Previous Post
Next Post

“Ron Pinciaro, executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence [CAGV], said the 4,500 members of his group are not ‘gun grabbers,’ as opponents of their work might characterize them, but rather advocates for keeping guns out of the hands of illegal owners and for safeguarding guns in the home.” Bullshit. In fact, the article at isn’t a tissue of lies. It’s a full-size box of untruthfulness Kleenex. Or something like that. Or something like this . . .

The problem in making headway toward that end is the politics of gun violence, resulting in an imbalance between those who support gun reform and those who don’t, namely the National Rifle Association, a powerful lobbying organization, Pinciaro told members of the League of Women Voters of Southeastern Connecticut at their annual meeting last week. (As a matter of disclosure, the writer is a board member of the local League.)

Wait. What? Author Rosanne Smyle‘s [above] affiliation with the League of Women Voters shouldn’t be a problem right? I mean, they’re a league. Of women voters. Surely they’re open-minded on the subject, right? As if. By the Treasure Hunt columnist’s own admission, the League is in league with the CAGV on gun control.

The League, which comprises 18 towns in the region, is a non-partisan organization open to all and is part of the U.S. League of Women Voters, which believes the proliferation of handguns and semi-automatic assault weapons is a major health and safety threat to its citizens. The national League supports strong federal measures to limit the accessibility and regulate the ownership of these weapons by private citizens and supports regulating firearms for consumer safety.

Sounds like a recipe for deep-frying the Second Amendment to me. You might even say (based on their rhetoric and record) that the CAGV and the League are all in favor of “grabbing” guns before they get to owners; which still counts as grabbing in my book.

Anyway, what follows is a simple regurgitation of the same old gun control myths and misdirections by Mr. Pinciaro, a camera-shy “community organizer” who learned a thing or two about sales and marketing whilst flogging lingerie.

I could say something clever here about selling underwear and Pinciaro’s current job advertising the Emperor’s new clothes. Suffice it to say, the CAGV haven’t had a new line in a decade.

For example, the CAGV and its camp followers (and I don’t mean members who watch the old Batman TV show) are still trotting-out that old “the Second Amendment was for militias not citizens” outfit—despite the Supreme Court’s definitive rulings on the subject establishing that 2A was made for you and me. To wit:

One of the main reasons for this [misguided] passion to own guns is the change in interpretation over the years of the Second Amendment, a simple amendment that has proven to be a complicated and difficult concept.
The amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The controversy rises in the interpretation of the amendment’s wording and whether it means continuing state militias for defense or giving individuals the right to own firearms.

Oh FFS. Can you change the subject please? Yes we can!

Pinciaro said he could not pinpoint when gun ownership became such a hot-button cultural issue, but he said despite all of that passion, gun ownership is going down. It peaked in 1977 when 54 percent of American households had a gun. In 2010, that percentage decreased to 32.3 percent, the lowest level recorded by the independent General Social Survey by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. In Connecticut, 16.2 percent of households have guns now.

“The gun culture ultimately is fading way,” he said. “There is hope—I’m not sure it will happen in my lifetime.”

The problem remains with the number of illegal guns available and the lack of previous, but now underfunded, tracking methods, that foster countless, senseless gun deaths.

OK, two things and then I’m done. First, the American “gun culture” is based on our God-given right to self-defense, not (as implied) a mindless love of firearms (mine is mindful). Second, if you’re against “illegal guns” you must be for the enforcement of existing firearms laws. A police and judicial crackdown on criminal firearms possession achieves the called-for reduction in firearms-related deaths.

So . . . if you take the gun grabbing away from the gun grabbers, they’re grabbing at straws. And lying through their teeth. Except when they’re not.

Why have pro-gun lobbying efforts been so successful? “The answer is follow the money,” Pinciaro said. “… The NRA is a trade organization and they control the Congress.”

The NRA operates with a $400 million annual budget, while CAGV and other like-minded groups, combined, work with $30 million, he said.

“That makes it very difficult. Plus they are very organized and they are very passionate,” Pinciaro said. “Our supporters are not motivated like they are.”

And thank God for that.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. To the CAGV and all their ilk. My heartfelt apologies to you and yours(LOTS OF SARCASM, AKA LOS) that I didn’t missunderstand the fact that your organization and many like it want to get rid of guns. Violance whether by the use of a hammer, bat, car, book, arrow, dart, (name any inanimate object and place here) has to be wheelded by a person with the intent to cause harm. I have never read, heard of, nor seen an inanimate object jump to life and cause violent harm to anyone. You start with “Gun violance………..” How about pin point the root cause of the violance. PSST it aint the GUN its the PERSON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The laws won’t stop an individual or any group of people who wish to do harm at any cost to others. 9-11, the countless IEDs, Oaklahoma city, the IRS, Alqueda, Hitler, Jim Jones, Manson……………..The list of bad people is very long not all used guns but all broke the laws that expressly forbaid the very actions of violance they commited. Narrow minded with an ever narrower view of the world.

  2. I’m an atheist, and you won’t find a more absolute and rabid constitutionalist than me. Natural rights are natural rights — all men have them at birth, and all men die with them. All these liberal cupcakes need to focus less on the “God-given” part and more on the “rights” part.

    • As written, the Constitution was an extremely paradoxical document. It guaranteed the natural rights of all men on one hand, and preserved and maintained the institution of slavery on the other. How can human beings possess any “natural” rights when they can be owned by other human beings?

      • No offense, but establishment of the republic was worth preserving the institution of slavery. That’s just something you’re either going to have to accept, or somehow connive your way out of the rightful, factually demonstrable belief that what we’ve given to the world (and what our constitutional republican confederacy has given us the opportunity to be) infinitely outweighs what we’ve/it’s done to the detriment of humanity (and Americans specifically).

        Besides that, slavery was an exceptionally divisive and sensitive issue decades before the Founding generation even contemplated the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution avoids referring to slavery directly, and several states abolished it before/around the period of independence.

        Additionally, I’m a constitutionalist primarily in that I expect moral and just society to abide by the principles of the Bill of Rights, with or without the document itself.

        • You are evading the problem. The Constitution 1) validated natural rights for all men while 2) preserving slavery as an institution. They aren’t natural rights if the state gets to decide some men have them and some don’t. Obviously.

          I only raise this point since you describe yourself as a “rabid and absolute constitutionalist.” Ok, so let’s look at the Constitution absolutely, without relativism. Judging by your willingness to make excuses for it, you might not be the absolutist you believe you are.

  3. Here is what the term “well regulated Militia” meant. At the time regulated = drilled. What did they mean by drilled? It didn’t mean organized by the state or being part of an organized unit. It meant that every citizen should know the 12 step manual of arms to load and fire a musket. Today those twelve steps have been reduced to just two: Lock and Load.

    Who is in the militia? At the time the Constitution was written every adult male between at least 18 and 45 were part of the militia. The militia still exists in this form and is the basis for conscription. In both World Wars there were two designations for soldiers: United State Army (regulars) and Army of the United States of America, i.e, members of the milita called to arms under the draft law. I am not 100% sure but I believe we maintained this distinction after the Second World War. It is not used today because we have an all volunteer force who are soldiers in the United States Army. The National Guard force is the successor to the volunteer regiments raised by the States in time of war. They are not the State Militia.

  4. “I am not 100% sure but I believe we maintained this distinction after the Second World War.”

    It lasted until the Vietnam era. Soldiers who were drafted received a serial number starting with “AUS.” Enlistees could also be AUS but if they opted into a longer term of service they would receive an “RA” designation. This was only of academic interest to the recruit if he was shot or stepped on a mine.

      • Not if they survived. Troops in WW2 and Korea could made rank fast in the AUS, and more rank meant more pay and could mean better benefits after demob or discharge. In the ‘Nam era it didn’t matter as much. There was no AUS in WW1. It was called the National Army.

  5. tdiinva says: “Here is what the term “well regulated Militia” meant. At the time regulated = drilled. What did they mean by drilled? It didn’t mean organized by the state or being part of an organized unit. It meant that every citizen should know the 12 step manual of arms to load and fire a musket.”

    Uh-oh. Is Sarah Palin giving history lessons again? First, it’s well-regulated, not well-trained or well-drilled. Regulated, as in by state or federal authority.

    Next, the 12-step manual of arms did not exist when the Bill of Rights was written. Winfield Scott, its devisor, wasn’t born yet. You could be thinking of von Steuben’s blue book. However, its manual of arms includes far more than 12 steps (27). But in any event, militiamen would not be expected to know or use the manual of arms, which generally was not employed in skirmishing.

    But finally, think about what you are saying: that Madison chose those words for the Second Amendment to reflect that every man should know the manual of arms? Really? Does that even make sense?

    • Magoo:

      Yes, I do take my history lessons from Sarah Palin instead of you, since as we all know Sarah was correct in her statement whereas you boobs didn’t know your history. Point taken on the era but the term regulated still means the same thing. Knowledge of the steps required to load and fire a musket.

  6. The Army of the United States existed from 1941 to 1974. Its World War I equivalent, as it were, was the National Army. Hence the military abbreviations AUS (later US) and RA. RA stands for Regular Army, and during the draft era was the unofficial designation for career soldiers. This is where the familiar expression “Regular Army” comes from. From the perspective of a draftee, a Regular Army soldier was dedicated and hardcore.

    What does any of this have to do with the Second Amendment? Absolutely nothing.

    • As a follow up to your next stupid post. Here is another history lesson for you. The term conscription or draft didn’t exist in 1787 but the concept of compulsary service did. The militia of 1787 meant the body of armed citizens who could be raised to the defend the nation in event of a war. The militia obligation was not optional. If you were called (conscripted) by either your state of the Federal government you had to respond under penality of law.

      The Civil War was the first use of conscription for supplying manpower for the Army and it was specifically done under the Constitutional cover of the Militia clause. The reason that draftees had a seperate designation from the regular Army was that they were being called to service under the Militia clause.

      So yes, the desigination AUSA or National Army has everything to do with Second Amendment because the constitutional auhtority to conscript falls under the Militia clause of the Amendment.

    • Article 1 section 8 does not authorize conscription. It gives Congress the authority to set the size of an Army. It is the combination of Article 1 and the Second Amendment that authorizes conscription. Without Aricle 1 section 8, the raising of Armies would have been left to the states. Until WWI that was standard method of “raising” large Armies, e.g., a Federal call for the States to raise volunteer regiments. This was a highly politicized process and at the beginning of WWI Wilson chose to go around the states and have a direct call of the “Militia” into Federal Service through conscription. So he asked Congress to pass a bill establishing a national draft. The standing State volunteer regiments were called to Federal Service independently of the draft and formed the basis of the modern Natiional Guard.

      I am sure that Governor Palin, as a former Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard, knows this history. Obviously, you don’t.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here