But will they listen

Given how it is Connecticut and the matter is over gun confiscation just as the UN wants it…THE ANSWER IS NO.  I got this email from one Safety Joe in the CCDL (CT Citizens Defense League) Facebook…


I do not support any bipartisan gun control bill that includes a ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Especially pistol magazines because most pistols were designed to use around 15 rounds. If you want to know how many bullets I think someone should have to defend themselves I would say one more bullet than the bad guy has. As I said I don’t support banning magazines over 10 rds, but if demanded I think there should be an exception made for pistols that just states the magazine has to be flush fitting inside the grip and only magazines that protrude in length outside the grip would be banned. Additionally I don’t support making any exceptions for police or security / body guards because the police are not above the law. ” We the people ” created the govt. and the people can’t delegate any powers to the govt. or police that the average people don’t posses themselves. It’s common sense you can’t give something you don’t have. If people think the police need a certain type of gun or ammunition magazine capacity to defend themselves then the citizens need the right to defend themselves with the same things because the people are exposed to the same criminals in public as the police are. How is a citizen’s life any less valuable than a police officer that can carry more than 10 rounds ? What’s going to happen next time some mass shooter uses only 10 round magazines to kill a dozen people ? Are you then going to reduce it to 7 rds and then 5 rds in a magazine? Where will it lead ? This is only punishing the good people and not the criminals who will have more bullets anyway. If someone has to defend themselves with a gun they’re going to find themselves in a very stressful situation where they lose fine motor skills and get tunnel vision. Having only 10 rounds in a magazine might not be enough to stop the bad guy, especially if there are multiple attackers or if they’re pumped up on drugs. Most criminals don’t act alone so the chance of there being multiple attackers is high. Limiting people’s ability to protect themselves, their loved ones or the people around them is the wrong thing to do. Please stop passing laws that only effect good people who have not done anything wrong. If any limitations for magazines are passed into law I think grandfathering in the ones that people already own is very important. Registering them should not be needed as long as the person retains the original dated sales reciept and they should always be allowed to sell them out of state at any time without keeping any records of the sale.

If you’re going to use Sandy Hook as motivation to pass more gun control laws you better pass a law that would have prevented it. The simple solution is that Adam Lanza’s mom should have been required by law to keep her guns out of the hands of her son. The only gun control measure I support is a law that would require safe storage if someone lived in your home and met certain criteria like Adam Lanza as long as the law did not require home inspections without a warrant signed by a judge based on sworn testimony or actual evidence that there was a violation of the safe storage law in that home.

I also don’t support changing the criteria of what is an assault weapon. According to the FBI more people are killed every year with hammers and baseball bats then all types of rifles combined. Including bolt action hunting rifles. I doubt you’re going to ban hammers and baseball bats even though they kill more people than all kinds of rifles. Just because someone uses a car to mow down 20 people doesn’t mean we’re going to ban cars. When the Army staff sergeant, stationed at a U.S. base in Kandahar, Afghanistan killed 16 people, mostly women and children, and then burned their bodies we didn’t blame his gun. We blamed his mental condition and all the psychotropic prescription medications he was taking. The same thing goes for Adam Lanza. I personally don’t own an AR15 rifle, but I noticed in SB 1076 that there was an exception when it came to rifles. It specifically said ” centerfire ” rifles, but the other section that pertained to pistols did not say ” centerfire ” pistols so rimfire 22 caliber rifles are excluded from being considered an assault weapon, but rimfire 22 caliber pistols could be considered an assault weapon. That’s not consistent at all. A rimfire pistol that’s used to shoot at soda cans, rabbits or squirrels should never be considered an assault weapon. That’s just ridiculous. Banning the sale of rifles like the AR15 also violates the state constitution because it infringes on the people’s ability to ” defend the state ” and in case you didn’t know ” the state ” is not the govt. it’s the people. If a large scale natural disaster or another terror attack happened there is not enough state or federal forces that can be used to maintain order if the crisis encompasses a wide area. You’ll be very happy if a good person in your neighborhood has a rifle like an AR15 so they can keep the looters or other violent criminals from doing harm in your area. An example is how average people were able to do exactly that in their own communities after hurricane Katrina or during the LA riots. Even though I don’t own an AR15 I know they are very popular so they also can’t be considered ” unusual. ”

When the department of homeland security ( DHS ) or local police departments order rifles like the AR15 they call them ” personal defense rifles ” and not ” assault weapons ” The DHS even stated that the AR15 is suitable for self defense. If a rifle like an AR15 is suitable for self defense by the police then the average person should have the right to buy one for their own defense. My past statement about why the police have to obey the same laws as everyone else holds true when it comes to rifles too. If it’s illegal for CT residents to buy an AR15 type rifle, then it should be illegal for the police too. Especially considering the fact that you’re 8 times more likely to be shot by the police than a citizen gun owner.

I also don’t support requiring background checks for private sales because it creates a de facto gun registry which world history shows always leads to confiscation down the road. A better idea would be to require the private seller of a long gun to only sell to someone who produces a valid state pistol permit because the people who posses those have already passed a background check and have been trained in gun safety. No paper work should be required because like I said it creates a de facto gun registry..

As far as requiring a pistol permit or rifle permit to buy ammunition. I don’t have a problem with that as long as there isn’t an ammo sales registry created and as long as the person can buy ammo for a gun they don’t own. Simply requiring the cashier to visually see the person’s permit is all that should be needed. It’s none of the government’s business knowing how many bullets or what rifles a person owns because like I already stated – world history shows that always leads to confiscation down the road which opens the door for the possibility of an oppressive govt. no matter how slim that possibility might be. It’s not a risk a free society should take and history shows it’s a mistake free people can only make once.

I don’t support any extra taxes on ammo or any required liability insurance for gun ownership because that disenfranchises and infringes on the poor from being able to defend themselves.



Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: