Stand Strong Connecticut


Send your STAND STRONG CONNECTICUT photo to [email protected] 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).


  1. avatar Andy says:

    Carry on ! BPAR. Kypd.

  2. avatar (Formerly) MN Matt says:

    This. This makes me proud of this nation. Thank you, sir.

  3. avatar JoshtheViking says:

    The FS2000 is more popular that I thought

    1. avatar MiniMe says:

      I’ve yet to meet a person who doesn’t get all gushy after shooting mine at the range. 😉

    2. avatar Taylor Tx says:

      Thought I was going crazy at first thinking it was an fs2000 hah

      1. avatar SD3 says:

        How does anyone afford an FS2000 on Air Force pay?

        1. avatar Gene says:

          Clearly that person sold a brick of 22LR.

        2. avatar Gene says:

          Clearly, that person sold a brick of 22LR.

        3. avatar Dave says:

          Considering you can’t see the person’s rank; they probably afforded it pretty easily.

  4. avatar IkeVT says:

    As an AF vet I really hate when people use the uniform as political leverage.

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Normally, I would agree.
      I think this is different.

    2. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      “Political leverage”

      You mean supporting Constitutional Rights…

      You hate it when people use the uniform to support Constitutional Rights.

      Fixed it for you, you’re welcome.

      1. avatar IkeVT says:

        Calm down, please.

        I don’t see this as any different than members in uniform posting for gay marriage equality. I don’t see it as any different as members in uniform posting about drone policy.

        I just don’t like it.

        You can bash me all you want, but I swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States same as the airman in the picture. I’ve also been a due paying member of OK for years, and until recently I was the leader for my state. So will you kindly refrain from just blabbering how I must hate freedom?

        I’m allowed to have an opinion about wearing the uniform while submitting photos like this. If you can’t respect that, I don’t know what to tell you.

        1. avatar rblaut says:

          I would normally agree with you. However, I do not see this as pushing a political agenda. You said, “I swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Does the Constitution explicitly discuss gay marriage or universal healthcare? No, and I agree that using your job as a member of our military to further that cause is inappropriate. However, the Constitution does explicitly lay out the 2nd Amendment. So what do I see the Airman in the picture doing? I see it as upholding the 2nd Amendment, and thus the Constitution, against a force that can be seen as and has been called a domestic enemy. You are welcome to disagree, but this is one of the few times where I have no issue with the uniform being used.

        2. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

          Well, as someone who has taken that same oath, I can’t fathom how this can be construed as political posturing.

          This person is not associating this pic with any political party or demographic, he is merely saying he will support Conn citizen and uphold his oath.

          Supporting the rights of the citizens of the country you sever and standing by your word, that’s being a man in its most basic form, as I see it. Which is 180 degrees out from anything you will find associated with politics.

          If you don’t like this, think it’s posturing, or cannot abide it, then I understand. And, I respect that you are allowed to have an opinion, I just do not respect that particular opinion.

          You don’t like his opinion and I don’t like yours, seems fair to me.

        3. avatar Michael B. says:

          He’s telling people resisting unconstitutional laws and orders to stand strong in the face of a mighty enemy. If you have a problem with that, I don’t know what to tell you.

        4. avatar Accur81 says:

          The difference is the Constitution. Someday you may be thankful for soldiers who do not blindly follow orders.

        5. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Having sworn that selfsame oath, I know what to tell you. I disagree with your view. Deal with it.

    3. avatar Dave says:

      I agree with you Ike. Obviously the person knew they were I violation of the UCMJ or they would have shown their face.

      1. avatar Dave the dude says:

        Absolutely true. It is against reg to wear your uniform promoting any political cause, or party, punishable under the UCMJ.

        Aside from that, this guy did it right, and this cause deserves any and all support. Kudos.

        I’m amazed at how these events have occurred in CT. One can only hope that many short sighted legislators will not be reelected, so that this issue can be stabilized. COUNTRYWIDE. Bloodshed is messy and generates too much paperwork.

        @ RF – these posts aren’t spam at all. More like PSAs for CT to heed.

        1. avatar rblaut says:

          Today’s liberal lawyers would agree with your version of the UCMJ, but some of us citizens don’t. I don’t see this as pushing a political agenda or party. He is supporting the 2nd Amendment, which is a specific part of the Constitution, which all members of the military or sworn to uphold and protect. Considering that includes against all enemies, foreign and domestic, I see no reason he should not be legally allowed to uphold the cause against the Connecticut legislatures. I will see them as a domestic enemy as long as they are attempting to revoke my fellow citizen’s Constitutional rights, the same as I view the gun grabbers in CA and NY.

        2. avatar Dave the dude says:

          “Today’s liberal lawyers would agree with your version of the UCMJ”

          Well excuuusse me. I didn’t know I had my own version. I always thought that there was one version that applied to all service members, including myself. Additionally, If my lawyer were liberal, they would be relieved of their duties post haste. (@MDA, please note the non-gender specific anti mysagonistic terms)

          It’s not about liberal lawyers, it’s about power hungry commanders out to put a figurative feather in their cap by making an example out of someone, regardless of the common sense, or lack of it. They exist in myriad. Any servicemember will confirm this as fact.

          In case I worded my comment incorrectly, I one hundred percent support this servicemember’s choice of topic, subject, and composure. It is definitely a “good shoot”.

          CT legislators, gun grabbers in NY and CA enemies of the US? Good luck defending that one with any lawyer, liberal or conservative. Here’s where I’ll spark the flame – go ahead, fire the first shot. See you in 20.

          The only defense against bad politicians with bad laws is GOOD politicians with GOOD laws. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, Get involved politically. Communicate with your lawmakers. ACT. The more people that do this, the more things can change.

      2. There’s no actual stated agenda in the picture. Certainly there’s a context, but that’s not the same as a statement.

        Nor is the person identifying themselves by name as a serving member. It could just be a veteran.

        So there’s no UCMJ violation here, and you’d never convince a court otherwise.

  5. avatar Jerry says:

    Everyone should take a lesson from this Air Force member in regards to taking your photo for this running support for Conn gun owners. As an active member he correctly kept his identity concealed…SO SHOULD EVERYONE WHO IS SUBMITTING PHOTOS! I’m just sayin’ one day “they” may come knockin’. Don’t give them anymore information than is necessary. There, my conspiracy riddled mind is now at peace…thank you.

    1. avatar Model 31 says:

      yep. and it looks better than taking the pic with a ski mask and AK

    2. avatar Rokurota says:

      Yup. I went back and forth on using my face and ultimately decided against it. With my luck, the shot would “go viral” and put my company (for whom I am a public face) in an awkward position. We have two gun companies as clients, but we also have several large clients who may be “anti-gun.” I’m not afraid to stand up for what I believe, but I don’t want to blow it for my many co-workers.

      And this is before we get to the government aspect of things. Social media is not always your friend.

  6. avatar Henry Bowman says:

    This photo isn’t in the facebook album. Is there a reason for that or am I just screwing something up on my computer?

  7. avatar Jake Tallman says:

    That man (or woman, for all I know) has excellent taste in firearms. I love the FS2000 as a range toy, though I wouldn’t trust my life to it (I love bullpups, but even though the thing is surprisingly reliable, there’s no quick way to clear it if you get a jam somewhere inside). But they’re great range toys.

  8. avatar erv says:

    Accur81 says:
    “The difference is the Constitution. Someday you may be thankful for soldiers who do not blindly follow orders.”

    This ^

  9. avatar EOGuy says:

    Ok I am puzzled by one thing so maybe someone can help me. The magnifier in the picture appears to be cheap Chinese garbage. I am surprised by that. How do I know that. I own one. Used it on an AR with an Eotech for a while. Are there other magnifiers that look the same that are name brand ? I know has nothing to do with the commentary. Just an observation.

  10. avatar PavePusher says:

    Submitted to my First Sergeant for advisement.

    USAF, 23+ years and counting. And I doubt you’ll find a stronger 2A supporter in the AF.

    1. Hey, PP, as I noted upstream:

      There’s no actual stated agenda in the picture. Certainly there’s a context, but that’s not the same as a statement.

      Nor is the person identifying themselves by name as a serving member. It could just be a veteran.

      So there’s no UCMJ violation here, and you’d never convince a court otherwise.

      1. avatar PavePusher says:

        I think you’re right…. but I can very easily imagine some idiot screwing it up and slipping into a UCMJ violation. And that’s what I want people to be cautious of. Leave/stay in- the military on your terms, not theirs….

        We’ve had enough bad examples on FarceBark lately.

    2. avatar IkeVT says:

      Really? You can’t keep any guns on base. You have to let SF know about your guns and keep them in the armory. You can’t carry, that’s for fucking certain.

      The military is not pro-gun.

  11. avatar William Burke says:

    OATHKEEPER: May the wind always be at your back, and may you spread knowledge and wisdom to all who come in contact with you!

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