Gun Rights Political Payback On Its Way?

 CT Senate Minority Leader John Mckinney (breitbart.com)

An earlier TTAG post counseled gun owners to vote Republican. Pre-coincidentally enough, Tom K sent the following email to TTAG central about CT gun owners pushing back against Republicans who threw them under the proverbial bus: “Any Connecticut Republican who negotiated and/or voted YES on the Connecticut gun bill in April may underestimate just how many single-issue voters were “created” out of their support for that anti-gun owner bill. There are tens of thousands of us and while that may not be enough to sway a statewide general election (though Malloy’s margin was small) it is enough votes to decide the party’s nomination in a primary. We have long memories and we will be local and active in this cycle.” As evidenced by the examiner.com story below . . .

State Senate Minority Leader and gubernatorial hopeful John McKinney can expect no help from the Connecticut Citizens Defense League due to his anti-gun legislative actions, CCDL President Scott Wilson announced in a press release today from Groton.

“Senator McKinney was instrumental in implementing a historic gun control law with zero consideration for the constitutional rights of law abiding gun owners,” the head of the state’s largest grass roots gun rights group explained. “With his deliberate act of siding with gun control supporters, there will be no support from CCDL for his run.” . . .

“[O]ther elected officials who went along with the Senate leader and voted in favor of the gun control law could expect the same from the organization,” the release pledged.

Reminding members that Gov. Dannell Malloy won his last election by a narrow margin of votes well within the capability of motivated gun owners to overcome, the CCDL pledge demonstrates they understand the consequences and are not bluffing.

“If the CTGOP wants four more years of Malloy, go ahead and put up McKinney because gun owners would rather keep Malloy in office than reward McKinney,” the post flatly states. “We’re that mad.”

Are America’s gun owners mad as hell and not going to take it anymore? Absolutely. Yes, but—did Constitution State gun owners ever take it? And no matter how much political solidarity and participation their unelected representatives represent, aren’t they still a relatively ineffective minority? We shall see . . .

comments

  1. avatar Gtfoxy says:

    Oathe breakers and liars have no place in our Representative Government.

    If you break your Oathes to UPHOLD the Constitution then be prepared to pay the consequences with losing your cushy, & suit-wearing-required jobs

    1. avatar JPD says:

      “Oathe breakers and liars have no place in our Representative Government.”

      I agree. Sadly, the vast majority of our current (and past) elected representatives are just that.

      Until Americans hold ALL of them accountable. Not just in the election booth, but also face criminal action for their misdeeds and breaking their oath. It will be “business as usual” at all levels of government.

  2. avatar IHATECT says:

    First time my vote would count in CT…ironically by not voting.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      “…ironically by not voting.”
      By doing that you are enabling those which you oppose.

      1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        Voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil.

      2. avatar andarm16 says:

        no, by not voting you are refusing to give evil your sanction.

      3. avatar DerryM says:

        I agree with Jus Bill. Not voting is just a smug, ineffective gesture of moral disapproval and, in reality, amounts to a willful submission to evil.
        Similarly, voting for “the lesser of two evils” is an act of resistance that buys time to find, or create, a better choice. Allowing the greater evil to win only gives it the opportunity to entrench itself more deeply and inflict greater harm upon you. It is a myth that morally based inaction and a good conscience lessens the weight of the chains of slavery.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          >> Similarly, voting for “the lesser of two evils” is an act of resistance that buys time to find, or create, a better choice.

          These are shallow words without actions behind them. How exactly do you “find or create” a better choice?

        2. avatar DerryM says:

          On the contrary, choosing not to vote at all is a shallow, inactive response and only enables the Government you do not want. If you cannot find a better choice, you make the best choice available (even if you end-up voting for a candidate that cannot win), which buys you time to create a better choice for next time by backing a candidate(s) that better fit the kind of Government you want (or run for Office yourself). When you do nothing you have just chosen to stand aside and let events take whatever course they may. That amounts to surrender to forces you consider “evil”, particularly if they subsequently inflict Policy and Law upon you that you regard as intrusive and afflictive to your Rights and Freedoms.
          Since you only posited criticism and no alternative ideas, you apparently have nothing better to to offer, which is a truly shallow and ineffective position.

    2. avatar Pascal says:

      You have a choice, vote in the primaries.

  3. avatar 2ndgen says:

    I went back and forth with my state rep (R) for quite a while before the vote; she voted in favor and I gave her hell. Her claim was essentially, “It could have been much worse. They had the votes to do whatever they wanted so we did as much as we could.” She feels they at least watered it down, I suppose. CT is surprisingly blue, so I believe her that the Dems had the votes. I don’t know what exactly she thinks they watered down though. Primaries and elections in general will be interesting.

  4. avatar Hasdrubal says:

    Think of it this way- if the choice is between Republicans, who more often than not (with notable exceptions) support smaller government and 2A rights, or Democrats, who more often than not (with notable exceptions) support larger government and are against 2A rights, then in an individual election, the exception may seem more important than the rule. And you might be right, it depends on the candidate and the situation.

    However, if in the long term, say over fifty years, more and more Republicans get elected, then the public perception of ‘normal,’ or ‘mainstream,’ shifts. And it would likely shift towards smaller government and support for 2A. Even better, as these ideas became more acceptable to the electorate, the chances of Libertarian or other third party candidates to get elected would improve. They would be less likely to look like crackpots or lost causes, as their ideas would be relatively less fringe or extremist.

    This is not to say that certain members of either party are not weasels who use the Constitution as a whole for toilet paper.

    1. avatar JPD says:

      Hasdrubel: I think you are still falling for the “con job” from this corrupt two party system we have. What politicians say, never matches their actions.

      Smaller government? That has never happened. Government continues to grow on a constant increase, regardless of the party in power. Google it. Facts are there for the past 75 years.

      Support 2A? Not likely, Look at Reagan’s actions when out of office. Without his behind the scenes campaign, the AWD would not have passed in 1994. That is only one small example. Another is the Bush administration’s ban on imported firearms. List goes on.

      The only constant in government is the bloated “social programs” and inept departments of government that give millions to illegal aliens to send home to their families in other countries.

      Oh yeah, and the current lifetime welfare state we are now paying for.

      Life is good in Amerika!! (Unless you work for a living and pay for all of this crap)

      1. avatar Roscoe says:

        … and multiple layers of duplicity.

        Unfortunately, what you say is all too true.

        And there seems no good end in sight.

      2. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Meh… Choices are more like:
        Republicans, who more often than not (with notable exceptions) support smaller government and nominal 2A rights along with larger corporations (and their donations);
        Democrats, who more often than not (with notable exceptions) support larger government and are against 1A and 2A rights, but solicit and welcome larger Corporate donations and influence;
        Third party “Independents” who more often than not (with notable exceptions) smaller government and a strong Bill of Rights, but are maligned, ignored, and/or ridiculed by the media and general public.
        The latter usually doesn’t usually appear on the ballot, and when they do their impact on the outcome is trivial.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          >> Republicans, who more often than not (with notable exceptions) support smaller government

          Is that why they always end up with budgets bigger than their Dem predecessors?

          Wake up. Republicans support small government on paper only.

      3. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        Nixon, Reagan and Bush the First all helped with gun control. We can thank Nixon for the BATF.

      4. avatar Hasdrubal says:

        Are you saying Democrats are better supporters of 2A than Republicans, or that they both suck equally? Right now we can usually choose between a hard left grabber and a cowardly right compromiser. Not a good choice. All I’m saying is that I would like to choose the coward often enough over the grabber that next time, I can choose between the coward and a Tea Party guy who might show some spine. Then the time after that, I might be presented with a choice between a Tea Party guy and an honest-to-there-is-no-God Libertarian.

        Do I believe most of the current field? Usually not, but I think I see a trend as to who hates freedom more. If you don’t think parties and their messages can change over time, though, I ask you to compare “Ask not what your country can do for you,” with “You didn’t build that.”

  5. avatar John says:

    I live in CT. Sadly, the only anti-gun politicians against whom I can vote are Dems, and my vote is probably going to be wasted.

    Still- I hope my compatriots in slightly more purple areas of the state manage to show their representatives that it’s stupid to vote on a sweeping, obnoxious and intrusive piece of legislation. Jobs (already dear) are fleeing the state en masse, as are those of us with the means and/or flexibility to relocate.

    1. avatar JPD says:

      I can sympathize. Many here talk of just leaving when things go bad. What about your job?, your spouse? Children in school? Family members that rely on you for assistance? ( Grandparents, etc.)

      Just like those that “boycott” a companies products where they are located. I applaud companies who stay to support their employees over “politics”.

      Do you think those companies and employees like living and working in a place where they are treated as criminals?

      I feel everyone’s frustration as well. But a little compassion and understanding for pro 2A citizens and companies stuck in those states would be nice.

    2. avatar Pascal says:

      There will be primaries, vote for the 2a guy or work for someone you support. We need to make sure the guys who supported stay in office. You have to think and do state wide not just locally. We loose only if we are lazy

  6. avatar miforest says:

    always vote against an anti gun republican. ALWAYS! Even if it means a anti gun dem wins. because the next election the GOP will nominate someone new for the seat. The chances are that the new guy next time will be pro gun. Not only because most of the GOP is, but because both party’s put a lot of research into finding out why they lost seats they should have won.

    another reason is that the GOP is the party of “compomise” If we ever let them believe we are a captive interest group they will sell us down the river on everything, then give is the “where you gonna go” attitude when we complain.

    I have been politicaly active for decades, and I believe the potential of a highly motivated small group cam accomplish a tremendous ammount in local and state elections.

    Fight hard connecticut

    1. avatar Pascal says:

      It starts with primaries. We all must look statewide. No reason you have to work locally only. If you can drive 1hr to a gun range you can drive an hour to support a pro-gun candidate in any town. The fight is statewide, if you stay on your duff and only think locally, we loose

  7. avatar Ralph says:

    I hope that McKinney has his RINO horn shoved right up his @ss. I would never vote for Malloy, but if McKinney was the opponent I’d vote third party or stay home.

  8. avatar Andy says:

    Get rid of him in the primary,push for a more conservative opponent,get in touch with other conservative groups and advise them of this communists intentions!Be prepared and ready.Keep your powder dry.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email