A couple of points that the governor should ponder:

First, does agreement among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches necessarily mean an action, policy, or law is constitutional?

I wonder if the governor holds the activities of the NSA to the same standard.  When the government spies on him for no other reason than it can, does he shrug his shoulders and say “It must be constitutional.” since the president, Congress, and the courts all agree?

Second, rights are not subject to statistics.

Serious study of the matter has shown a clear relationship between gun control measures and less safety.  But let’s for a moment assume for the sake of argument that the opposite were true: that gun control made for a safer society due to less violent crime.  Do the actions of criminals justify the restriction of the right to arms?

I submit that violent crime no more justifies the infringement of the right to bear arms than using the actions of Jim Jones to justify the infringement of the freedom of religion, the actions of the KKK to justify infringement of the freedom of association, or the rhetoric of the Black Panthers to justify the infringement of the freedom of speech.

Third, rights are not subject to “we the people.”

When the governor goes on about how “we the people” decided what arms would be legal in his state, what he’s really suggesting is that your neighbors have, and are right to exercise, the power to determine what rights you may exercise.

If true, are our neighbors then also right (either through their representatives or via plebiscite) to tell us how, what, or whom to worship?  Can they tell us what to think or say?  Can they send their agents to put us in jail without a trial?  Or are the freedom of religion, the right of free thought/speech, and habeas corpus somehow immune to infringement by “we the people,” unlike the rights to keep and bear arms?

In my opinion, too few people base their political decisions on sound guiding principles and/or a healthy respect for the rights of others.  Rather, they focus on circumstance, convenience, their own preferences, or their own power.  That goes for politicians as well as “we the people."

NukMed - That was eloquently and perfectly stated. Well said!   

Bill

This fight isn't over until WE say it's over.

People only get hoity-toity about THE LAW when it's a law they agree with.  If you do encounter an anti-gun zealot on his high horse about how these people don't have any respect for the law (which makes him sound like a classic, Nixon-Era Law & Order Republican), just drop a few choice laws by name.  Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act are two good ones.  They'll sputter about how that's different.

The only thing that's different is anti-gun laws affect a group of people they don't see as victims.

I can't watch this video.  Not tonight, and probably not ever.

As a Guardsman in Connecticut, I've gone out of my way to avoid any meet-and-greet that might put me in the same room as Malloy.  After the past 12 months, I can't believe he still thinks he's welcome to visit with military members, considering that most of us would like five minutes with him in a locked room.

 

I really want to vote for Joe Visconti but not sure he has a chance. And every vote for Visconti takes one from Foley. Which will ensure Malloy gets a second term.

Foley is wishy-washy on guns but he's no rabid-anti like Malloy is.