The lack of traction that gun control measures have had in recent years is a welcome change. The Supreme Court victories are important, but respect for the second amendment only becomes “real” when it is local.
Connecticut is a moderately blue state at the moment; an influx of wealthy New Yorkers contributed to our leftward drift over the past 4 decades. (Having turned the Big Apple into dilapidated failure, they promptly moved their residencies to towns along the commuter rail line in Connecticut so they wouldn’t have to live in the mess they made, but could still ride the choo-choo into NYC to collect a fat paycheck. They are like the Massholes that move to New Hampshire and try to turn it into Massachusetts part deux with more taxes and more dumb laws).
All of our federal legislators are democrats (though Joe Lieberman is less obnoxious than most), as is the governor. Both houses of the state legislature are controlled by democrats as well.
All is not lost, though. The gun laws here are not as oppressive as they are in our neighbors Massachusetts and New York. I don’t know how Jay G. can stand living in Mass.
Which leads me to this newspaper article by one of the outnumbered republican legislators:
(As background, you should realize that the towns of Shelton and Stratford are average working-class towns by Connecticut standards, and that Trumbull is rather upscale. Nichols is a section of Trumbull that borders Stratford and Shelton.)
I found the article noteworthy for several reasons.
First, the author deftly avoids being classified by potential detractors as a pro-gun advocate by attacking the ineffectiveness of gun laws, rather than their existence. He has an A rating from the NRA, however, and that will be whined about by the liberal media.
Secondly, he proposes equipping law enforcement personnel with handheld metal detectors, and provides a specific example of how such a device would make a measurable impact on crime. While I am not completely sold on the concept (nor on the expense it would entail), it isn’t a horrible idea. (I don’t think it would be much of a deterrent, but would make searches more effective). But the genius of this proposal is that the author can be seen as offering an option that could credibly reduce crime to some small degree. That would be a stark contrast to the democrats who have an uphill fight to get new anti-gun legislation into consideration, let alone passed into law, and thus have done nothing.
The lack of new anti-gun legislation is a tacit admission that gun laws simply don’t work. While that is old news to anyone with even a bare minimum of the facts, it is just starting to sink in for the vast sea of “undecideds” in the political middle.
Gun sales are booming. Women’s involvement in shooting is at an all-time peak. Anti-gunners are crying themselves dry over their impotence.