t need these evil things in our state”

      No Susan the gun wasn’t evil, ADAM LANZA was EVIL! Get it right!

    2. Fed up

      employment where? CT has the higher than the national average for unemployment. You don’t like guns move to Chicago and let us know how that ban is working out.

    3. Jarhead

      Ye,susan, those inanimate objects with minds of their own will jump right out of the gun safe, load themselves and pogo stick right down the street on a murderous rampage!!!

  16. Melissa

    What “sport” are these alleged “sporting rifles” used for? These are simply killing machines designed to execute large numbers of people as quickly as possible. These assault weapons have no place in a civilized society.

    1. susan

      Yes Melissa, these are evil, wicked, sinful weapons of war being used on our children. We need to taken all of them away, away.

      1. Tim Smith

        Susan,

        In a “make believe” world… I grant you the power to make these ” evil, wicked, sinful weapons of war being used on our children” illegal…

        Which ones?? Just the “evil” ones, or all guns?? I’ll assume you mean all guns, because the “evil” ones are only responsible for a very, very, very small percentage of the crime.

        So, now all of the law abiding citizen have been disarmed… do you think that the criminals, who by the very fact that they are criminals, have disarmed themselves, too?? Who will they prey on, the other armed criminals of the unarmed masses??

        Guns do not have souls, they are inanimate objects made of metal, plastic, and sometimes wood. The only “evil” that exists is in the twisted minds of those that use weapons (bombs, knives, blunt objects, cars, and yes, sometimes guns) to murder others.

      2. Trey Fischer

        People commit sins not inanimate objects! Adam Lanza was the evil, wicked & sinful problem here! The gun was just the tool that Adam Lanza chose to use. Tim Mcveigh used a bomb, shouldn’t we then outlaw bombs……. oh wait they are outlawed! Hmmm then where should we place the blame on these evil, wicked & sinful acts?

        And these “sporting rifles” are used in the sport of “shooting”. You know, target shooting! Something that is quite fun actually.

        1. Melissa

          So these things should be kept legal – at the risk of falling into the hands of another Adam Lanza – so that you can have some fun shooting at a target? Unbelievable.

          1. Fed up

            Melissa it is niave to think you can ever stop someone whose intent is to kill alot of people. Look at james holmes in colorado. He planned his attack as did Adam Lanza. These are not spur of the moment actions. Holmes could easliy have used the bombs he made. Bombs made out of readily available items. If the only answer to reduce violence is gun control then your gonna be in for a surprise when it happens again.

          2. Get Real

            Yes they should remain legal. Because making them illegal will not prevent another psychopath from doing his worst.

            We all want a safer Connecticut but, banning guns won’t do it. Legislators grandstanding and lying to you saying “you’ll be safer if we ban guns.” The fact that you believe that – Unbelievable.

          3. Kim

            no melissa, they should be legal so the innocent can defend themselves against those who would do them harm, control them, etc. (that includes the Adam Lanzas and Charlie Mansons of the world)

      3. Tao

        Susan, “evil, wicked, sinful?” Now, are we talking about firearms or catholic priests, or maybe both?

        1. Melissa

          Fed up – do you really believe that banning assault weapons won’t prevent mass killings WITH ASSAULT WEAPONS? If so, then I would call you the naive one, but that would be too generous. What about high capacity magazines? Do you really think either Holmes or Lanza would have been able to fire as many shots as they did if they had to reload 3 times as often (Lanza’s case) or 10 times more often (Holmes)?

          1. Fed up

            Oklahoma city bombing. No assault weapons used.Ban the high capacity mags in this state aomeone can drive to another one to buy them. Better yet criminals can use a 3d printer to make them. It’s already been proven it works. switching mags takes seconds.

          2. Tim Smith

            Melissa,
            Do you know how long it takes to reload?? For someone untrained, 1 – 2 seconds, if you practice, well under a second… Lanza reloaded several times, sometimes leaving unused ammo in the magazines…

            You can’t stop determined, mentally deranged people from doing insane or “evil things. What you can do is, train to NOT BE A VICTIM.

            The first thing to do is remove ALL “gun free” zones, where the bad guys know they will have no armed resistance.

          3. Melissa

            Fed up – that is why the ban should be at the federal level – no assault weapons and no high capacity magazines in ANY state.

          4. Melissa

            Tim Smith – the Hartford Courant reported that 6 children were able to flee Victoria Soto’s class room when Lanza was reloading. So don’t even say that frequent reloading would not help to save lives. It’s not true. If James Holmes had to reload 10 times as often as he did, that would have been 10-20 seconds less shooting. A lot of lives would have been saved in those 10-20 seconds.

          5. Tim Smith

            Melissa,

            Banning “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines would not have changed the outcome, he had pistols that he could have used, but chose not to them until he used one on himself…

            Thank you for bringing up Victoria Soto’s heroic actions, why do we train the teachers, and by extention, our children, to be victims…?

            Why would you gather all of the kids into a small area that makes it easier for a deranged lunatic, like Adam Lanza, to kill even more people.

            Teach the kids that if they hear shooting to do what the kids from Ms. Soto’s class did… run!! Since the Newtown tragedy, my kids have had “lock down drills” at their schools and the same philosphy exists, huddle and wait for the shooter to find you…

      4. Jarhead

        As a long time martial artist. I can assure you the same thing could have been done just as quickly with a pair of Chinese Butterfly Swords that could have been smuggled in undetected after someone rammed their car through the front doors. There would be no one capable of stopping it from happening either. You cannot stop sick people doing sick things if their mind is made up.

    2. CT2A

      “So these things should be kept legal – at the risk of falling into the hands of another Adam Lanza – so that you can have some fun shooting at a target?”

      - Millions of people enjoy alcohol responsibly. Unfortunately, tens of thousands die each year because some don’t use it responsibly. That doesn’t mean that we prohibit alcohol. BTW, we already tried that.

      1. Kim

        No CT2A, so we can defend ourselves from the bad guys (like Adam Lanza for example), including government if needed.

    3. Kim

      melissa: unfortunately, we don’t live in a ‘civilized society’. Time to deal with the real world, sweetheart

    4. Jim

      I shoot competitively with my sporting rifles in 3 gun shoots, PPC competition, Hogan’s Alley shoots, Tactical competition etc, etc, etc. You use the word “Ban”, don’t you mean confiscate? It seems like you want to take away all of the legally owned semiautomatic sporting rifles from law abiding citizens. Some people like me have thousands invested in our sporting rifles, what about the fact that we own them legally and safely. Would you just take them away with no compensation?

      How would you handle the illegally owned sporting rifles? Another law perhaps? Criminals are already breaking the law by killing because murder is already illegal. What specifically would the new law accomplish besides disarming the legal gun owner? Obama’s own people said the ban wouldn’t prevent another school shooting, so what are you trying to accomplish by confiscating guns? The same thig as banning illegal drugs? That didn’t turn out so well.

      The worst school killing in US history involved explosives. The second worst school killing involved two handguns with magazines of 10 rounds or less. Why would you not be advocating for the seizure of all guns? Seems like what you are implying.

    5. P-E-Z

      Matches sponsored Civilian Marksmanship Program actually require them. CMP is part of the federal government. They also sell rifles far more powerful than ar-15. odcmp.org

  17. Stan

    “All sorts of things are regulated: cars, boats, pharmaceuticals, securities, free speech, churches, non-profit companies, voting, etc., etc., etc. Firearms should be immune from regulations? Background checks, permits, age of ownership, etc are all reasonable regulations. Motor vehicle regulations won’t stop drunk drivers or any other criminal from misusing a motor vehicle – so we should abandon motor vehicle regulations?”

    First of all, there are approximately 20,000 Federal and State laws concerning firearms. I would say that this is regulation.
    Secondly, the Constitution is an agreement between the citizens and the governing body. Within the Constitution, when the word “rights” is used, it is understood that the people already have certain “rights” and these “rights” are not granted by any governing body but are already present. That is, an individual comes to the table with these rights.
    Individuals state that you must meet certain criteria in order to operate a motor vehicle. True, but being able to operate a motor vehicle is granted by the governing body which controls this activity. Because the governing body has the power to control motor vehicle operation the governing body has the power to issue regulations concerning motor vehicles. “Rights” in the Constitution do not stem from the governing body but are already present. The Second Amendment recognizes the “right” to defend one’s self defense from outside threats. These threats could come from any entity.
    I feel that any approach to curb crimes committed by people with firearms should began with enforcement of the 20,000 laws in place that relate to firearms.

  18. Teddy

    It is a disgrace that our own elected officials, on local, state and federal levels, have become the biggest threat to our freedoms and constitutional rights. These people should be labeled as domestic terrorists, arrested and thrown out of office.

  19. Alex

    First, for Melissa, Susan and the others who will blindly give up their freedoms for the false promises and half-truths of Blumenthal, et al, focus on the fact there were more people killed with hammers (over 500)in our country last year than with any kind of rifle.
    Steve pointed out the fact that only two homicides were carried out with rifles in CT, including the so-called assault rifles, from 2004 to 2011. With those eight years of experience in mind, you’re willing to give up your rights and those of others to our government officials? If you have not read any accounts of how well gun control worked elsewhere in the world, do yourself and the rest of us a favor and look up how well the people in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union fared with it.
    Then, read some of the Federalist Papers and see what Madison said about how important it is to a free people to be armed to protect themselves from tyrannical governments.
    Finally, if you don’t think it can happen here, ask yourself why our current President has issued Executive Orders allowing him to take over the Internet and Cell Phone Systems “in times of National Security” and, in direct violation of the Constitution, he issued an order allowing the use of our military for domestic actions, such as riot control. In case you didn’t realize it, that’s the role of the National Guard. And, for what purpose did the Department of Homeland Security reportedly purchase about two billion rounds of ammunition the past couple years? Would it be to help them arm the “15,000,000 member Civilian
    Security Force which would be as well armed and equipped as our military” that our President shouted about in his campaign speeches in 2008? None of the media ever asked what those 15,000,000 people would be doing or who would comprise such a force. If you know, please enlighten the rest of us.
    With your apparent logic Hitler wasn’t really a bad guy when he took over portions of other countries, because he was just freeing the ethnic Germans in those sovereign states. You may think it can’t happen here but when your government has all the power the people are left to do the bidding of the government.

    1. Kim

      The experts agree: gun control works!
      Among the experts polled: Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Qaddafi, Idi Amin, Sadam Hussein, Kim Jong-il, Castro, Mao Tse-tung.

      Get the picture?

  20. P-E-Z

    They will leave if pushed. If think they can’t just look at Remington, Marlin and Winchester, who have already left. Ruger and Mossberg have opened plants in New Hampshire and Texas. I hope we wise up before its to late.

  21. Richie in RH

    There truly are many sides to this issue as illustrated by these comments. On the one hand there is more than one way to kill people. Certainly taking their opportunity to earn a living and proudly feed and support their family is one of them.
    However, the recent incident at the Chuck-E-Cheez on the Berlin turnpike highlights how wrong the NRA leadership is in promoting more guns in the hands of a clueless public. If the woman that was confronted by the ‘nut-case’ who pulled and cocked a revolver on her had also been armed there would, for certain, have been a ‘shootout at the
    C-E-C Corral’, just like the Wild West.
    Whereas the toothpaste is out of the tube and we now have 300 million guns out there which will remain in the hands of the ‘good-guys’ and ‘bad-guys’ alike, MORE GUNS just can not be the answer!!

    1. Kim

      Richie, please don’t think it has gone unnoticed that you are trying to correlate one nutcase at Chuck-e-Cheez with the entire ‘clueless public’.

      Let’s try it in reverse shall we? Let’s take ONE incident where a gun was used legitimately for self defense. For example, the woman whose husband talked her through a home invasion over the phone, advised her to take her baby into the attic, then advised her to shoot the invader when he entered the attic. (If you didn’t hear about it, blame the mainstream media).

      Why don’t you (and others like you) use this SINGLE instance to justify responsible gun ownership? you could accuse the entire public of being quite responsible, full of clues, and completely rational. Why not? Because it doesn’t suit your agenda.

    2. Kim

      300 million guns and how many gun deaths? And you call this ‘clueless’? ‘Irresponsible’? Sounds responsible to me

      How many of those deaths were justified as self defense? Accidents? Suicides? Caused by criminals who shouldn’t own guns and were not prosecuted for previous weapons charges? The list gets smaller and smaller, you see

    3. Kim

      Richie, history proves that the ‘wild wild west’ was safer than the movies and TVs indicate. You really need to research before tasting foot

      1. Harry Hoku

        Kim: More people lost their lives in the old west from falling off horses then from a bullet. Good points you made. Thanks, buddy. Keep up the fight.

  22. Jarhead

    Think about this gun buying frenzy that has taken place and the tax revenue just on guns, ammo and accessory! All the hardware that was manufactured in the state of CT. Colt, Charter Arms just to name a couple. ” And the Award For The Top Gun Sales Person Of The Year goes to Berry Obama!!!! “

  23. SportsFan

    The esteemed Senator Blumehtal of all people must know that the AR 15 is not like the M-16 rifle that he was issued while in Vietnam

  24. Steve (CT)

    While reading some of the comments here, comments about ‘evil weapons’ made me remember this comment I had saved some time ago about magical thinking, that basically the object causes the crime:

    “While I agree with your point, I think something more underlies these silly rituals. What makes these ritual bannings of depictions or imitations of real weapons politically effective (among those for whom they are effective) is a very primitive human thought process: belief in sympathetic magic.

    The actual object, the weapon, is imbued with magical power. Its very presence magically causes harm. It causes people to behave in evil ways. The rationale commonly offered is that the mere presence of a weapon makes people more prone to violence.

    Sympathetic magic is the belief that what one does with an imitation of the thing with magical power will affect the actual thing. For example, in a magical religious context we see the image of a deity addressed, or given gifts or sacrifices. The magical deity is affected through the treatment of its image, and so performs its magic for the one who gives the image a gift.

    In the imitation weapon banning context we have first the belief that the object, the actual weapon, is magic and causes those in its presence to behave in an evil manner. The sympathetic magical belief is that by banning the image or the imitation weapon, the magical power of real weapons to cause people to be violent will be lessened, or the real weapons will stay away from the presence of the faithful.”

  25. Connecticut is dying too

    Based on these comments, I’d say the liberals stirred up a hornet’s nest. I hope this translates into less of them running the Government in the next election.

  26. Kim

    I’m glad to see gun owners and the gun industry standing up and fighting back, and being proud of what they do instead of skulking in the shadows and acting as if they should feel guilty about something.

    Let’s be clear: the liberal government response to Sandy Hook is all about how to make additional tax and regulatory money – they could care less about personal safety. If personal safety were an issue, they’d prosecute offenders under existing laws; eliminate gun-free zones; and allow people to continue to exercise their second amendment rights.

    1. Connecticut is dying too

      Well said Kim.

      This is yet another shameful example of liberalism taking advantage of a tragedy to move their agenda forward.

      Am I the only ones who feels sorry for the Newtown families not just for their loss but for their subsequent exploitation by liberal politicians?

      1. Kim

        right CT. IN effect the state is saying ‘sorry you lost your child. To show how sorry we are we’re going to take away your consitutional rights as well whether you want us to or not’

    2. Jim

      Agreed, as a lawful gun owner I was respectful and quiet after Newtown while my gun hating friends immediately ranted about evil guns, ban all guns, gun nuts etc… I was introspective and reserved while they seized the tragedy as an opportunity to move their point forward. I’m now sick of the in your face tactic and I’m no longer quiet and reserved about it. I still grieve for the families in Newtown and their terrible loss, but I will no longer sit idly by while my rights are being trampled on.

    3. Harry Hoku

      Kim: More people lost their lives in the old west from falling off horses then from a bullet. Good points you made. Thanks, buddy. Keep up the fight.

  27. Harold

    New Britain force legal pistol permit holders to open carry so the criminals know who is defenseless! What happened to: The rights of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.All I see is infringement,infringement,infringement

  28. Loner Bill

    Guns don’t kill,people kill. Bad guys do not abide by the
    law. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. These politicians can’t think for themselves, they all are just jumping on the bandwagon because they think it is politicaly correct. As far as banning certtain firearms because someone says we don’t need to own that type…well gee maybe we should only have one kind of motor vehicle to drive and while we are at it
    maybe only one color and hey do we really need pickup trucks or mini vans? How stupid does all that sound? Well
    it sounds as stupid as banning certain firearms because someone says we don’t need that kind, referred by them as
    assault weapons. What a bunch of Lemmings these politicians are. So how about it true Americans…join the
    NRA, stand by our second amendment right, which by the way
    many have given all so that we might still have that right. Let’s vote these politicians right out of office at
    the first chance we have. And while we are at it, we the
    voting public need to make some changes so that all these
    politicians don’t get to be in office for so long. They get all the perks, free healthcare, big money and lots of
    other perks. Maybe they should only be allowed to be in office for two terms and then they wouldn’t be so almighty
    powerful. As we can tell they have put this country in a
    terrible financial mess, now they want to weaken our military and take away much of our second amendment rights. The people won’t continue to just lie down and take it. These politicians need to wake up and do the job
    they were elected to do or else they can leave and someone
    will take their place that can. America, the land of the free and the brave. Love it and respect it or get the heck
    out and go live somewhere else.

  29. Clay

    We need to build more prisons for all those law abiding citizens committing crimes with firearms. Liberal politicians don’t like that idea for some strange reason. I’m not joking, it actually happened in the mid 90′s in West VA. Politicians (liberals) deemed stricter sentencing laws unfair based upon the racial profile of prison population. You cannot win with these folks. I think the main reason they don’t like firearms is because they don’t trust themselves owning one, so you shouldn’t have one either. This pending legislation has nothing to do with saving lives but rather promoting political agenda. If you can create an environment where stealing from the rich to give to the poor becomes easier…even on the street…it’s viewed as a positive; for they know damn well the criminals will not abide by the laws, and certainly will not being paying any taxes and insurance when it comes to their illegal .38 in the waistband.

    1. Norm Scott

      Liberal politicians want to free career criminals to roam the streets and criminalize law abiding citizens for owning currently legal guns.

      Once everyone is some sort of felon, then the elected servants of the people can declare that no one is any longer eligible to vote, and so they no longer need to run for election.

Comments are closed.