At Least 91 People Reported Dead After Monstrous Oklahoma Tornado…120+ Injured…Many Children Among Dead…Some Children Drowned…Heartbreaking Pictures…Reporter Struggles to Share Terrible News…

Watch Live: Continuing Coverage of Oklahoma Tornado Aftermath

Government

The Epic Gun Control Testimony You’ve Been Waiting For: ‘The Constitution Did Not Guarantee Public Safety, It Guaranteed Liberty’

Mar. 20, 2013 5:00pm Jason Howerton

How do Connecticut residents feel about the crackdown on the Second Amendment? Well, there are people from both sides making passionate arguments on the issue, however, one gentleman last week was able to make a particularly persuasive case against more gun control and in favor of the U.S. Constitution.

Meet Robert Steed, a resident of Vernon, Conn. who took three days straight off work to attend several gun control hearings in Connecticut. On March 14, Steed was more “aggravated” than usual with lawmakers and he let them know it in his fiery testimony, telling them that they were “coloring outside the lines of constitutional parameters.”

Connecticut Resident Robert Steed Delivers Epic Testimony on Gun Control

Vernon, Conn. resident Robert Steed (YouTube)

“This is the third day I’ve taken off of work to come here to, like so many of the rest of us, to plead with you for us to keep our guns because of some wing-nut in Newtown, Connecticut,” he said. “If that isn’t inherently wrong, I don’t know what is. That these bills are even in proposed form is scary enough. That any of you could possibly be undecided is scary enough. What are you looking at?”

He went on: “I can’t for the life of me understand how this state can have as many gun laws on the books as it does and have members of its Legislature need to take firearms 101. And as far as what I felt were potshots taken at the NRA, they’ve done more for gun safety– they’ll do more for gun safety this weekend than this committee will do in your careers.”

Watch Steed’s testimony in full below:

Connecticut will be the next state set to tackle new gun control measures is Connecticut, the same state where the tragic Newtown massacre occurred. On Tuesday, a key committee of the state’s General Assembly unanimously approved expanding criminal background checks. On Wednesday, lawmakers were set to discuss expanding the state’s current ban on so-called “assault weapons” to include even more firearms as well as additional magazine limits and universal background checks.

Last week, Steed told lawmakers who believe legislation will prevent tragedies that “evil exists” and “sometimes things are beyond your control.”

“Adam Lanza commits a crime, and I’m here to gr0vel and plead for my rights and explain to you that my firearms are kept safely?” he asked rhetorically. “I keep hearing the word “solution”… you’re not going to find a solution, it doesn’t exist. You can’t find a broad brush solution to evil.”

Connecticut state Rep. Steve Mikutel (D) refuted Steed and said lawmakers can craft a solution to gun violence. “We can solve this,” he said.

Mikutel admitted that “we live in an open free democratic society,” therefore lawmakers won’t be able to address all violence in society. If the U.S. was a “dictatorship” Congress would have a better chance of dealing with violence, but that’s not the way they want to go, the Democrat added.

“You’ll get a better handle on it maybe in a dictatorship where they just go in and take all your guns and lock-down, and they’ve got big brother watching all over you everywhere, they’ve got cameras on every corner, cameras in every neighborhood,” the Democrat continued.

“Well, we have some of that going on right now,” Steed interrupted.

Mikutel explained that Connecticut doesn’t want to go down that route and so it makes lawmakers’ job more “difficult.”

“The reason that your jobs are becoming so difficult is because you’re coloring outside the lines of constitutional parameters,” Steed shot back. “That’s the bottom line. You are trying to marriage up public safety with constitutional rights. The Constitution did not guarantee public safety, it guaranteed liberty. And sometimes what comes with liberty is tragedy, unfortunately.”

(H/T: YouTube user PALIN SMITH)

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (253)

stoned.on.freedom
Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:16pm
These words from Thomas Jefferson dovetail perfectly with the gun control debate: ” I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
Here’s another, from the great Charlton Heston: “From my cold dead hands!” I couldn’t agree more!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Rightguy503
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:31pm
  Get this, New York State has a new program designed to catch owners of “illegal guns”. All you have to do is turn in a neighbor you suspect of owning an illegal weapon, the police come and check it out, and if they arrest your neighbor you get $500. If you don’t think New York State is not the New Nazi Germany, then you’re a FOOL!
  
  Report this comment
- rangerskippy
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:37pm
  I was good, but not epic. I am waiting for someone to step up to the mic, and unload real truth.
  
  Feinstein and Obama want your rifles, but we know that last year in America rifles were used in less than 4% of murders. Why do they want the rifle?
  
  Last year, of all murders in the US, 50% were committed by black Americans. Half of all murder victims were black. If we could lower black murder rates to the same as whites, we would lower the national murder per capita rate by almost 40% and save a lot of black lives. I want to save black lives. I believe the MSM, Obama, Hillary, Feinstein…. do not give a rip, or they would address this problem.
  
  In major cities like Chicago and LA, up to 70% of murder is done by gangs. Obama and crowd have not uttered a word about gangs. They seem fine knowing MS13, Bloods, Vice Lords, Cripps…. are an armed domestic enemies of America. Let us not forget, that Obama declared his run for the senate seat from the house of a known domestic enemy and terrorist.
  
  Violent crime in America is intrinsically tied to welfare. This is fact. This is also the reason dems will not crack down on real crime, but instead want the rifles of law abiding people like me. They do not want to punish those that vote democrat.
  
  We grovel about who gets first in line for immigration, but we ignore the 50 million lazy people that we pay not to work. Seal the border, phase out welfare, and you lower taxes, crime, and fix immigration, all in one sho
  
  Report this comment
- rangerskippy
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:51pm
  Keep in mind, Obama, Hillary, Feinstein…. do not want less crime, or they would say so. They want your guns, and it comes out in their speech, their vote, and their previous records.
  
  Let us not forget, these same democrats have economic policies that they support that parallel or coincide with socialism. They are the same politicians clamoring for our guns.
  
  Read history. Socialists throughout history redistribute wealth, but they also take away guns. These same socialist throughout out history also have a record of murdering millions of their own people Stalin, Mao, Castro, Hitler….)
  
  America owns more guns than any nation in the world. We have 88 guns per 100 people. There are 27 nations with higher murder rates than us. Honduras owns 6.6 guns per 100 people, and has the highest murder rates.
  
  If we can get control our out of control black on black murder rate, then we will drop the murder per capita rate and be on par with most European nations. This is easy math. Democrats do not want you to know it, and republicans are two afraid of political correctness to say it.
  
  Racism is claiming people commit crime because of the color of their skin. Foolishness is ignoring murder because of skin color.
  
  There is no such thing as a genetic criminal. It is learned behavior. Listen to the rap music, look at the video games, wake up, and see reality.
  
  LBJ was the father of our welfare, he also voted against civil rights
  
  Report this comment
- jcldwl
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 7:05pm
  @ rightguy
  Thanks for that info I will check it out and New York has been Nazi Germany for a while now. New York City has become the USSR. I still don’t understand why anyone still lives in New York.
  
  Report this comment
- NHwinter
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 7:24pm
  Any gun control is unconstitutional. The UN has already designated our National Parks as biospheres and gained control of them because of Clinton. In the Tenn. National Forest, camps are being constructed. It is said that foreign troops are now in those parks because they are considered global property. No president has a right to give away our freedoms and a gun control agreement would be unconstitutional just as giving our National Parks to the UN is also unconstitutional.
  
  Report this comment
- Talent-Keyhole
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 7:44pm
  Yes, indeed: Our Constitution did not guarantee “happiness” and “Safety” — it guaranteed “Rights of Man” (and woman)> Being a citizen of the USA is not a marriage into a mutual suicide pact, it is not a marriage into a nation where Black and White and Brown are eternally divided over issues which could be parsed and decided at the local individual level. America is all about living with each and every Citizen in Peace and Harmony. Once the Government takes a hand in regulating that individual peace and harmony, the going gets rough. We get what we Vote for. If you are fool enough to vote for some lickspittle liberal because of his skin color or his promise to give you eternal manna from heaven (read government) then you deserve what you receive. America was founded and must continue to exist as a great cooperation between peoples. Either we get along or we kill each other .. that’s about all there is to that.
  
  Report this comment
- seeker9
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 7:48pm
  Sad day when a nut job does a crime and the response is to infringe upon the rights of the general population. A murderer will always find a weapon and certainly wouldn’t care about the lesser charge of owning a gun. Gun control only punishes the average guy gun owner.
  
  Report this comment
- Kiba
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 8:38pm
  Im with you but here’s how it is now unfortuneatly. If someone reports you for saying “I prefer dangerous freedom over peacefull slavery” You could be accused for making terroristic threats and you wouldn’t be allowed to have a pocket knife in your house. And if anyone dare mention the fact about black on black crime it means you hate all black people just for using the word “black” (believe me it happens, Its been used on me on here even) and if you mention border control it means you just hate Mexican people and are a bigot. So whats a body to do anymore? I know exactly what to do but I’ll be damd if Im gonna say it in this country with this bunch in office.
  
  Report this comment
- banjarmon
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 10:50pm
  Robert Steed, You Sir are WELCOME at my campfire anytime!! Make the politicians live up to their OATH of Office!!!
  
  Report this comment
- banjarmon
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 11:04pm
  The last committee member need to be painted with a TAR BRUSH and FEATHERS!!!!!
  
  Report this comment
- Infected
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 1:50am
  http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ohio-teen-faces-sentencing-3-student-murders
  
  people kill people,,, not an AR or in this case a .22….. its what evil does
  
  Report this comment
- nesmond
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 4:09am
  Here’s another testimony from someone who knows: http://www.westernjournalism.com/hitler-survivor-speaks-out-on-gun-control/
  
  Report this comment
- bread and circuses
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 6:34am
  Why is theblaze advertising for “emily’s list” ???
  The ad is scrolling on the main page next to the “STORIES”
  “EMILY’s list needs your help!
  Join us and help elect more pro-choice democratic women”
  WTF ???
  
  Report this comment
- bread and circuses
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 6:46am
  This is interesting…………….less than 5 minutes after my post, the scrolling ads are all gone, they were between the large food ad and beck’s agenda 21 book.
  Hmmmmmmmmmm
  
  Report this comment
- techengineer11
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 7:25am
  The Constitution did not guarantee public safety, it guaranteed liberty. And sometimes what comes with liberty is tragedy, unfortunately.”
  
  Needs to be repeated over and over.
  
  Report this comment
- naughtycal
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 7:41am
  Rangerskippy posted “Violent crime in America is intrinsically tied to welfare”
  Wrong again skippy there are more whites on welfare than blacks on welfare. Yet you don’t see the violence at the levels of black impoverished communities in impoverished white communities. Socioeconomic is a cop out for the truth. Black communities are representive of black culture.The only thing intrinsic is that it’s in their DNA.
  Violence isn’t product of poverty if that was case whites would be murdering at twice the rates of black. Violence is the product of ignorance . The entitlement culture of the black community are primarily made up of ignorant people.
  
  Report this comment
- Slipstick
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 8:25am
  This reminds me SO much of the 1950′s Russia my parents and grandparents described.
  The dreaded midnight knock on the door, after some anonymous ‘patriot’ turns you in ‘for suspicious activity.’
  Even more scary was the indoctrination of school children. They were encouraged to observe and report — their parents. We are turning into a police state. Uncle Joe (Stalin) would be proud…
  
  Report this comment
- sURFNmADNESS
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 8:55am
  We need to make every Liberal screaming for gun control to go on the defense. Simply ask, how much is it going to reduce murder, armed robbery, etc? Where is the study to prove it? When they start answering with empirical evidence ramblings (observations of existing restrictions in communities like NYC, Chicago, etc) we can expose the control for what it is. B.S.
  
  Report this comment
- kenboo1
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 9:16am
  We need to bring politicians closer to home. Senators, run off to Washington for 4 1/2 years then come home to campaign for a year and a half… Unless your a large donor, you get no contact with him other than a form letter… This goes for Republican as well as Democrat… I would much rather return the Senate to the purview of the State legislature So I can at least call someone that the Senator will talk to… http://www.repeal17.net Read, think and donate…
  
  Report this comment
- ashestoashes
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 9:29am
  Plans you may not have heard of..if you never watch another video in your life..watch this one.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5IhlNK3hEeE
  
  Report this comment
- mdlwoods
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 9:44am
  To Rightguy503: Someday New Yorkers will wake up to the fact that they are completely enslaved by the government and perhaps they will begin to fight back. Until then, my recommendation for all those who are awake in NY: LEAVE!!!!
  
  Report this comment
- Silvertruth
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 10:34am
  Naughtycal-
  
  You are misusing the context Rangerskippy’s comments. He’s correct that poverty does breed violence, race notwithstanding. He’s also correct on the glorification of the negative culture (via music, movies, videogames).
  
  What you are trying to do it make it a skin color issue. It is not. If it were DNA based then the violence would be pervasive no matter what the socioeconomic level. It is not. People of that skin tone born into wealth created from normal social achievements show no more propensity to violence than any other person of any other skin tone.
  
  Where both of you need to be careful is that there is no single cause of the issue. An entire weight of factors must come together to create the issue. If you can remove just a few of these factors, the issue has a good chance of going away altogether because it’s actually rather fragile.
  
  If you can:
  
  • Increase accomplishment, you increase personal worth and well-being.
  • Make violence and gang membership anathema to culture, you decrease the base of it and the pressure from the community pushes it out.
  • Educate, support and encourage clean living, personal responsibility, and community appearance, you round out the thinking, feeling, and emotions of a community and suddenly, it finds self value as a whole and in each person.
  
  If you can do those things, people go back to work, they find life worth living again, and suddenly everything has value again.
  
  This is not about skin
  
  Report this comment
- zapparules
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 10:48am
  Hey NHWINTER… What kind of meds are you taking? I might want some of those.
  What the heck are you talking about with biosphere/Natl Parks?
  You do know: “Individual Biosphere Reserves remain under the jurisdiction of the countries in which they are situated.”
  Are you able to offer ANY material to collaborate the crazy-talk you are presenting about foreign-occupied camps in any of our national parks/biospheres – or elsewhere?
  
  Or maybe you’re not on any meds but need to be – ???
  
  Report this comment
- ashestoashes
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 10:53am
  Apologies..It appears that Bill HR8791 does exist..and I do not know the details of it..but the video appears to have been a spoof..
  
  Report this comment
- pbrenda51
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 11:19am
  I have a new bumper sticker reading “A gun is an object….it doesn’t load itself, or pull its own trigger
  
  Report this comment
- naughtycal
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 11:23am
  Silver,
  You’re missing the point white on welfare out number blkacks two to one. Welfare is the true factor the ranger was implying, if that were the cast whites would be murdering at the twice the rates of blacks. And as for your post of increasing income ending violence or criminal behavior.
  I say look at all the rap artist,and athletes that continue being gangsters,drug dealers and thug.Look at the politicans that steal from their employers(tax payers),Look at their community leaders that actively protest the incarceration of murders,and violent offenders.
  Ecomonic station isn’t the intrinsic factor,it’s cultural…call me racist call me whatever but I’ll just call it as it is. In the end responsibility lies with the individual but when a culture celebrates and embolden the behavior it bares blame as well.
  
  Report this comment
- turkey13
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 11:33am
  “America, my friends, is the only country in the world actually founded on LIBERTY – the only one. People went to America to be free. – Margaret Thatcher
  
  Report this comment
- rangerskippy
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 11:49am
  naughtycal and silver
  
  I believe it to be a combination. It is not just rap, not just welfare, not just any one thing. It is when you combine them.
  
  This is not accident. The same democrats that fought to keep blacks as slaves are the same that started jim crow, segregation, and built the welfare, multicultural education, and these same democrats do not utter a word about black on black murder rates.
  
  Seal the border, punish business that hire non legals, and systematically phase out welfare. We are paying lazy people not to work, and then we snivel about Mexicans coming here to do the work we pay lazy folks not to do, and then wonder why the lazy people have no incentive to stay in school, or get a job. The lazy people then have lots of time on hand to make illegitimate babies, sell drugs, and murder each other.
  
  Study crime that is done by whites, and you will find they are also intrinsically tied to welfare, SSI, and gov programs and handouts. They lay up in the trailer park, making meth, and causing problems also.
  
  Report this comment
- motherboard
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 12:11pm
  @ mdlwoods – Your advice to New Yorkers who are awake…”leave” is the same I have been giving to them, as well as those awake in cali and now Colorado. Ironically, this one move alone would begin the process that would ultimately awaken the rest I think in both places, because no one would be left to pay for any government goodies being passed out anymore.
  
  Report this comment
- Xyskalla
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 12:15pm
  Excellent point about Honduras, rangerskippy. Is there any list that you’re aware of that compares the nations with the highest murder rate with their gun control laws?
  
  Report this comment
- Al J Zira
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 1:34pm
  NHWINTER: Do you have any links that expose national parks under UN control? And if foreign troops are on them I’d be more that interested.
  
  Report this comment
- gipb
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 2:13pm
  @ stoned.on.freedom: EXACTLY!!!…..
  
  Report this comment
- Grey Eagle
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 2:14pm
  The Democrats have lost their collective minds with this gun control crap. Of course the majority of them have armed guards.
  
  Report this comment
- moderateliberal
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 3:25pm
  you who compare NYS to Nazi Germany are am embarrassment to retards.
  
  Report this comment
- Silvertruth
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 3:28pm
  Naughtycal-
  
  You missed what I said about wealth. I said from “normal” paths. The RAP, Gansta, athletic paths to wealth are not normal. They are not linked to a particular socioeconomic model of wealth. They are ‘instant’ wealth that is earned by a given talent or skill that happens to be in demand.
  
  I am talking about people that got their wealth the old fashioned way- worked for it, earned it and earned all the lessons life teaches getting to that point. They are no more prone to violence than anyone else that has done the same, regardless of skin color.
  
  If you deal with the underlying causes of the social decay- starting at the personal level (not the community level but that can be done in tandem), then the issue will resolve itself. If you can engender personal value and worth that is real, not fake like social media creates, or gang membership etc. creates, but honest self-worth, then everything else follows.
  
  If you are aware of your place in life, then you can be aware of everyone else’s place in life. You can be aware of your community and your surroundings. If you do not have a healthy self awareness, nothing else good can really follow as all your decisions are made in blindness to everything around you.
  
  Gun Control, Violence, whatever the topic, it all goes away when the people in a community are happy and healthy.
  
  Report this comment
- naughtycal
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 4:18pm
  Silver you just made my point for me. It’s not socioeconomic it’s cultural. You point out that easy money doesn’t erase cultural influence. And that earned money through hard work and sacrafice does.
  Money is earned in both examples but money that doesn’t require changes in behavior leads to behavior not changing. But the way how many white sports stars that come from impoverished up bringing you see carrying illegal guns,sell cocaine,covering up for murders,having pregnant girlfriends killed to avoid paying,running dog fighting operations,acting like thugs….ect.
  Those white were poor and then got a quote unquote easy pay day.
  
  Report this comment
- RetiredUSMC
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 4:35pm
  1st off, what an excellent stance this man made. He speaks for free America. 2nd, Ranger….. Obama, Feinstein. Pelosi, Reid..take your pick, they are all alike — NONE of them would dare risk their paycheck, 401 or guaranteed for-life retirement to ever, ever utter the truth…EVER.
  For anyone today to even dare mention a race, color or sexual preference is suicide on ABC, CNN, CBS or NBC. PERIOD. The liberal news outlets are literally drooling at the mouth to rabidly attack anything that has substance or truth to it, regardless.
  To say anything at all about a black man, a latino, or a gay will be guaranteed to be spun into a racial slur.Even if it’s positive.
  
  Report this comment
- michaelmoron
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 6:00pm
  NHwinter
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 7:24pm
  Any gun control is unconstitutional. The UN has already designated our National Parks as biospheres and gained control of them because of Clinton. In the Tenn. National Forest, camps are being constructed. It is said that foreign troops are now in those parks because they are considered global property. No president has a right to give away our freedoms and a gun control agreement would be unconstitutional just as giving our National Parks to the UN is also unconstitutional.
  
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  
  I have been telling you people for a couple of years now, why this is the case.
  
  Most think I have been espousing “conspiracy theories”.
  
  The UN ( created by the IMF and World Bank in 1945 ) became the creditor of the bankrupt United States in 1944 at Bretton Woods. They acquired the lien on the bankrupt CORPORATION (the U.S.)
  from the Federal Reserve PRIVATE BANK.
  The BANK seized America and it’s assets in 1933 due to the bankruptcy (Holiday Banking Act)
  This was due to a breach of Contract ( Fderal Reerve act ) accpted in 1913.
  
  The IMF began selling AMERICA in 1992 !!!!!
  Check out executive order 12803 – Infrastructure Privatization !!!!
  
  National Parks (and everything including the kitchen sink has been sold) have been sold to foreign investors !!!!
  http://rense.com/general86/nomis.htm
  
  They want American’s GUNS before the people find out about this !!!!!
  
  Report this comment
- Theresasailing
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 7:28pm
  love it…my cold dead hands and come and get it..
  
  Report this comment
- dopie joe
  Posted on March 22, 2013 at 12:22am
  Rightguy503 -That is what Castro did in Cuba when he took over in 1959.Turned neighbor against neighbor.
  
  Report this comment
lhvd6639
Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:14pm
Very well said but more than likely it fell on deaf ears

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- kenboo1
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 9:50pm
  You think??? http://www.repeal17.net
  
  Report this comment
- RepubliCorp
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 9:21am
  it’s a slow march to absolute power……..
  
  Report this comment
Cybil
Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:12pm
Rep. Steve Mikutel (D) says there are solutions out there. The legislature is pushing this because of Adam Lanza. Lanza took his mother’s legal gun and committed this horrific mass murder. Before that, his mother tried to get him into a Psych ward but because of the weak mental health laws in CT, she was unable. Let’s talk about these weak mental health laws that CT has and not about legal guns. CT has one of the strongest gun laws but one of the weakest when it comes to mental health.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TheirMom
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:45pm
  RE: Adam Lanza and his mother’s weapons. I’ve said this before and I’ll keep saying it. If you own a gun you are responsible for it’s safe keeping. If there is someone in your home who cannot be trusted with a gun and that person can access your gun no matter how you try to secure it, DON’T KEEP A GUN IN YOUR HOUSE!!!
  
  Report this comment
- Mapache
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:52pm
  To THEIRMOM,
  How do you know Lanza did not put a knife to his mothers throat to get the weapons before he killed her?
  
  Report this comment
- WarMunger_Al
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:58pm
  I guess these “legislators” do read history much. There has been violence since Cain killed able. there is no solution that any law could address.
  
  Report this comment
- WarMunger_Al
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:59pm
  mapache,
  he shot her while she was sleeping
  
  Report this comment
- drs1969
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 8:45pm
  Re: Mapache
  How do I know Lanza did anything? Because the media tells me so? The way this all hit, right before Christmas and after the election while Clinton was hiding out at the hospital to avoid testimony, makes me question the whole story.
  
  Report this comment
- TH777
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 12:43am
  @Mapachie: I don’t think you read “Theirmom” post very clearly. “Theirmom” said if you don’t think there is someone in your home who can be trusted with a gun then Don’t Keep A Gun In Your House! Apparently Adam’s mom knew he was a bit over the edge. She knew he wasn’t playing with a full deck. If she hadn’t kept a gun in the house then a knife to her throat (which wasn’t the case) would have meant nothing.
  
  Report this comment
- TH777
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 1:08am
  I meant to write “cannot” be trusted.
  
  Report this comment
- termyt
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 9:07am
  I can’t believe with even all of the hindsight on this case that your solution to a madman like Lanza is that, not only should our children be defenseless against someone like him, but his own family should be, too.
  
  Everything would be alright if the mother of psychopathic killer living next to the school, who can’t be locked away, just didn’t own a gun.
  
  Please tell me I am not the only one who thinks that statement is ludicrous.
  
  Instead of locking up the madmen, let’s lock-up all their potential victims for their protection. That’s just another form of madness.
  
  Report this comment
ncstatemom3
Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:10pm
This man has spoken with more common sense and knowledge than any politician I have heard speak on this whole gun rights issue. If only our politicians would stop thinking they have to protect me from everything. Just leave my rights alone and I will protect myself. Just because you have been elected does not give you the right to enforce your personal beliefs on me as law.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TurboCat
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 2:24am
  That is what is happening. We are being punished for other people’s crimes. Someone tell Piers Morgan that. He wants us to give up our guns because HE has decided that we “should”.
  
  Report this comment
- Beezlie
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 4:46pm
  Mom – that’s great. 1 less person to worry about. Since your moniker states that you’re a mom, who is going to protect your kids when you send them off to school (since you’ve chosen to leave the gun situation as-is)? Like it or not, sacrifices must be made sometimes for the greater good. That’s why folks join the military. Soldiers make sacrifices (including the ULTIMATE kind) to combat problems not of their own making all the time! Are gun owners better than them? No one is asking you to die for your cause but by doing nothing isn’t that kinda what is happening (but not to you, to kids in schools as well as other victims of gun-related crime)? I’m puzzled that gun-owners aren’t the ones most vocal (forming committees that can help find answers, etc.) about finding a way to PREVENT these acts of atrocity instead of simply saying “not my problem” & “leave me & my guns alone”. Even though you aren’t part of the problem, Mom, (I don’t know you so I’m assuming your gun ownership is legal), that doesn’t mean you can’t be part of the SOLUTION! Those kids of yours at school would appreciate it, I’m sure.
  
  Report this comment
bondroid
Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:10pm
Mr Steed… You sir, are phenomenal! I am sorry you lost 3 days wages, but I am so glad you chose to do so! BRILLIANT!!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- OlefromMN
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 10:00pm
  I applaud him as well. If he is employed by others, I hope his employer makes sure to justly compensate him for his obvious intelligence and eloquence. If he is self-employed, I see why he took this risk. Either way his efforts will carry much further than a measly three days pay ever could.
  
  Mr. Steed… A sincere THANK YOU from the chilly state of MN!
  
  Report this comment
- COREZONE
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 10:37pm
  Mr. Steed I too will give you kudos from the commie state of CA. Nicely done, I hope more people hear your words before it is too late.
  
  Report this comment
- NiModo
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 3:14am
  We should find out how we can compensate him for those 3 days lost wages. What he did was right.
  
  Report this comment
bennettpatches
Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:05pm
Connecticut state Rep. Steve Mikutel (D) refuted Steed and said lawmakers can craft a solution to gun violence. “We can solve this,” he said.

Then he says,”Mikutel admitted that “we live in an open free democratic society,” therefore lawmakers won’t be able to address all violence in society.”

So which is it? You have a solution or is this one of those you won’t be able to address all violence in society?

You have no solutions, because there are NO solutions. You lawmakers just try to justify your jobs. Try to make a good show of it and make others ‘feel good’. ANY law you jelly beans come up with WILL BE BROKEN.

In your next paragraph you slipped up. You mentioned a dictatorship. That’s what it’s all about isn’t it? You are trying to lead us all down the path to total control by the state. What you and others like you are doing is ******* off the American people. Keep on poking, prodding and pushing our buttons.

The state is the one that bought almost two BILLION rounds of ammo, for domestic use. Two hundred MILLION of which are SNIPER rounds. FOR DOMESTIC USE. If anyone should be banned, it should be the state.

You obviously have no respect for the will of the people. You obviously have no respect for the constitution. And you obviously have NO CLUE about any solution.

Even if you got your ‘dictatorship’, you still could not guarantee there would be no more shootings. Stop blowing smoke up our butts and calling it sunshine.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Vision Harry
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:40pm
  About the two billion rounds of ammo: Does anyone know the manufacturer?
  
  And, as is typical with government, at least half will either be stolen, lost, contracted and misplaced. or wasted on target practice at pictures of John Q. Public. Please God, Let this be the only time where government bureaucracy is acceptable.
  
  Report this comment
Paladin45ACP
Posted on March 20, 2013 at 5:53pm
Well said. This guy needs to be elected to office in CT! You can be risk-free or free, but never both.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- encinom
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:05pm
  A Skin Head gun nuts spews his ignorance of the Constitution. Even under the narrowest concept of the police power as limited by substantive due process, it was generally conceded that states could exercise the power to protect the public health, safety, and morals. Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 661 (1887). Additiontionally, the Constituiton gives the Congress to power to provide for the General Welfare.
  
  This fool is a brainwashed serf of the NRA, a puppet protecting the profits of the Merchants of Death.
- bfunk
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:10pm
  I would even contend that the more you try to make risk-free, the more these tragedies will happen. Great comment. I’m writing it down for future reference.
  
  Report this comment
- DougHuffman
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:19pm
  Read Nassim Nicholas Taleb, starting with Fooled By Randomness, then Black Swan and finally Antifragile. Ex-Quant Taleb says FedGov fiscal risk minimizing policies make big blow-ups more likely. The logic extends to all risk ventures.
  
  Report this comment
- GONE_SOVEREIGN
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:28pm
  encinom
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:05pm
  
  A Skin Head gun nuts spews his ignorance of the Constitution.
  
  Your looking for the shape shifter thread, that’s where the skin head was. Next time you post, try waking up that three legged mouse on the exercise wheel that’s powering your brain!
  
  Report this comment
- John655
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:31pm
  @ Encinom
  
  Neither of those powers trump the Bill of Rights. Lord forgive me, but you are a fool.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:45pm
  encinom
  
  “A Skin Head gun nuts”
  
  So anyone I know who is bald & owns a gun is a skin head? You find it pretty easy to offend people, don’t you >> Encinom/Monicne/SleazyHipo/ Kregneva
  
  Report this comment
- WarMunger_Al
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 7:03pm
  encinom-
  so you are saying they can pass laws making homosexuality illegal? you are in deep trouble then. How about speech? They can pass laws banning certain speech? The bill of rights in non-negotiable except for the exceptions made within the articles themselves. The 2nd amendment has no such limitations.
  
  Report this comment
- Marine25
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 7:32pm
  @warmunger
  Are you suggesting conservatives make the argument that the judiciary cannot establish the constitutionality of ANY limitations on the 2nd? No restriction on nuclear weapons? Citizens with rocket launchers? Anti-personnel mines? Serin gas? Fully automatic weapons? Because if those restrictions are not constitutional the overwhelming majority of Americans will never support such a position and the 2nd will be destroyed. Precedent says the arms guaranteed to citizens can be limited in the cause of a civil society and national security. Suggesting the 2nd is unlimited is historically inaccurate and politically unwise.
  
  Report this comment
- Ben__Franklin
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 7:45pm
  “A Skin Head gun nuts spews his ignorance of the Constitution”
  
  and our resident troll raises its ugly head from Obama’s **** cheeks to spew its ignorance once again…
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 7:55pm
  Marine25
  
  Talking about restrictions is not in the cards. The anti-gun moonbats have wanted a total ban on all fire arms for 1/2 a century. They have had various victories and a few reversals. Any compromise with them is just a starting point for them to go all the way or another compromise ad infinitum until they get a total ban.
  
  It is not reasonable to sit down & talk with them. Talking with an anti-gun nut is like Poland sitting down with Russia, Prussia & Austria in the 18th century.
  
  Report this comment
- stumpygrim
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 10:11pm
  @enciloon aka marine25.
  As ive said encinom you are not, nor ever have been in the military you pos idiot,and there’s a big difference nukes, and guns dumbass.Please go huff some more paint,and give yourself a nice fat heroin injection while you’re at it douchebag……You have the same arguement the commies use everytime they try a gun grab,”what, you want everyone to have nukes”?! Idiots…..
  
  Report this comment
- BryanB
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 3:31am
  @encinom
  
  Mugler v. Kansas is about state’s legislation prohibiting the manufacture of intoxicating liquor. And the U.S. Supreme Court up held the State of Kansas’s police powers, and the ability to enforce health, safety, and morals.
  
  Supreme Court of the United States struck down Mugler v. Kansas with the threat of Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 from President Roosevelt , the Supreme Court ruled that 159 state statutes were unconstitutional under the due process and equal protection clauses including Mugler v. Kansas. President Roosevelt put a great deal of political pressure on the High Court because of the New Deal. Under previous court decisions, President Roosevelt did not have legal or regulatory authority, to force the States into Federal Regulations without the help of the Supreme Court over-turning previous court decisions. Sorry but judicial activism strikes again……….
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 8:20am
  Bryan B
  
  Good post on Mugler vs Kansas
  
  Report this comment
- 00100111
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 10:02am
  Ency, it says “Promote the general welfare” not “Provide for general welfare”. And the word “welfare” back then was not “Nanny state govt providing everything to you”. Go suck on a tail pipe.
  
  Report this comment
- 00100111
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 10:04am
  JRTOC25. Actually, I CAN have all those things. No limits on the 2nd Amendment, period. Just because you’re scared, doesn’t mean I have to abdicate my rights. You can hide in your closet afraid of gun owners, I’ll keep living my life.
  
  You were never a Marine. You are a coward. A disgusting, useless coward.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 11:09am
  @BryanB
  
  Please don’t post on subjects you have no knowledge of you only demonstrate your rank ignorance on the topic of law. Mugler has not been overturned. Its holding was clarified during the Lochner era (pre FDR, history another subject Beckerheads are ignorant of). In Lochner v. New York (1903) the Court clarified the prior holdings regarding State’s Police Power, “where legislation of this character is concerned and where the protection of the Federal Constitution is sought, the question necessarily arises: Is this a fair, reasonable and appropriate exercise of the police power of the State, or is it an unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right of the individual to his personal liberty.” So the Court added a test to State powers, they did not revoke them. In Lochner the court sided with the business agaisnt State control, that was over turned by West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937), which, following the Mugler’s court logic found it just for States to set labor standards (in this case a minium wage).
  
  So run along and play with the other home school drop outs.
  
  Report this comment
- OIF3survivor
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 1:17pm
  Encinom:
  
  Its ironic, humorous and unfortunate you bring up posting on subjects you have no knowledge of as you do it consistently.
  
  Lets do some schooling again. Apparently you keep forgetting or have never learned, (ie., posting on subjects you have no knowledge of) the Bill of Rights Trumps anything regarding police powers. Why? Not because they are a set of laws but rather recognized universal truths at the time. In other words they were merely pointing out what natural law, as they correctly understood it, dictated and putting the guarantees to paper that these would not be violated.
  Secondly, its absurd to accept that the flawed interpretation of you, as well as a few others here, that the founders were not referring to an individual right but rather ‘states’ rights to organize and arm a ‘select corps’ militia. Then over the course of the next hundred + years every State Supreme court case as well as the infamous Dredd Scott case, as well as the debates over the meaning of the adoption of the 14th Ammendment framed the 2nd as clearly intended to be an individual right, irrespective even of the militia clause. THEN, suddenly it is interpreted again as YOU, meteors, Keaton, JZS, et al, do. Unfortunately though you don’t even have that, as perusing the extensive record of the debates regarding adoption of the Bill of Rights throughout the individual states makes that assumption even untenable.
  
  Report this comment
- OIF3survivor
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 1:25pm
  Let me provide some statements from the decisions of a couple State Supreme Court cases from the 19th century for you to consider…if you’re capable of considering anything that doesn’t come from a Huffpo opinion writer.
  
  Nunn v State (Georgia Supreme Court, 1846) decided “no legislative body in the Union could deny citizens the privilege of being armed to defend self and country, and that colonial ancestors had possessed this right which ‘is one of the fundamental principles of , upon which rests the great fabric of civil liberty.’”
  And “‘We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures. This right is too dear to be confided to a republican legislature.”‘
  
  Cockrum v State (Texas Supreme Court, 1859) likewise decided that the “object of the Second Amendment was to ensure that ‘the people cannot be effectually oppressed and enslaved, who are not first disarmed.”‘
  
  I can provide you commentary or summaries of at least another dozen or so more court decisions from this time period which makes it clear that those living a century or more closer to the period of the revolution and Federalist era were pretty clear that the right to keep and bear arms was an INDIVIDUAL one and is not to be infringed by either the states or the State.
  
  Would you care to continue making a fool of yourself or would you prefer just stop while you are b
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 3:19pm
  @OIF3survivor
  
  Learn civics, Federal Law trumps State. Also its clear you are unable to think for yourself, instead you parrot the lies of Barton and Beck about Natural Law. The Bill of Rights influences State law, not because of some universally understood rights (only the Godless members of the Age of Enlightenment thought that), instead the Bill of Rights is incorporated onto State laws by the 14 Amendment of the Consitution and by the decisions and opinions of the US Supreme Court. And its the opinions of the Supreme Court that inform what an Amendment means. Even in Heller, Scalia said that the government was empowered to pass resonable restrictions on gun ownership.
  
  Report this comment
- BryanB
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 3:55pm
  @encinom
  
  First of all you need to stop getting your legal information from wikipedia.
  
  Second all of these Laws and Court Decisions your quoting, are all based on the States a ability to Regulate Private Businesses, Health, Safety, and Morals over the Federal Government.
  All of these Laws and Court Decisions like Mugler v. Kansas have been over-turned, in favor that the Federal Government is the Supreme Law of the Land.
  
  For Example: In the State of Kentucky, they have Dry County’s, No Alcohic Beverage or Liquor can be sold in that County, but it does not stop you as an individual from having a Alcohic Beverage or even Manufacturing Alcohol or Liquor for consumption as long as it has a Federal Tax Stamp………
  
  Report this comment
- OIF3survivor
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 4:51pm
  Parroting?
  
  No, its called reading the primary sources-what was actually said at the time of the debates-in other words. Its something that actual historians with actual degrees in history-like myself-do. You may wish to try it some time. If you had actually done any of that you would know that the founders were very well versed in Cicero, Socrates, Hobbes, Locke, Blackstone and Machiavelli amongst others. Once again, perhaps you should actually read some of their own thoughts put to paper (primary sources) before making a fool of yourself…repeatedly.
  
  As for the federal law trumping state law-do ya think? Actually I know better than to ask that because CLEARLY you aren’t. If you were able to demonstrate even the smallest iota of critical thinking you would have noticed that I did not frame my points as some form of state’s rights argument. Rather, my point, which your befuddled thinking was incapable of discerning, was simply that EVERY point made pre, during or after the Bill of Rights were enacted emphasize a clearly individual right. In fact you were distinctly quiet regarding the debates revolving around the ratification fight for the 14th Amendment in which it was ONCE again made clear that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right. You were also oddly silent regarding the Dred Scott case, in which the arguments and decision clearly linked the 2nd Amendment to individual right.
  Your argumentation skill is pathetic-never go into law.
  
  Report this comment
- OIF3survivor
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 5:11pm
  You make this as easy as shooting fish in a bucket…but wait…perhaps even the word shooting is too offensive for someone with as small an intellect as you’ve thus far displayed. Perhaps it would be better so say ‘as easy as throwing softballs at fish in a bucket’. There. That should do.
  
  Oh and by the way, whatever happened to that Anthony Wiener exoneration within 48 hours you promised us all…a couple years ago? That’s right it never occurred and yet you never retracted the comment, admitted fault or even addressed your foolishness. At the same time you’ve consistently pretended to take the high road with intellectual honesty as a person of integrity on the left.
  
  Go crawl back into your hole you coward, while those of us who will defend your rights to be an idiot and do the heavy lifting to protect your simpleton views, continue to do so both overseas (as an OIF vet/survivor in convoy security) and here at home.
  
  Lets just get down to the nitty gritty shall we? Who is responsible for a person’s own individual safety and security? Is it the individual or the state? You seem to avoid this continuously, which is THE primary question around which all others regarding gun control spring.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 6:05pm
  BryanB
  
  All of these Laws and Court Decisions like Mugler v. Kansas have been over-turned, in favor that the Federal Government is the Supreme Law of the Land.
  ___________________________________
  Sorry, idiot you are again ranting and raving about things you have no understanding of. SHOW ME THE CASE LAW WHERE THIS IS SO (again, there is none). States still have blue laws, a county in NJ, its illegl to have any store, other than a gas station, convinence store and super market open on Sunday.
  
  The problem is that your an idiot that believes the fringe right wing talking points.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 6:14pm
  @OIF3survivor
  
  Prior to the 14th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment never applied to the States, prior to the 14th Amendment the Bill of Rights was meaningless to the States. Just like the dusty old State court decisions your recited have little barring on the interpetation of the Amendment today. State of CT is a soveriegn state, with certain constraints. It can not violate the 2nd Amendment Rights, but even the leading case Heller, clearly states it can pass restrictions on the right. Your nonsense about individual rights is meaningless and your reactionary revisionist take on American history is typical of compound dwellers and other fringe elements that believe the lies of Beck and others on the fringe.
  
  You have a degree in histroy, from which correspondence course, cause you were conned. Let me guess you graduated Beck U.
  
  Report this comment
- moreoilplease
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 6:37pm
  Don’t bother trying to debate encontinent. He is here to insult and muddy the water. You’re replying to an empty chair.
  
  We already have common sense gun laws. We are talking about restricting individual rights for a crime they may commit or a crime someone else has already committed.
  
  Besides, they’ve made it clear their goal is for confiscation. So why on earth should we trust them when they say its just common sense. When they make end runs around the constitution. Why?
  
  Report this comment
- OIF3survivor
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 6:51pm
  “Prior to the 14th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment never applied to the States, prior to the 14th Amendment the Bill of Rights was meaningless to the States. Just like the dusty old State court decisions your recited have little barring on the interpetation of the Amendment today. State of CT is a soveriegn state, with certain constraints. It can not violate the 2nd Amendment Rights, but even the leading case Heller, clearly states it can pass restrictions on the right. ”
  
  Once again a failure and misconstruing the argument to make your point. Have you ever successfully argued anything? I ask because you are continuing to flail and fail miserably. By the way the word is ‘bearing’ not barring. Your writing is as poor as your argumentation.
  
  In any case the nature of my argument, as I’ve made clear twice and now a third time is not the actual decisions themselves that I’m discussing but rather what they indicate of how the right to bear arms was understood. As an aside, your understanding of the state decisions is patently false, a reading of which would make clear. Several actually specifically dwelt on this despite your claim to the contrary.
  But I digress, the point I made, which is repeatedly proven in debate over the Bill of Rights, those State Supreme Court cases mentioned (as well as at least a dozen more), the US Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case and the debate over ratification of the 14th Amendment is that there is ONLY an individual right.
  
  Report this comment
- BryanB
  Posted on March 22, 2013 at 12:56am
  @encinom
  
  Troll…………
  
  Report this comment
MrKnowItAll
Posted on March 20, 2013 at 5:50pm
Here in Detroit. If they confiscated all Law Abiding Citizens Guns. 95% of the people here would still have at Least ONE!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
P4cooler
Posted on March 20, 2013 at 5:48pm
Thank you Mr Steed: Perhaps you have influenced these corrupt politicians enough for some of them to “back off” their assault on us hard working American people. The Love Light of God shall be with you always!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
thetruthseeker711
Posted on March 20, 2013 at 5:47pm
Mikutel is an idiot. To suggest violence could be controlled in a dictatorship only proves his ignorance of global governments. The majority of violence amongst the citizens of the world is, indeed, under the power of non-democratic governments.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Anadara
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:08pm
  Absolutely correct. More violence is perpetrated against people under a dictatorship. google – Hitler, Pol pot, Stalin, Mao, Ceausescu, Castro, Perez, Idi Amin, Kim Sun il, …and this is a very short list. The American people had better wake up and protect the Constitution.
  
  Report this comment
- Americanius
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 7:07pm
  Agree. The violence that erupts in a dictatorship comes from the government with little if any control. As long as governments continue to limit individual freedom in favor of safety there can be no solution as Mr. Steed stated. These politicians know that but seize the opportunity to do something symbolic without regard to the rights and freedoms of the people. Even if it violates the bill of rights. Remember as one C papal witch said, “we have to pass it to know what’s on it”. That one small statement spoke volumes.
  
  Report this comment
Serenabit
Posted on March 20, 2013 at 5:45pm
“If the U.S. was a “dictatorship” Congress would have a better chance of dealing with violence, but that’s not the way they want to go” ~Connecticut state Rep. Steve Mikutel (D)

These words should be remembered and absolutely haunt this politician and any others that could even consider a “dictatorship” as a legal form of government. This Representative is the perfect example of THE PROBLEM, how is it that anyone can actually believe that he (or others like him) can implement the solution?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- LakeHartwellSailor
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 5:51pm
  Serenabit
  
  You hit the nail on the head. When I read those words, I was thinking he may be SAYING that he doesn’t want to go down that road (dictatorship); but I bet he wishes he could.
  
  Report this comment
- Whatmeworry-never
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:02pm
  OMG you are so right. He seems to wish for a Dictatorship with the way he said that. Proves the Dems want nothing but tyranny over all of us.
  
  Report this comment
- firman
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:23pm
  And this bozo will probly get re-elected. People better wake up.
  
  Report this comment
carpee
Posted on March 20, 2013 at 5:42pm
Hey the Obama secret service agent shapeshifted into this guy!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- bondroid
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:07pm
  LoL!
  
  Report this comment
GroundZero is Nuclear Demolition x3
Posted on March 20, 2013 at 5:42pm
Here is a great example of how to get paid by doomburge, to disarm the public: http://youtu.be/0eoPNyMnYaw

These pollockticians (sorry if I insulted anyone from Poland, not the intent) believe they have been granted to power of god. Morality can not be legislated.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Ghandi was a Republican
Posted on March 20, 2013 at 5:39pm
The left keeps up with a false argument, never stopping. First its weapons are too easy to get. Then it’s well- weapons have too many bullets. Then it’s weapons are sold indiscriminately to anyone (False, not legally). Then it’s well- “if we can save one life — False argument! — LEGAL weapons save many, many lives, every day. Then it’s well- We HAVE TO do SOMETHING! Then it’s Well- we have to keep the guns away from the criminals – FALSE- we have those laws and they aren’t enforced adequately!
Then it’s well – we still have to do something — We know what the solutions are! FALSE! They have no clue that guns deter violence far more than they encourage it.
Finally it will be a stupid law in the name of “progress”. Progress = new law to make a whole bunch of other laws based on nothing more than the new law “progress”. Progressivism.
Criminals will never be subject to the new laws. First rule of alinsky – If a law works, it’s will impede the need for more intrusive laws, which impedes “Progress” (aka the socialist utopia / communism / the collective)

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- one.dakine.howlie
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 5:57pm
  “As long as we have an open, free-democratic society we’re not going to be able to get a handle on all the violence that happens in our society.” What is this bureaucrat trying to say??? That this Republic we’re created that’s based on laws instead of men is flawed because we have more freedom? Is he suggesting that communist or dictatorships have a better handle on criminal activity???
  
  Report this comment
john vincent
Posted on March 20, 2013 at 5:34pm
——– And as far as what I felt were potshots taken at the NRA, they’ve done more for gun safety– they’ll do more for gun safety this weekend than this committee will do in your careers.”—————–

Strong- strong- strong
Excellent defense sir

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The_Jerk
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 5:45pm
  He needs to run for office.
  
  Report this comment
- integrican
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:32pm
  Ask Mikutel if he knows why the NRA was formed?
  Ask Mikutel why did the NRA “explode’ in membership after WWII?
  
  Report this comment
- moderateliberal
  Posted on March 21, 2013 at 3:23pm
  The NRA are nothing but lobbyists for the gun manufacturers. Oooh. a gun safety class or two. BFD. They stripped the ATF of the ability to do it’s job keeping guns out of the hands of crims.
  
  Report this comment
TCK
Posted on March 20, 2013 at 5:31pm
More and more of our liberties are being taken away in the name of safety. Someone forgot to tell Democrats that there’s nothing safe about being alive. Tell you what, Democrat Liberal safety whiners: You stop killing the unborn and I’ll give up my guns. Until then, don’t bother telling me about how to protect my kids.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- LakeHartwellSailor
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 5:57pm
  When I was a little kid, I read a book about a boy who lost his sight in a firecracker accident. The book talked about him dealing with becoming blind, learning to count steps, use a cane, and finally working with a guide dog.
  
  One part of the book always stuck with me. It was when his therapist was teaching him how to navigate in the world. The therapist turned the kid loose in the hallway; and the kid ended up cracking his head on a corner. The kid got angry at the therapist and demanded why the institution didn’t put any padding up, since the building was filled with blind people. The therapist replied, “the world is a dangerous place, and you can’t expect the world to pad every danger.”
  
  As an 8 year old, I found that to be a very profound statement.
  
  Report this comment
TEIN
Posted on March 20, 2013 at 5:30pm
“Connecticut state Rep. Steve Mikutel (D) refuted Steed and said lawmakers can craft a solution to gun violence. “We can solve this,” he said.”…Yep, just like those well crafted laws that have solved the issue of people committing suicide…..just if we could have more laws against suicide, look at the lives that could be saved….

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RaydocX
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 5:35pm
  spot on… all the laws that have stopped teen pregnancy, and drug use.
  
  why there’s not even speeding in Connecticut!
  
  beware the politician who wants to be in his or her job…
  
  Report this comment
- MN NICE
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 7:02pm
  Well, they solved all the rape issues… Just took a little pee, crap, puke and the words “NO” and “DON’T” directed at the perp.
  
  Who woulda thunk our politicians were that powerful?!?
  
  Report this comment
crusaderx9
Posted on March 20, 2013 at 5:26pm
Connecticut state Rep. Steve Mikutel (D) referring to a dictator: “If the U.S. was a “dictatorship” Congress would have a better chance of dealing with violence” was asinine as he intimates that dictatorships are better at protecting the public.

*HISTORY WOULD DISAGREE as the largest government killings of its citizens are from dictatorships.

Another democrat that is sick in the head and should be thrown out of office!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- wolverine
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:04pm
  All a dictatorship means is the government kills the citizens
  
  Report this comment
ComingUnglued
Posted on March 20, 2013 at 5:26pm
Mikutel admitted that “we live in an open free democratic society,” therefore lawmakers won’t be able to address all violence in society. If the U.S. was a “dictatorship” Congress would have a better chance of dealing with violence, but that’s not the way they want to go, the Democrat added.

“You’ll get a better handle on it maybe in a dictatorship where they just go in and take all your guns and lock-down, and they’ve got big brother watching all over you everywhere, they’ve got cameras on every corner, cameras in every neighborhood,” the Democrat continued.

Be careful Connecticut, I think dictatorship is where he would like to go. These idiots think that we NEED the government watching out for us. What they don’t realize is that they are the ones that need someone else to tell them what, where, and how to live. Go back to your MOMMY and DADDY, the president doesn’t get that job.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
NinjaJuice
Posted on March 20, 2013 at 5:22pm
Criminals will find ways to get what they want regardless of what laws will pass.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Secret Squirrel
Posted on March 20, 2013 at 5:21pm
You go man!
It’s time more Americans stood up and spoke up.
I hope this is the beginning of a movement.
“When the government fears the public you have liberty, when the people fear the government,
you have tyranny.”
For too long, people have remained silent, not wanting to “get involved.”

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Bum thrower
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 5:34pm
  The good folks in the NE have been silent for DECADES. All of the origional 13 colonies are ‘socicalist’ states or very close to it. Look at folks who actually ELECT a socialsit;…Bernie Sanders. Don’t move to my state and bring your socialist utopia ides with you….that’s what happened in CO with all the ‘wing nuts’ from CA that moved there.
  
  Report this comment
- readyontheright
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:33pm
  @secret squirrel
  You are right, too many people are remaining quiet. All of our conservative brothers and sisters need to speak up and be heard before its too late. You dont need a platform or event to speak up. Speak your mind and take on liberal ideas every chance you get. Strike up conversations with strangers anytime and anywhere. Be Heard Conservatives!! Be Heard !!
  
  Report this comment
Cavallo
Posted on March 20, 2013 at 5:17pm
Has anyone fired a SOCOM chambered for 30-06? What did you think?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- kettererbg
  Posted on March 20, 2013 at 8:07pm
  I fired the .308 version. I didn’t know they made one for .30-06. I like my M1 Garand just fine. For longer work I use my 1903A3.
  
  Report this comment
LakeHartwellSailor
Posted on March 20, 2013 at 5:13pm
“Adam Lanza commits a crime, and I’m here to gravel and plead for my rights and explain to you that my firearms are kept safely?”

That’s the point, we should not have to gravel and plead….Steed is correct to throw that in the “law makers” face. Why should I have to pay for the sins of some nut case?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
NoFameLost
Posted on March 20, 2013 at 5:13pm
It should read “Connecticut state Rep. Steve Mikutel refuted Steed…” not “Colorado state Rep.”

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
tankyjo
Posted on March 20, 2013 at 5:12pm
DANG! God bless you man! This is an example of what more of US need to be about.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.