Pascal: We Can Do Better Than This

TTAG reader Pascal writes:

The Connecticut legislature has passed House Bill 1160, AN ACT CONCERNING GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND CHILDREN’S SAFETY. The Senate passed the measure by a margin of 26 – 10. The House passed the measure by a margin of 105 – 44 with two abstentions. The number of Republicans who voted for the CT bill just makes me sick.  Paul Doyle has (had) an NRA rating of 92 and he voted for this . . .

On many a TTAG post, Democrats come in for lots of vitriol. But it’s important to understand that Republicans are just as willing to throw gun owners under the bus.

Republicans Larry Cafero and John McKinney are running for Governor next year. They both voted “yes” because they figure they need to draw the “progressive” vote. To me, they have no principles at all. Governor Malloy has low ratings in the state and will be a soft target, but at least he has stuck by his principles, even though many don’t agree with him.

Pretty much all conservative principles have been thrown out along with liberty and the Constitution despite rhetoric to the contrary by Republicans. So, lets be clear, Republicans are not automatically our friends. No one is necessarily our friend. All politicians are willing to change as the political winds do. Gun owners are simply pawns; liberty and the Constitution mean very little in the “Game of Thrones” our politicians play.

Connecticut should be a lesson: your gun rights, all your rights mean nothing to the people in power if you won’t fight to protect them. Connecticut is home to some 270,000 registered pistol permit holders. There are an estimated 1 million gun owners (mostly long guns). Yet only about 5,000 showed up for the final tally. Imagine what the results might have been if 300k gun owners had shown up in Hartford?

We can do better than this.


  1. avatar Ralph says:

    Northeastern Republicans are not always our friends. In fact, they’re almost always RINOs. Democrats are almost always our enemies, and it is the only party with gun control as part of its party platform.

    When one party campaigns on its lust to take away our rights and the other does not, which one are you signing up to support?

    1. avatar Crazed Java says:

      No disagreement, but gun owners need to be more active about participating in primaries to hold accountable those Republicans who don’t stand with us.

        1. avatar Anonymous says:

          That’s right. If you want to keep your rights. You have to fight for them. If you stand by idly, they will take everything from you, and it will of course be packaged with some ridiculous label like “SAFE act” or “patriot act” and it will be for safety’s sake, or equality or whatever description of propaganda.

        2. avatar Azman says:

          NE republicans? Look no further than effing John McCain from my state for a RINO.

      1. avatar Scoolbubba says:

        Vote from the rooftops?

    2. avatar William Burke says:


    3. avatar Dave says:

      A lot depends on the gun ownership rates in a State –

      Once the rate falls to about 20 percent or less, new gun laws get a lot easier to pass. Conversely, one can look at the ownership rates in Minnesota and see why even the POTUS visit there didn’t help much with passing new laws.

    4. avatar Billy Wardlaw says:

      The Libertarian one.

    5. avatar Pat says:

      Purge. Republicans that vote treasonous libtard on our liberty (guns) must be boiled in acid.

  2. avatar JPD says:

    100+. I have been a broken record on the subject of Democrats and Republicans. They are all sleazebags. All the talk of how Democrats are evil and Republicans have our back. Bunch of bull.

    Anyone who still believes that their is any difference in the parties is naive. Time to pay attention, get the facts, and ALWAYS remember that we must stay ever vigilant and call them on their lies. Work hard, and never forget.

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      That is correct. They tell the people what they want to hear and then take everything they can from them.

      1. avatar Jon says:

        I agree with you guys 100%. Doesn’t matter if they have a D or an R next to their name, they don’t give a [email protected] about the people who they are supposed to be serving! I just wish there was a way for us like minded folks to have our voices heard in a way that drives the point home. 5000 out of 270,000 is a pathetic turnout. If something like this was happening in Ohio, I would rent a bus and drive as many people to Columbus as possible. I have as much faith in my representatives in Columbus and Washington as I do that the Browns, Cavs and Indians will all win Championships in the same year.

    2. avatar TimVa says:

      Remain vigilant indeed we should. Every one of us should be very afraid their rights will be lost. We all need to take a stand for our rights and keep pushing back. Gun control freaks are dangerous. The more I read and think about the murderers, thieves, and sicko sexual deviants the more I’m questioning gun control advocates real motives for wanting gun control. If I were a criminal I know I wouldn’t want my victims or their relatives to have guns. A lot of them are our politicians. Take a look at the recent rash of mayors committing crimes. These are the ones that are standing by Bloomberg. What an embarrassment.

    3. avatar TimVa says:

      Remain vigilant indeed we should. Every one of us should be very afraid their rights will be lost. We all need to take a stand for our rights and keep pushing back. Gun control freaks are dangerous. The more I read and think about the murderers, thieves, and sicko sexual deviants the more I’m questioning gun control advocates real motives for wanting gun control. If I were a criminal I know I wouldn’t want my victims or their relatives to have guns. A lot of them are our politicians. Take a look at the recent rash of mayors committing crimes. These are the ones that are standing by Bloomberg. What an embarrassment.

    4. avatar Pat says:

      The Republicans (who voted treason) should be destroyed. But make no mistake, this is still a libtard democrat situation. It is the democrats masterbation fantasy (gun grabbing), with a few of the treasonous Republicans going along with it for the corrupting desire for power…..that BOTH parties share.

  3. avatar Evan says:

    People are still stuck in the two party paradigm in the fight for liberty. Both parties generally have no problem throwing you under a bus it really just comes down to whether you prefer the guy to be dressed in blue or red.

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      Haha, right. Which bus do you want to be run over? The red one or the blue one?

  4. avatar BLAMMO says:

    Half the Republicans in NY punked out and voted in favor of the SAFE act. Then, they back-peddled and made excuses about how they didn’t have time to read it, … blah blah … , there are some good things in the bill , … blah blah …

    Funny, I was able to read the abomination of a bill, almost in its entirety on line, before watching the vote live on a community access channel.

    1. avatar Brian says:

      I hate that excuse. Even if it’s true…vote NO!! A big part of the problem is that most mouth breathing knuckle dragging voters can’t ‘understand’ that. So they just go with the polls that are out. Pussies, I think people call them.

  5. avatar JSIII says:

    A large number of those long gun owners are wealthy FUDD’s, the same ones who probably want to take away our gun rights all while keeping their trap and skeet guns. The problem is outside of OFWG’s we are not doing a very good job engaging younger people and teaching them WHY the 2A is very important, why the ability to defend yourself is important. The NRA needs to work on campaigns of basically deprogramming all of the progressive lies that have been drilled into their heads since Pre-School.

    This is why I will be home schooling my kids.

  6. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

    Politicians for the most part are flags, flying on the winds of opinion. That may not apply to all, as there are some that will not waver from their personal convictions, however it does apply to most. People who sit back and expect a particular legislator to not bend under political pressure are deluding themselves. People need to ACT on their political beliefs and badger their representatives in government if they expect action aligned with their wishes. Sitting at home and just hoping that the current status quo remains is a fool’s folly. Do not believe that a pol will simply stick to his previous position, the winds are blowing strongly across our nation.

  7. avatar Sertorius says:

    I sympathize, but I also think we need to keep things in perspective.

    Although individual republicans may be against us, as a political party, they are AT WORST neutral. There is no pressure from nationally prominent republicans to “toe the line” and vote for disarmament.

    The democrats are the mirror image. Yes, individual democrats may be on our side. But, as a political party, they are AT BEST neutral, and often rabidly pro-disarmament.

    The fact the some individual politicians break the mold should not distract us from the general truth that one party vacillates from leaving us alone to doing things we want; while the other party vacillates from doing nothing to all out war against us.

    1. avatar Anon in CT says:

      It’s true. Weakling Repub will go along with the Dems if they fear there is a wave effect, but they are not the ones drafting and tabling these bills. They often won’t fight for us, but they won’t fight against us of their own accord.

      That said, it is time to make a few of the most spineless Repubs pay in the primary process, pour encourager les autres.

      Wait until the registration process starts, and becomes and ungodly expensive clusterfark. I assume that everyone who plans to comply will be mailing in all their forms on December 31?

    2. avatar Nor'Easter says:

      Exactly right Sertorius, nothing is more corrosive to our cause then this constant bickering about the parties. Of course you support and vote for the better gun guy but at least 9 out of ten times it’ll be an R.
      Just because they don’t always break right is no reason to go to pieces and vote Libertarian, 3rd Party or whatever. Nothing can serve the grabbers better – all they want is us out of the game.
      As long as we’re wasting time crabbing about FUDDs, OFWGs, the NRA or whatever the disappointment of the day is, we will wind up shooting bows and (rubber-tipped) arrows.

    3. avatar Mikeinid says:

      Well said. Nowhere in the shameful behavior of republicans do I find an excuse to vote for any democrat. Don’t forget that the democratic machine at the national level does not tolerate dissent. If a democratic rep was inclined to vote against the party line, they would be very effectively punished.

      1. avatar PeterZ in West Tennessee says:

        The time and place to punish wayward Republicans is in the primary. This is especially true in solidly red districts.

    4. avatar Pat says:

      Yup. Boil the turncoat powerhungry weakling Republicans in Acid, but realize that this is a libtard democrat masterbation fantasy.

    5. avatar Jake says:

      That is like saying France was being neutral when the collaborators capitulated to the Nazi invaders. Being neutral is being neutral, giving ground every time someone even looks at you sideways is not. National level Repug politicians are no more our friends than Dems. They care about their own personal bottom lines and nothing more.

      1. avatar Pat says:

        Yet, we simply would not be having this problem(effing gun grabbing schemes) if Mitt (NOT my first choice) were elected. This is a libtard (democrat) situation, period.
        Just look at the numbers and stop being so contrarian.
        I have stated my irritation of turncoats (boiling in acid…come on, give me some credit) but you must bow to the overwhelming numbers involved.

        1. avatar Jake says:

          Excuse me but people who would support freedom undermining Republicans because they say they would do something they never do is not contrarian, it’s simply logical. Mitt would be doing the same thing because he is a politician and that is where events would have pushed him. He already did as governor of MA. The “overwhelming numbers involved” show me that both Democrats and Republicans, the moment they make office, generally become the enemy of the people they are meant to serve. The CA gun laws were pioneered by Reagan because he was scared of them dark folk, then he signed FOPA when he became president, which basically does the opposite of what its title says. This is a libtard POLITICIAN problem, and frankly modern republicans are mostly as libtarded as modern democrats. These are things they DO.

          But by all means keep shooting our goals in the foot by supporting hypocrites and putting down people who are genuinely for freedom.

  8. avatar DJ says:

    The Republican Party and the Democratic Party both want to limit freedom. They just disagree on which freedoms to limit.

    1. avatar Sertorius says:

      I actually agree with you on this. But this is not a general politics blog, it’s a gun blog, and on that issue, it is VERY clear which party is better. On guns, Rs and Ds are not interchangeable.

      1. avatar Hal J. says:

        Agreed. While I disagree with most Republicans on some social issues, there’s no question that the R’s are far better than the D’s on the whole when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

        There doesn’t mean there aren’t wobbly R’s when it comes to the RKBA, just as there are a (very) few D’s who vote the right way.

      2. avatar Totenglocke says:

        True, but they both still pale in comparison to the Libertarian party. With a Libertarian majority in both houses, you could kiss the Hughes Amendment, GCA of ’68, and the NFA goodbye almost instantly.

        1. avatar Roscoe says:

          Great – so let’s split the conservative vote some more. Vote Libertarian and make the Dems jobs even easier.

        2. avatar Anaon in CT says:

          Free unicorns for everyone!

          Or they could do like Rand Paul and infiltrate the GOP and try to drag it in a more libertarian direction.

        3. avatar Pat says:

          Very true, Anaon. Change the system from within, the only way in a two party design.

    2. avatar JSIII says:

      +1: I don’t care how many rounds someones magazine contains and I don’t care who someone is seeing in the bedroom either. The republican party has been Hijacked for too long by religious extremists. Leave me rights alone and I will leave yours alone…I just wish the Government would but out of everyones lives.

      As a whole yes Republicans are better for gun rights but there are exceptions to the rule. I wish the political system was not so entrenched in this country and a third party could have an actual chance at power.

      1. avatar LSUTigersFan says:

        Agree with the hijack comment. That part of the party is too exclusive. Unfortunately, the Republican Party is becoming nothing more than the anti-Democratic Party party. Politicians will sell out the party’s core ideals and will then say they did it to prevent a Democrat from taking their seat, office, etc.

        I am afraid that is the lazy, spineless justification of many of the pro-gun control Republicans.

    3. avatar Hal J. says:

      Fair enough, but the R’s want to confiscate somewhat less of my property than the D’s do, and the R’s usually vote the right way on guns.

      That’s enough to win my vote, since there isn’t the slightest chance of the Libertarians winning.

      1. avatar Billy Wardlaw says:

        Yeah, its funny how people don’t win when not enough people vote for them – I suppose someone should look into that problem and fix it.

        1. avatar Totenglocke says:

          I know. If every idiot who said “I support their views, but they won’t win” would vote Libertarian, they’d win by a landslide.

        2. avatar MothaLova says:

          I’m not a libertarian, but you have a point here. I worked for the McCain campaign when McCain was dead last in the primaries (December 2007) and every time I called Republicans for money, they said, “I like McCain, but he can’t win.” Three months later, he was the presumptive nominee.

          On the other hand, as a strategic matter, the libertarian party would do better if its leaders chose the five most popular positions and focused on those, instead of talking about every single issue as if it were more critical than any other. This is basically what Rand Paul is doing, and his star is rising.

      2. avatar Brock says:

        Not yet Hal, give it time. I read a comment today on an article comment section ‘there are no ex Ron Paul supporters’. Though I’m sure, not entirely true, it struck me that once you understand the value of individual liberty and feel you excercize some of that freedom, how can you really ever give the idea up? Many R and D folks currently focus on individual issues that separate them. I feel people that are libertarian (as it is currently defined) have moved past that. if it affects somenes individual freedom, it is wrong. I don’t see how I could move back to worrying about which party supports my view on something like school vouchers when my actual liberty is on the line.

        I don’t predict that the third party will rise, but I see the Republican Party moving in that direction in the long run. I can hope anyway.

        1. avatar Brock says:


        2. avatar Totenglocke says:

          I don’t predict that the third party will rise, but I see the Republican Party moving in that direction in the long run. I can hope anyway.

          Santorum and Huckabee (I think) were ranting the other day about how Libertarians / Ron Paul supporters are morons and that the Republican party will never give up fellating Jesus and trying to legislate the Bible. Basically, they’re saying that the Republican party is too stupid to drop views that are no longer popular with the majority of the country and will die out. I see that type of foolishness causing more people who would otherwise vote Republican to vote Libertarian and I see more and more Democrats who don’t agree with the “rule with an iron fist” strategy turning Libertarian too.

          The problem is that we have so many who, while they agree with the Libertarian party, believe the bullshit that only someone with an R or D after their name can win an election.

        3. avatar Brock says:

          Tg, I think we are pretty close on this really. I don’t expect the Republican Party to change overnight, but as both parties have evolved over time, so too can the GOP towards liberatarian ideals. As people like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz (neither is perfect) and the like get voted in, more and more, of those type or republicans will run and win. There is a long game to play here, and I think our best chances, currently, are with the states and republican nominations. These new, old, ideas of a small constitutional republic are gainingn traction with the youth who have made something of themselves.

          As our Keynesian economies fail, these ideas will gain even more traction. I know what we are doing is unsustainable, as I’m sure you do. The reset will be very tough, but I think we will come out the other side better for it.

        4. avatar Totenglocke says:


          Except as we saw with Ron Paul in 2012 and with Rand Paul now, the rest of the Republican party is actively against them and will do everything they can to keep them from having a shot at the White House. The Republican party actively told millions of Ron Paul supporters “We don’t want you in the Republican party” and drove them to the Libertarian party. I see people like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz moving to the Libertarian party being more likely. Think about it – if they’re already in office and then say “Hey, screw the Republicans – I’m changing to Libertarian” then their constituents can see a few years of them holding the same positions that they already do and make them more likely to vote for other Libertarians.

        5. avatar Brock says:

          TG, while you haven’t changed my voting strategy, I can appreciate your ideas. I actually hope you’re right, but I don’t see the liberatarian party being viable, on its own, within the next decade. In my district, I would be willing to vote for an L knowing that the D has no real chance regardless. In a presidential race, I don’t think we are ready. The best bet right now is to register as an R and fight for the more liberty minded nominee.

        6. avatar Totenglocke says:

          To each their own Brock. By the way, are you an NRA instructor? I took a CCW class from a guy named Brock – it would be amusing if you’re the same guy.

  9. avatar Silver says:

    Since there’s no chance of a libertarian ever holding office, the next least-worse thing is Republican. Spout how horrible all politicians are all you want, but Democrats are BY FAR the worst when it comes to guns.

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      Libertarians already hold offices at the State level and, despite the best efforts of people like you, eventually they will start holding offices in the House and Senate – and one day the White House.

      1. avatar Roscoe says:

        Unlikely without a whole lot of crossover votes from Democrats which won’t happen because Libertarians embrace conservative views.

        1. avatar Totenglocke says:

          Libertarians do not “embrace Conservative views” – they embrace liberty. That’s the point that people like you keep ignoring. There are plenty of people that want a smaller government but vote for Democrats because they hate how much Republicans want to legislate who you can date, what movies you can see, what toys children can play with, etc.

  10. avatar Alex Peters says:

    I have to give credit to CT State Sen. Cathy Osten (D) who voted against it. She was interviewed and said that her constituents didn’t want it. Imagine a CT Dem going against the party in favor of her constituents *gasp*

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      Hah! Wait ’til Bloomberg finds out; she’ll be toast at the next election for her seat.

    2. avatar Anaon in CT says:

      Nah. The Dems knew that they had they had huge margins, so they let a couple of rural Dems cast a useless no vote to ensure their re-election. Pure theater.

  11. avatar Trappedbehindthelines says:

    Can someone with some legal expertise tell me how NY, CA and now CT now total AR-15 bans are constitutional vis a vis Heller? Didn’t that prohibit banning classes of firearms that were in common use? How are they planning get around this or (more probably) figure this will last at least a few years hile it works through courts?

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      They’re not. The problem is getting the money to get lawsuits through. Sadly, our government is rigged in favor of unconstitutional laws since there is no check before the laws are put in place. You have to wait to have your rights violated, then muster up the millions of dollars to slowly work your way through the court system and then HOPE that the Supreme Court rules in your favor.

      1. avatar Roscoe says:

        And by then depending on the current Justice’s health and longevity, the make up of the Supremes could be stacked against US considering who might appoint the next Justice(s).

  12. avatar Leo338 says:

    The problem is the average gun owner doesn’t care about these issues. I know several gun owners (In person, not on the Internet) and I am the only one that really cares about these issues. Most of them aren’t even aware and if they are they don’t care enough to do anything about it. They don’t think about or really care for the constitution. In fact the only time they think about their firearms is that one week out of the year when they go hunting. Until that is threatened they will sit quietly on the sidelines.

    1. avatar Brock says:

      Leo, I agree, and that’s why the OFWG’s care about our rights stereotype bothers me. It’s the guys, and girls, my age (early 30s) that seem to get it, in my small sample. Seems to me the old guys are the ones I hear saying things like ‘hunting sportsman don’t need semi-automatic rifles’. The hope of the future of the 2a movement is not in the boomers, it is in Gen X.

      1. avatar PeterZ in West Tennessee says:

        Brock, not all OFWG’s are like that. I’m almost 60, and while not F, am a WG, and I am very concerned. I think NFA 34 and GCA68 are both unconstitutional and need to be ooverturned.

  13. avatar Leo338 says:

    The problem is the average gun owner doesn’t care about these issues. I know several gun owners (In person, not on the Internet) and I am the only one that really cares. Most of them aren’t even aware of what we are facing and if they are they don’t care enough to do anything about it. The only time they think about their firearms is that one week out of the year when they go hunting. Until that is threatened they will sit quietly on the sidelines.

  14. avatar Carry.45 says:

    I’m not a 100% on this but didn’t Romney play a huge roll in Mass’ gun laws?

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      Yup, Romney was just as anti-gun as Obama, if not more so.

  15. avatar Anmut says:

    Ok CT residents – let me ask you:

    1) how many phone calls did you make?

    2) how many emails did you write?

    3) how many letters did you send?

    If you answer “a lot” – please step forward and be ready for the next escalation.

    Most of the residents out there will answer “not many or none at all.” This is what happens when you vote for rino republicans and liberals who constantly stand mute on 2nd Amendment issues until the knee jerks.

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      This. I’m in Ohio so no worries about any state level anti-gun laws, but I mentioned to my dad that they’re going to start debating anti-gun bills in the Senate next week so he should call / email and he goes “Well, I sent in the Ruger thing like two months ago”.

  16. avatar Azimuth says:

    When push comes to shove, most people will act in their own best interest. This is the way life is/has always been/will continue to be, for the foreseeable future.
    That said, it is beyond disappointing how many are willing to sacrifice the founding principles they claimed to believe in, and swore an oath to protect and defend, all for continuance of their hold on power. If we don’t possess the will to remove people who have forsaken bedrock principles for fleeting power, then we will get exactly the government we deserve. Let’s start with the republican nominating committee. Who are the people responsible. Remove them. Next, nominate a vertebrate.

  17. avatar KB says:

    This is a 2A site, so I’m happy to leave religion out of it, but what I don’t understand are the absurd comments such as totenglocke makes about Christians. For example,

    Totenglocke says:
    April 4, 2013 at 22:03

    [ snip]…Santorum and Huckabee (I think) were ranting the other day about how Libertarians / Ron Paul supporters are morons and that the Republican party will never give up fellating Jesus and trying to legislate the Bible… [ snip]

    What does this even mean and why write it? I know hundreds of Christians, none of whom has any interest in your bedroom antics or in thumping you with the Bible. It is easy and useful to criticize Repubs without making gratuitous comments like this.

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      It means that the Republican party has their head so far up Jesus’ ass that they refuse to see that the majority of the country doesn’t support the anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-anything that’s not in the Bible agenda. I never said that Christians as a group want to do that, I said that Republican Christians do.

      As long as the Republican party clings to a 2,000 year old work of fiction, they will continue to lose support. They’ve had people with real principles and real support (such as Ron Paul) run for President and the Republican party attacked them like a pack of rabid dogs because they were about actually following the idea of liberty and limited government. Some Republicans (Rand Paul for example) have seen the light and realize that if they don’t adopt Libertarian policies that appeal to both Republicans that actually want limited government, Libertarians, and Democrats that only vote Democrat because of the social liberty, the Republican party will die out. The problem is that the core of the Republican party would rather die a painful death than quit pushing the Bible as the supreme law of the land.

      I’m sorry that you’re offended that your religious views are the cause of the Republican party’s downfall, but it’s just a fact. The more they push religion, the more the rest of the country pulls away from them. The problem isn’t that you’re Christian, it’s that Republicans want to force everyone else in the country to follow Christian views.

      1. avatar Anaon in CT says:

        Uh huh. I’m not a Christian, and I’m not even particularly religious, but Mitt Romney lost because a whole lot of working class, religious Republicans stayed home last November. They didn’t vote for Obama but they didn’t like Romney and many were (unfairly IMHO) turned off by his religion. Sorry, but there are not tens of millions of closeted libertarians ready to step up and replace the Evangelical vote that you want the GOP to abandon. The trick is to build a coalition, not piss more people off. Of course, it’s getting harder as the Dems, like Labour in England, are simply importing a replacement electorate more to their liking.

        1. avatar Totenglocke says:

          Hey, keep telling yourself whatever bullshit you need to believe that the One True Party just had a bad year and isn’t completely out of touch with reality.

        2. avatar Anaon in CT says:

          I’m more that happy to admit that the GOP has problems, but your libertoid fantasy snake-oil ain’t the solution.

  18. Pascal:

    Governor Malloy has low ratings in the state and will be a soft target, but at least he has stuck by his principles…

    I agree with much of what you wrote above, but Malloy is no more principled than Frantz, Cafero, McKinney or any other R who shivved us. Four days before the slaughter at Sandy Hook, Malloy’s business development office tendered a super low interest loan offer to Freedom Group to move their corp HQ to Stamford. Four days after S.H., they yanked that offer and Malloy once again discovered his “principles.”

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