Gun Control Rally Today
by Christine Stuart | Feb 14, 2013 6:30am
(9) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Civil Liberties, Town News, Hartford, Newtown, Public Safety, State Capitol
In January, 1,000 gun enthusiasts rallied at the state Capitol in opposition to stricter gun control laws. Today — two months after the shooting in Newtown — proponents of stricter gun laws will get their turn.
March for Change, a gun control group, was feeling the pressure last month to turn out a large crowd for the rally to prove that victims of gun violence will no longer be the silent majority.
The group is being led by two mothers who live in Fairfield County and felt compelled to do something.
The mothers, Nancy Lefkowitz and Meg Staunton, teamed up with Connecticut Against Gun Violence to organize a March for Change, which they describe as a grassroots, bipartisan effort in support of the gun-control group’s agenda.
Lefkowitz, who attended the Million Mom March on May 14, 2000, said gun enthusiasts have been organized for a long time and it’s time for them to experience the opposition.
“We do feel pressure because we have been bullied by the opposition long enough,” Lefkowitz said during a phone interview in January. “We need to be louder and come out stronger to ensure that our legislators understand that we mean business.”
More than 100 buses are expected to make their way to the Capitol today. The rally is expected to include some celebrity and some high-profile political speakers including Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and Attorney General George Jepsen. Actresses Christine Baranski, known most recently for her performance in television’s “The Good Wife,” and Missi Pyle, who has appeared in countless television shows and movies, will be the masters of ceremony and will emcee the event.
Meanwhile, lawmakers are still considering several gun control measures but have yet to move forward to change current law. The legislative gun control task force is expected to reach a consensus and bring their proposals to legislative leadership by the end of the week.
The Office of Legislative Research estimates that there are 90 legislative proposals directly related to guns and ammunition, but many offer overlapping ideas for how to strengthen the state’s gun laws.
Gun owners who rallied at the state Capitol in January have been vocal about their opposition to any legislation that would change the state’s current gun laws.
Today’s rally starts at 11 a.m.
Tags: gun control, rally, state Capitol, Connecticut, newtown, dh
(9) Comments
posted by: ASTANVET | February 14, 2013 11:17am
The difference between the people attending this rally, is that I have never actively sought to limit someone else’s choices… they are getting bussed in to try to limit mine. If you think guns are bad, you are making assumptions about me, and those like me, who are legal gun owners—have never injured anyone, and have never discharged a weapon other than hunting, skeet shooting, or at the range. (aside from combat) You seek to limit my weapon choices, and think that 15 rounds is wrong, but 10 rounds is ok.. black rifles are bad, but wooden stocks are good… heat shields are bad, as are pistol grips… it is rediculous. If you are worried about violence, why don’t you put yourself on the line and help police the streets of our cities. If not, don’t try to keep me from having a 15 round magazine, or god forbit a rifle with a pistol grip… I wonder how many of these “concerned citizens” have put others in danger through their irresponsibility with driving or supporting drug trafficing.
posted by: sanecitizen | February 14, 2013 2:36pm
It’s a little late in the game at this point. I have to imagine most legislators minds are made up and whatever passes will immediately be challenged in multiple lawsuits (similar to new york).
Remember to thank everyone marching for change when your taxes increase again to cover legal fees and class action suits.
posted by: Greg | February 14, 2013 2:44pm
If these folks, along with our legislators, were serious about reducing gun “violence” they would push for, expand, and fully fund the various shooting task forces that have been employed in Hartford, New Haven, etc. Also, actually enforcing and prosecuting gun crimes in this state, which was reported recently to have been rather lax, would reduce “violence”. Direct targeting of criminals, gangs, drug dealers, and the like will absolutely reduce violence in this state,and criminal prosecutions will put even small time offenders behind bars.
Blaming the inanimate object of a gun for “violence” is like blaming a car for drunk driving or blaming water for drowning. Go after the criminals and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law and leave the extensively fingerprinted, background checked, state police permitted gun owners alone and not make them overnight criminals with language of “unlawful…to posess”. This is not difficult.
posted by: Joebigjoe | February 14, 2013 11:02pm
Thinking that reducing the size of magazines will reduce shooting deaths is like thinking that reducing the amount of ounces in beer bottles will reduce drunk driving deaths.
posted by: lebron | February 15, 2013 10:33am
Funny, I don’t remember ever trying to take anything away from the Anti Gun Crowd; But what I find amazing is the amount of coverage that Newtown and the anti gun groupies are getting,
Amazing that the President was on the ground in Newtown in 48 hours after the shooting, and it took him 19 days to tour the wreckage in New York City after Hurricane Sandy….
How come there wasn’t any representation of the 170 children killed in Chicago in 2012 honored during the SOTU address. Why aren’t there any of their drawing hanging next to the Presidents desk, When are the people of Newtown going to realize they are being systematically exploited by the Gun Control Freaks to be used like a paper napkin, to help wipe up the political mess of “Gun Control” and to be cast aside when they are all used up.
posted by: BrianO | February 16, 2013 2:30pm
The sad outgrowth of the conversation about rational gun control is that it highlights the inability of our culture to conduct a rational common sense debate. We live increasingly in a fractured and extreme culture and neither side has an ability to talk to the other.
posted by: Joebigjoe | February 17, 2013 10:44am
Brian, the issue is defining rational and common sense.
If we went purely with dry factual data the anti gun people would not be happy with the result.
Let me give just one example. The FBI, not the NRA or JoeBigJoe has stated that the average home invasion has three perpetrators based on their national tracking.
Given that people have a God given right to protect themselves and their families which is even greater than the right in the 2nd amendment, then the conversation should start on the antigun side with people have the right to have guns that have magazines large enough to stop the average three intruders factoring in missed shots. Whatever that number is should be one starting point and the other should be people that want unlimited magazine sizes.
If those are the two starting points and compromise would generally mean that neither party is happy with the result, that number would be around 20-30. There problem solved.
posted by: BrianO | February 18, 2013 3:53pm
Public policy is not designed by enabling private citizens the means to repel the worst possible attack. Based on that logic, we should be able to purchase SAMs and bazookas because the US government will soon fly unmanned drones over US soil. . . and we all know what happens then!
Home invasion is not a crime in 43 states. However, the phrase has given birth to an entire culture that visits websites about home invasions. The articles talk about the logistics involved in repelling home invaders and promotes heavy gun usage. People this angry are always driven by fear. Now, people that are angry want gun control because they believe it is their “god given right” to not have their 7 year old child shot 11 times at school with a machine gun carried by the emotionally disturbed child of a survivalist Mother who feared…guess what? Home invasions.
posted by: Joebigjoe | February 18, 2013 7:25pm
Brian, “machine gun” C’mon man!!!
Bottom line is the 2nd amendment and our state constitution doesnt really give us the right to SAM’s or bazookas (yet) but any kind of small arms and associated magazines are protected.
The “yet” part is that the day that our government ever put armed drones in the sky in the US or dropped ordinance on people from planes, is the day bazookas and SAM’s join the approved list.
As for fearing home invasions maybe Nancy Lanza thought she looked alot like Dr Petit’s wife and was afraid. Who are you or anyone else to tell someone that they shouldnt take precautions to make sure they feel less afraid? Now I say this not knowing how she kept her weapons in the house, because she may have been inappropriately sloppy. We will find out soon enough