Stand Strong Connecticut

Stand Strong CT-1

Send your STAND STRONG CONNECTICUT photo to guntruth@me.com. We’ll post them on our Facebook album [click here to view.] Please put STAND STRONG in the subject field of your email. You can click here to purchase a Stand Strong Connecticut t-shirt (half of profits go to Connecticut Carry).

comments

  1. avatar nnjj says:

    C’mon, this is getting silly. “Virginia” doesn’t stand with “Connecticut”. A single dude from Virginia who won’t show his face happens to disagree with a law in Connecticut. Most Virginians couldn’t care less.

    1. avatar JR says:

      Because “Gun Owners in VA that also read TTAG and want to show support and solidarity to the oppressed in CT” won’t fit on a piece of paper and still be readable.

      Get a grip. It’s symbolic.

      1. avatar nnjj says:

        I’m just saying, this Stand Strong Connecticut thing is really kind of a circle jerk. Yeah, a bunch of folks on TTAG, who don’t pay taxes or vote in Connecticut, express symbolic solidarity because some laws were passed there – by the very people they voted for. Ok, great.

        Maybe everyone should send gun selfies with signs saying “Elections Have Consequences” instead.

    2. avatar Dave says:

      I agree. Weak sauce. Again, they clearly know they are violating the UCMJ.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Which section of the UCMJ?

        1. avatar John L. says:

          Department of Defense Directive 1344.10

          http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/defense_ethics/ethics_regulation/1344-10.html

          I think these photos would be covered specifically by:

          4.1.2. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty shall not:
          4.1.2.6. Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.
          4.1.5. Activities not expressly prohibited may be contrary to the spirit and intent of this Directive. Any activity that may be reasonably viewed as directly or indirectly associating the Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security (in the case of the Coast Guard) or any component of these Departments with a partisan political activity or is otherwise contrary to the spirit and intention of this Directive shall be avoided.

        2. avatar surlycmd says:

          Article 134. General.
          Charged for wearing a uniform item while making a personal political statement. Same as the Air Force guy a few days a go.

          It is chickensh!t but members of the Armed Forces are not allowed to wear a uniform while promoting a personal political cause without prior approval.

          surlycmd
          CPO USN(Ret)

        3. avatar Henry Bowman says:

          Dave and John L,
          The operative word there is “partisan.” This is not partisan political activity… it’s supporting and defending the Constituion against domestic enemies.

        4. avatar Skyler says:

          I agree. It is unprofessional and illegal to wear the uniform of the US military to advocate for a political cause. I would have no hesitation in charging one of my Marines for this, not because I don’t support the opinion, because I do. But because it weakens the support the people have for the military when the military is perceived to be political.

          Go ahead and hide your face, Petty Officer. If anyone learns your identity, you’re sure to be a Third Class Petty Officer, Second Award.

          And the same for the Navy Lieutenant who besmirched our Naval Services the other day in the same way.

        5. avatar Henry Bowman says:

          Skyler,
          That Navy LT said he’d keep his oath. If that’s besmirching the service, then maybe the service sucks. Warriors aren’t just mindless drones. It’s their duty to disobey illegal and immoral orders.

        6. avatar Skyler says:

          Henry, the matter is still in the political arena. It is dangerous for individuals in the armed forces to decide for themselves what their pea brains might or might not think is constitutionally legal. This matter hasn’t been reviewed by the state courts, so far as I know, let alone federal courts or the Supreme Court. It is still a very political debate.

          It’s very clear how the question should be answered: Americans have the right to bear arms. But it’s not the military’s place to decide constitutionality. That question is decided by the people, not the military.

        7. avatar Henry Bowman says:

          The military IS people. Besides, all these expressions are NON-PARTISAN. Partisanship is what the DoD Directives and UCMJ hinge on. Someone in uniform can certainly hold a sign that says “I support and defend the Constitution,” right? This is the same thing.

        8. avatar Dave says:

          I would still argue it violates the UCMJ and they know it. If it doesn’t; than they are just cowards. A piece of paper over a face means nothing.

      2. avatar Model 31 says:

        I’ve watched countless Sunday talk shows featuring a General toting the President’s water on foreign policy beyond military implications for the last 15 years. I doubt we’ll ever hear of these Generals in the trenches (so to speak) along with the guy whose identity is hidden behind a piece of paper. The General earned his place in our military with aptitude, ability, attitude, hard work, dedication and politics. No organization of three or more people is devoid of politics.
        Starting in 2003, we had five years of “loyal opposition” from opportunists and people who signed up for service who didn’t want to go fight in a foreign land…not many, but some, and we heard all about it through the old media who spoke of fairness, dues paid and past sacrifices.
        FWIW, I see these as Federal soldiers expressing an idea in support of all the BOR which supersedes state law.
        If we can have Generals on political TV talk shows advocating a Federal policy, then I’m fine with hearing from a soldier that stands a much higher chance of risking his own life for my freedom than the General does.

  2. avatar Accur81 says:

    Sometimes the best way to do things is to be undercover.

    By the way, I can’t reply to comments on my iPhone 5 using the mobile browser.

    1. People who have update their software to the new iOS 7.1 are having this problem. We’re working on it. Thanks for your patience.

  3. avatar Zachary marrs says:

    A81; same here on android using Chrome

    1. avatar John L. says:

      Same here if I use the mobile view. (Droid Maxx using Chrome; also on a Nexus 7 using Dolphin)

      Switching to desktop view puts the reply buttons back but the page is much less readable; but it’s a workaround so far

  4. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    I figured the reply disablement was just me being banned. I’ve been kicked outta better places than this, I tell you. LOTS of them!

  5. avatar jwm says:

    Anchor clankers and their toys. *SIGH* CA. Not a huge fan of assault rifles, but everyone should have an AK. And a shotgun. And a standard capacity service pistol. And a scoped long range rifle. And a …….

  6. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Maybe active duty military is barred from making any political statements.
    Like the photo.

    1. avatar nnjj says:

      Yeah, no kidding. Also, he doesn’t speak for the Navy. Or Sailors.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Who do you speak for — Dannel Malloy?

    2. avatar Charles5 says:

      I actually don’t think that guy is active duty anymore. I’m guessing he use to be in the Navy but got out after maybe 5 or 6 years at the most…it’s hard to tell if those are 2nd Class or 3rd Class Petty Officer chevrons. I’m guessing 3rd class, though, because he also doesn’t have any warfare qualifications above the U.S. Navy name tape, which a 2nd class should have if he is worth anything (I suppose there are extenuating circumstances that could preclude someone from getting their warfare pin on a timely basis), so my guess is closer to 3-4 years and then out. Why do I think he isn’t active duty? He isn’t wearing a a black belt with a sliver buckle with that uniform, any sailor would know that, but I’m guessing he misplaced his after he got out. Also, we haven’t worn the white undershirt underneath our coveralls for several years now. We wear a navy blue shirt.

      Anyway, it is a nice sentiment to show his support for those in Connecticut, but if he is Active Duty or Reserve, he is violating the UCMJ by wearing that uniform in the picture. If he isn’t active or reserve, he shouldn’t be wearing the uniform in public.

      1. avatar PavePusher says:

        Ummmm… looks like he’s wearing blue cover-alls (one-piece), not fatigues. I don’t think you’d wear any belt with that, but I’m not up-to-date on Naval uniform regs.

  7. avatar Stacy says:

    Yeah, hope for his sake he cleaned up the exif data before sending that photo. Or that TTAG did it for him before posting.

    I hope these Stand Strong pics are helping to stiffen spines in CT — we need to duke it out there, before it spreads to other states and becomes ‘normal’.

  8. avatar John L. says:

    For those of you who dont know, active duty military personnel are generally barred from political activism.

    Partly it is a chain of command thing – the President is also the commander-in-chief, so being directly critical of the person also compromises the authority of the office … at least when the person doing the criticizing is in uniform. I personally have seen an officer sanctioned because his wife’s car had a bumper sticker critical of the current admjn, and he had to drive it to work one day.

    The page in front of the face thing is for these guys’ protection. I actually think its brave of them to put it out there at all. Note they’ve also removed their name tags – and I would request Robert or whomever, if they get one with the tags visible, to please Photoshop them out before posting.

    1. avatar JR says:

      “Partly it is a chain of command thing – the President is also the commander-in-chief, so being directly critical of the person also compromises the authority of the office”

      Isn’t there that whole “illegal orders” thing to weigh, also?

      1. avatar Charles5 says:

        If a service member wants to support Connecticut, fine. But he should not do it in uniform. Again, as I’ve said several times, I don’t think this guy is active duty.

      2. avatar John L. says:

        Not the same thing.

      3. avatar PavePusher says:

        What “illegal orders” has the President given relating to CT gun laws?

  9. avatar Clem says:

    I’ll post a pic of me with a sign that reads, ‘Don’t be dumb, CT’ as I pose with a shovel over what appears to be a freshly buried cache.

  10. avatar Clem says:

    They’ll track down this Squid. Those door handles are not common.

    1. avatar Charles5 says:

      I don’t think he is in the Navy anymore. Use to be, but not anymore.

    2. avatar Jeff says:

      it’s a child proof knob cover. they are common for people with kids.

  11. avatar Rank Hank says:

    That door handle is a “child proof” door handle, one that must be squeezed in order to turn the handle.

  12. avatar Jackwagon says:

    Obviously the guy is a vet, as am I. I still have an old pair of coveralls that I never upgraded the rank on because I never had to use it after I made E5.
    How about you guys focus on the fact that military vets support and stand behind you.

    1. avatar Skyler says:

      That is a horrifying thought. Our apolicital military would never be trusted again. We have a unique military because the people perceive it to be apolitical and defending the Constitution and the country regardless of the political party in power. Whether Connecticut’s law is Constitutional or not is not determined by the military. It is determined by the people. If the people decide it is unconstitutional, then they have the arms to act. The States may also act. But the military defends the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, not from states who have yet to be determined to be acting legally.

      The domestic enemies part of the oath is tricky, but it does not mean that the individuals in the military can decide who to make political statements for or against.

      I’d charge him in a heartbeat.

    2. avatar Maineuh says:

      This, this, a thousand times this.
      REPLY FAIL: My this x 1000 refers to Jackwagon’s line “how about you guns focus on the fact that military vets support and stand behind you.”

  13. avatar Excedrine says:

    Good to see more of my shipmates honoring their oaths, even if it’s symbolic in nature.

  14. avatar Bob in Washington says:

    Great pic. You posted, they haven’t. Can’t blame you for no face, everything on the net is forever.

  15. avatar Richard says:

    On April 16 you can start “Stand Strong New York.” Something else to look forward to.

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