This is what we’re up against in Connecticut

Would you buy a car from this man?

Would you buy a car from this man?

A couple of days ago, I linked to an Op-Ed on our Facebook page. The editorial in the New Haven Register was from Ed Meyer, a Connecticut State Senator, who is proposing new draconian legislation for gun control. In essence, he lives in a fantasy world where limiting people to single-shot firearms will magically bring about a society where we’ll all just get along, and nobody will ever get hurt again.

Of course, those of us who actually live in THIS world realize that this will never happen, and the ramifications of this law would be dire. While he is not a member of the Gun Violence Prevention Working Group, he’s more than willing to jump on the bandwagon.

This Op-Ed was so full of ignorance, that I thought I’d take the time to break down some of the key points.

More below the fold:

Until the Newton mass killings, my gun experience was limited to my youth-time Red Ryder BB gun and the shooting of clay pigeons with a shotgun.

Say goodbye to skeet if the bill passes.

Subsequently, as a federal prosecutor, I became aware of a variety of lethal weapons, and three of my witnesses were actually killed.

What he apparently never became aware of during his tenure as a federal prosecutor in New York City is that the Sullivan Act (which bans most firearm ownership in the city) has been in place since the beginning of the 20th Century. Since criminals don’t seem to have any trouble finding a firearm there, it’s puzzling how he thinks another bad law will work.

With this limited experience, I needed much more gun knowledge to enter into the post-Newtown debate.

Oh good! He’s going to read some of the studies on the matter, find out information from the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, diligently try to understand the problem! Oh wait. No he’s not. He can’t even do enough due diligence to know the difference between NEWTON and NEWTOWN.

With the help of the state police at its gun range and a local Guilford police officer with extensive gun experience, I acquired a deep conviction that gun violence results primarily from multiple round magazines that can be rapidly inserted in both handguns and assault rifles.

Nope, he’s going to go out and spend an hour or two on the range, and then make up his mind.

The police demonstrated to me that a 10- or 20-round magazine can be replaced in about one second. A leading pro-gun advocate in Connecticut, Bob Crook, stated that a reduction of high-capacity magazines is “misplaced” because “in order to change a magazine, you just push a button, the magazine drops out of the bottom and you immediately slide a new one in. It takes about a second to do it.”

I guess they didn’t demonstrate that there are MILLIONS of these magazines available. No serial numbers, no records of who owns them, and while they are a wear item, they will last for years. Recent polls suggest that over 60% of firearms owners in the country will not comply with registrations or bans. Good luck on getting rid of an untraceable item.

It was not surprising that Adam Lanza was able to fire about 200 rounds in 4 or 5 minutes, and that up to 11 bullets were found in each of the bodies of those young children.

It doesn’t matter what he used. He was facing down helpless children and unarmed adults. There was no pressure on him at all. The victims would be equally dead if he’d brought a single-shot firearm, especially if it was a shotgun.

I also studied the experience of other countries with low gun homicide rates. While there is an average of about 11,000 gun homicides in the United States each year, there are only about a 100 or less in other countries such as England, Canada, Australia, Japan and Switzerland.

What those countries did was to prohibit civilian possession of most forms of guns.

This is the moment he goes completely off the deep end. It is also a clear example of the same thing that irritates me about every other Anti-gun zealot: they’re focused on “gun homicides,” while completely dismissing more telling factors. Citing raw numbers, rather than per-capita figures also skews the facts.

  • Violent crime in the United Kingdom soared when they effectively banned firearms. Beyond that, they’re an ISLAND and can’t keep the bad guys from getting guns.
  • Canada had national registration and stopped. They found that it was horribly expensive and completely ineffective at stopping crime
  • Australia has also experienced a dramatic increase in violent crime.
  • Japan has been effectively disarmed since the end of World War 2. Once again, criminals do have them. I think it would be fair to observe that Japan is vastly different culturally than the United States. They also have a higher suicide rate, even if they use something other than a firearm.
  • The crown jewel of his ignorance is including Switzerland in his list. When I first read this op-ed, I laughed out loud. Switzerland has compulsory national service for all able-bodied adult males. They are issued a REAL assault rifle (the full-auto kind we’re mostly prevented from owning). Those rifles are kept at home, and remain with the person after their service is over. It is pretty safe to say that civilian gun ownership in Switzerland is NOT banned.

Back to our lunatic’s drivel, still in progress:

Research has also demonstrated that the gun industry is investing heavily into getting guns into the hands of young people. A study by the shooting sports industry last year encouraged children to become “peer ambassadors” in introducing other young people to guns.

A recent advertisement in Junior Shooters magazine states: “Who knows? Maybe you’ll find a Bushmaster AR-15 under your tree some frosty Christmas morning!” The trend toward higher round gun magazines and selling a new young generation on guns are highly disturbing.

So, the guy who had a Red Ryder BB Gun and presumably didn’t shoot his eye out, has a problem with a legal industry legally marketing. Historically, schools in this country had rifle teams, the Boy Scouts had marksmanship badges, and other groups have been involving youth in the shooting sports for decades.

As a result, I have introduced a bill in Hartford that seeks a dramatic change without infringing the Second Amendment. It would ban the purchase, sale or possession of any multiple round gun magazine or clip in Connecticut and would thus make legal only those handguns and rifles that contain one round or bullet.

Read the first sentence. Enable your ability for cognitive dissonance and read the second sentence. I don’t know about you, but my mind can’t wrap around those conflicting concepts.

Exempted are law enforcement, military and gun clubs, which could possess multiple round magazines on their club premises under secure conditions. It does not take a 10-round magazine to bring down a deer or to protect yourself in some projected crisis.

So, those highly trained LEOs, the ones who have less practice in a year than I do, get to keep theirs. I wonder if ex-military are exempted. I bet not. Yeah, keeping all those evil high capacity assault magazine clips carefully locked up at a gun club will work. Sure it will.

The money quote in that paragraph is the last one. First, the Second Amendment has absolutely NOTHING to do with either of his examples. Our side gets that, their side deliberately obfuscates it. Second, he mustn’t remember the famous home invasion in Cheshire several years ago. As I’ve seen quoted around the internet — nobody ever complained after a gunfight that they had too much ammunition.

Some of the reactions to my bill are disappointing, if not surprising. The Register recently stated that my bill will only “detract from any reasoned gun control debate,” and others have branded it “extreme” or “impractical” and with “no chance of serious consideration.”

When even the New Haven Register, never a big bastion of conservative thought, thinks your gun control legislation has gone too far, perhaps you should check to see if your meds have kicked in.

Other reactions have included personal threats against my life — “You’re gonna be dead a lot sooner than you planned” and “I’m coming for you.” The degree of gun violence not only in our country, but also in Connecticut, is growing in a most alarming fashion.

This is utterly predictable, happens on both sides of the spectrum and is completely counter-productive. If you’re making threats, you’re HURTING US. Stop it. Really. Direct your energy into other avenues.

The gradual and incremental gun control approaches being proposed in the General Assembly provide little hope of avoiding another Newtown, Aurora or Columbine. It is time to be boldly effective in curtailing the increasing menace of gun violence.

I’m utterly heartbroken that Senator Meyer doesn’t think the camel nose is getting under the tent fast enough. None of what has been proposed will be effective, even if it is “bold.”

Sen. Edward Meyer of Guilford, a Democrat, represents the 12th District in the state Senate. Readers may write him at Legislative Office Building, Room 3200, Hartford 06106-1591. His email address is Meyer@senatedems.ct.gov.

Please be sure to contact Senator Meyer. Don’t threaten, as I said above, that’s not going to help our cause. Be sure to tell him precisely what you think of this effort though. I believe that he is either delusional or an opportunist. In either case, we have to keep up the pressure, and continue to voice our opposition to further attempts to curtail our rights.

UPDATE:

Let’s not forget this paragon of virtue, as reported by Days of our Trailers:

“Ernest Hewett, a CT State Rep (D-39)said this on guns just a few months ago:

 “We have gun laws that need to be passed that aren’t being passed, because we have people who want to go duck hunting with AK-47s.”

 He said this to a 17 yr old girl just a few days ago:

“If you’re bashful I got a snake sitting under my desk here.”

 Remember that laws, morality and ethics are for ‘little people’. Stay classy gun banners.”

Quite an assortment of crooks and ignoramuses we have here in the Nutmeg state.

Share and Enjoy:
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • email
  • RSS

Related posts:

One Response to “This is what we’re up against in Connecticut”

  1. Ben says:

    BUAHAHAHAHA……

    That’s all I have to say about this guy. What a complete idiot. His Red Rider BB gun, really dude? If you have no experience with firearms, you have no business talking about them. Plain and simple.

    By the way, in some cased you actually do need more than one shot to kill a deer. But here is a little secret… The 2nd ammendment was never about hunting. It was about defending ourselves from Tyranny. If it wasn’t, then the word “Militia” wouldn’t be in it.

    Dee-Dee-Dee