Home Gun Nation Stand Strong Connecticut Gun Nation Stand Strong Connecticut By Dan Zimmerman - March 6, 2014 45 Facebook Twitter Pinterest WhatsApp Email ◀Previous Post Next Post▶ 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. ◀Previous Post Next Post▶ RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR November Background Check Total Makes 2021 The Second Highest Gun Sales Year on Record In Rittenhouse Reaction, Reese Witherspoon Self-Owns, Shows Hollywood’s Hoplophobic Hypocrisy Over 687,000 Background Checks Processed During Black Friday Week – What Did You Buy? 45 COMMENTS too bad it’s not true. I am sure some gun owners don’t support the Connecticut non-compliers. Reply Except that not ALL gunowners support them. Some gunowners regard CT’s decades of irresponsible liberal voting as the slow motion source of these current troubles. This fight was better to have been vigorously waged at the balllot box years ago, as opposed to relying on the courts today, and certainly not on the front doorsteps of the noncompliant at zero dark thirty. At this point, CT serves less as a source of pride for civil disobedience, and more as a cautionary tale against civil disengagement. Reply Sigh. Because you have a tyranny of the majority doesn’t mean the victims of the tyranny haven’t been fighting for their rights. Remember, our rights aren’t supposed to subject to the whims of the majority. Judging by the number of gun owners that comment here about deciding to not have kids even solid red states may go blue in the near future. Doesn’t change the fact that our rights are protected regardless of the whim of the majority. Reply Editors: Can we somehow make this response an auto-reply to anyone who uses the “you got what you voted for” argument? Reply Hmmm, since that would-be auto reply has now been thoroughly discredited, may i suggest a shift to an auto reply emoticon? Something with a child covering both ears and repeating “I can’t hear you! I can’t hear you!” should capture the quality and sentiment quite nicely. GO VOTE, PEOPLE!!!!!!! EVERY TIME, EVERY RACE! TODAY’S GUNGRABBER ON THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, OR FINANCE, OR THE LOCAL MAYOR, IS TOMORROW’S GUNGRABBING GOVERNOR! DON’T SIT IT OUT UNTIL THE BIG RACES OR BIG COURT CASES! Jwm, if you could just stop speaking the truth for a second that would be great. It is wicked inconvenient. Reply Hey, hey, hey, we don’t need any of that around here… Debbie Downer. Reply As CT Resident, I thank you — I also added some coins to the till for Calguns recently. We have to fight on all fronts Reply You can sigh sigh sigh all day day day, and you’ll be as wrong then as you are now. Auto replies? Truth? Wrong. Try self-serving assumptions in your own little echo chamber. Here are the facts: 2010 general election, Malloy received 567,278 votes. The Republican Foley received 560,874 votes. So the gun grabber won by a mere 6,404 votes out of a total 1,145,781 votes cast for all candidates. Close race? You gave it your best, but came up ooohh soooo short? Wrong again. In 2012 general election, Obama received 905,781 votes to Romney’s 634,892 votes. I know, not every flesh and blood voter in 2010 was present in 2012. People die, move out, whatever, but it works the opposite way, too. People move in, come of age, whatever. So let’s say that’s a wash. So that means there were an additional 74,018 GOP votes cast at the top of the ticket in 2012 than in 2010, when the margin of Democrat victory was but 6,404! So, no, CT didn’t get the government they voted for, exactly. CT got the government that CT couldn’t bebothered to vote for or against. Oh, and if you say Foley was just as bad as Malloy, so this would’ve happened anyway, well, perhaps. Just know that voter turnout in the 2010 GOP primary was just 16%. So, you got the candidate you voted (read: didn’t show up to vote at all) for, too. So save your whining and crying. Lazy CT built a house of straw and the big bad wolf blew it down. That’s on you. Sorry, CT’ers, but you forfeited your freedom. You’re serfs now. Reply “A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.” – Lysander Spooner I’m really baffled by your comments here. Let’s say you’ve got a state that’s 60% anti-gun and 40% pro-gun. It’s reasonably likely that more anti-gun candidates are going to get elected. It’s also possible that once they’re in office, they gerrymander the election districts so they can stay in power. That’s how politics works. That does NOT mean that the pro-gun folks are not trying or are not pouring time and money into efforts to stop the infringements of their rights. It means that they’re politically outnumbered. That’s what happens when you have folks who think we’re in a “democracy” and rights can simply be voted away if the gang that agrees with them is bigger than the other gang. A majority of voters do not determine what is right and what is wrong. They may influence and/or determine what is legally prohibited and what is not, but they do not change right and wrong. People everywhere have the natural right to own and carry firearms, despite the numerous infringements placed upon them by their governments. It sounds like you think that the gun owners in Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, etc. should give up and surrender simply because they’re outnumbered, and that gun owners in other states should simply abandon them. To me, that is an absolutely absurd position to take. Sounds like a false option, to me, and a cop-out . Get involved in the process at the grass roots level, help encourage good and qualified individuals to run, perhaps yourself, and you won’t have to recast the choice as the lesser of two evils. All blah blah blah, Chip. Your people didn’t show up to vote and the voting data proves it. Now they’re sorry, so sorry. Everything else is just whining since you cannot refute that one and only material point. Oh, Governor and AG races aren’t determined by gerrymandering, as you can’t gerrymander state lines. That aside, the fact is that CT has had 7 GOP governors and 7 non-GOP governors in the post WWII period. That includes the FIFTEEN years prior to gungrabber Malloy. Were they gerrymandering the legislature on his behalf? lol Now, you all can whine about the “majority”, but you sound ridiculous and detached from reality when you willfully ignore that their “majority” only exists because GOP voters in CT sit on their asses instead of voting. The numbers don’t lie. And when they do vote, they don’t make RKBA a priority. So what EXACTLY do you want from me in support of CT, when they won’t support themselves? Even GOP governors bear the blame for not expanding firearms freedoms when they had the chance. Epic fail all around. Well put. Love this. The rights are supposed to be protected in spite of dumbfuggery from the majority. Reply Their majority only exists because GOP voters there sit out the off year elections. The libs win when you forfeit. That’s worse than going out and getting beat. Are you loving that, or ignoring the voting records facts? Jonathan, I’d like to drop this here just for you: JR? Why don’t you shove that up your […….] [Here come the censors……] From this video, you’re calling ME the coward and collaborator for not stepping to CT’s aid? Oh that’s rich! I’m the one out there involved for years on end teaching firearms safety and proficiency, teaching concealed carry, contributing and raising funds for political, legal and educational firearms freedom efforts, spreading the word wherever I can without becoming a bore that firearms freedom is the fulcrum upon which all other rights are pried where denied from the ghastly grip of statists everywhere. And you’re suggesting I’m the bad guy, the complacent, complicit guy??? Why? Because I won’t profess with a selfie some empty solidarity with nameless, faceless CT folk who’ve frittered away their freedoms for years and now want a bailout? Because I’d rather direct my efforts toward proactively defending our rights in Texas today before they’re taken away, not sitting around waiting to be rescued by others tomorrow after the fact? Well. FFFFFFFFFFFFFF UUUUUUUUUUUU and the self righteous high horse you rode in on! I’ve noticed that particular picture – dude in red shirt with sign – is obviously photoshopped. Just sayin’. Reply If you notice the sign is really bright, I suspect it was done that way because the hand writing didn’t show up in the picture. Instead of taking more pictures and re-writing the sign, it’s easier to enter the text on the sign with editing software. Does it have to be handwritten to have more effect? Reply Hope that pistol don’t go off. Chris might become Christina. Reply Pro tip: don’t crudely photoshop the text onto your piece of paper after taking the picture. That’s what printers are for. Reply What difference does it make? Who in hell cares if it’s printed on a printer or digitally altered after? Reply These pictures are gay. Reply Projecting, Kevin, projecting. Reply Yes, yes, taking pictures with your firearms and voicing support for neighbors is the true measure of homosexually, good call, Kevin. Reply No, he’s actually right. They’re selfies. Reply I know. Thanks Reply This wasn’t taken in a dim bathroom with an iPhone… Someone else likely took this picture. So, by y’all’s logic, if either of you have a FB account with even one pic of you by yourself posing, no matter who took it…Congrats, that’s a selfie, you’re officially gay. From a woman’s prospective like the photo. Ever think that pistol was undoaded and safety checked before putting in his pants that way? It’s a photo of a nice looking guy and nice looking pistol & rifle supporting other gun owners. My favorite color to wear is red, but a true blue voter. I’m just a gal having morning coffee, waiting for husband to leave for golf outing, so I can go pick up my new Ruger .revolver at local gun store. He never knows when a new gun shows up, I don’t know when he gets a new gun, too much sharing in a marriage is over rated. And too much ragging on other responsiable gun owners is not cool, I’m old enough to be a lot of yall’s mom, so just consider this a gentle chiding to mind your manners. Reply Being a woman doesn’t excuse you from not knowing how guns work. They don’t just go off when loaded. Reply Yeah, she obviously doesn’t know how guns work. She wasn’t joking at all. Reply Great comment, TX Gal. Thanks. Reply haha I am of the “Full Disclosure” marriage camp, but I do definitely understand about keeping some mystery. Reply God, have you ever heard so many guys bitching? Carrying a pistol in that fashion is called appendix carry. Yes it doesn’t lend itself well to careless weapon handling, but it is a very fast way to draw and has less printing. Also, when seated in a car with a seat belt on, you can get your firearm out easily also. Active people like it as you’re not snagging the gun all the time. Every position of carry has it’s benefits and draw backs. To keep from shootings ones sensitive parts off, make very sure the firearm is decocked (no-pun intended) and the trigger finger is indexed. Not having the firearm decocked and finger on the trigger while holstering would NOT be prudent and the person WOULD shoot themselves. Reply http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/08/zack-pike/confessions-of-an-appendix-carry-convert/ Reply I don’t know if this info is true or not, but if it is true, CT state police are going to have a real problem in their confiscations … “Connecticut halts plans to round up firearms after finding most cops in the state are on the list”. http://www.callthecops.net/connecticut-halts-plans-round-firearms-finding-cops-state-list/ The article claims that 68% of police in the state are on the list of those possessing the bad guns – and have not registered them. If this is true, we are looking at a major Schadenfreude moment. Reply I don’t know whether or not that’s true …. but I’d have to assume (and I fully admit I haven’t read the law) that police officers are exempt from the law. Isn’t that how it normally works in our “some are more equal than others” country? Reply Not a real story. FYI… About Us Call the Cops This site is a satire of the current state of Law Enforcement, Fire Fighting and Emergency Medical work. Stories posted here are not real and you should not assume them to have any basis in any real fact. Heck we tend to leave in spelling and grammer errors just to prove we is not the professional media. No reference of an individual, company, or government entity seeks to inflict malice or emotional harm. Any statement made by authors on this page should not be considered the opinions of agencies they are employed by. Reply Maybe if you’d done thirty seconds of looking around that site before posting it here you could have figured out it’s like The Onion. But I guess it’s more important to spread BS than bother checking it out, right? Reply That’s a tad harsh, especially since such things aren’t without precedent. Texas banned carry if you have a domestic charge on you. Turned out, lots of cops did. So the legislature went back and added a LEO exception. “To protect and serve (everyone but the wife you’re beating)” is a bit long for the cruisers, though, I must admit. Reply They ARE selfies, but I still like the show of support. Provides individual faces to the issue to replace the snarling stereotypes that exist in the minds of the other side. Back in the late 90s, when the web was fairly new, I took all kinds of selfies. But of course, those would not appropriate in this context. I fear I’ve said too much, Reply I feel that we should stand behind our neighbors in Conneticut , and if worse comes to worse do what we have to , to keep the enemy at bey from the rest of us , it is up to us now the people we put in political office will sell us out at any time that would benefit them . There are those out there that still do not understand how serious this is , they haven’t grasped that we are starting to get to a place where you just can’t belittle or make fun of people who are feeling the pressure from their duly voted in government , that now feels that they can bite the hand that feeds them . In the near future there could be true raids on civilians , and deaths due to politicians being tyrannical and usurping the power instilled on them by the people , whom the politicians have become arrogant against and do not listen to any more , these same people who are actually their bosses , this is the same usurpation that has sent other nations into turmoil , because they also refused to listen to their citizens . I just hope that this does not turn into a shooting war , but if the authorities have their way I am afraid that that is what might happen . Be prepared and ready. Keep your powder dry. Reply This looks shopped. I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time. Reply What happened to the pictures of people smiling? I always really happy when holding a firearm. Bad shop is bad. Reply The CT gun owners who are “at risk” are who we stand with. Regardless of how they voted. Reply LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply Please enter your comment! Please enter your name here You have entered an incorrect email address! Please enter your email address here Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email.