Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Connecticut Carry - Press Release - U.S. Rep John Larson Hosts Anti-Gun Rally

  1. #1
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910

    Connecticut Carry - Press Release - U.S. Rep John Larson Hosts Anti-Gun Rally

    Whips up hysteria about inanimate objects

    West Hartford, Connecticut, 12/23/2012:

    Connecticut Carry was on hand at Saint John’s Episcopal Church in West Hartford where U.S. Representative John Larson attempted to stir anti-gun hysteria in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy.

    Congressman Larson wasted no time in attacking his political agenda by giving a speech about ‘all of his solutions’ to tragedies like the one that occurred in Newtown, but instead spent the entire speech ranting and raving about ‘assault weapons’, ‘assault rifles’, ‘automatic weapons’, ‘high capacity clips’, and ‘background checks’. Congressman Larson apparently didn’t think anyone present would recognize the talking points of the radical anti-rights organizations like the Brady Campaign, The Violence Policy Center and the CSGV. These organizations have spent a great deal of time and energy trying to confuse otherwise ignorant people into believing that the modern sporting rifles to which they apply the label ‘assault weapon’ are somehow more deadly than any other type of weapon. They purposely confuse people about the differences between semi-automatic firearms and fully-automatic firearms.

    Congressman Larson conflated the terms above to try and make his constituents believe that he was trying to ban from civilian ownership the automatic weapons that the military utilizes.

    Congressman Larson repeated the same line telling his constituents over and over that over 3 million people in the United States possessed ‘a Bushmaster’. He then went on to say that ‘something must be done’. What Congressman Larson did not bother to mention was that (assuming his numbers are true), that means that 2,999,999 owners of ‘Bushmasters’ did not massacre anyone on December 14th. Further, he could have mentioned that ‘Bushmaster’ is one company that manufactures the style firearm he is referring to and that the number is much, much larger. Any conservative estimate of gun owners in America would draw numbers in excess of 100 million people. That is 999,999,999 people that didn’t go on a murder spree that day that he wants to punish. Out of those people, conservatively, 4,000 people likely used their firearms in defense of themselves or their property that day as Article 1, Section 15 of our state constitution demands.

    When asked if Congressman Larson would seek a quick and complete ban of guns like the gun confiscation in Australia, he replied that he would be in favor of this. He also agreed with a young man that urged him to urge President Obama to act through executive order on banning and confiscating firearms like they did in Australia after he acted through executive order on the ‘fiscal cliff’.

    Congressman Larson should probably learn about the ideas that he is proselytizing, because Australia has seen a steady rise in violent crime since their gun ban and buyback programs from 1996.

    In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

    Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

    In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
    Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
    Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

    If Congressman Larson says he is on the side of ‘reducing violence’ than he is sure taking the wrong road.

    Congressman Larson’s plan is to make us more like Norway, home of some of the toughest gun laws in the world. There a madman used guns and bombs to wage war for hours against a completely unarmed populace completely unable to defend themselves. This resulted in 77 people dead and 319 injured. Many of these victims were children. If we could learn anything from that tragedy, it is that an unarmed populace gets innocent people killed.

    There is another startling revelation in Congressman Larson’s preaching. Congressman Larson wishes President Obama would circumvent the legislature and utilize executive orders to ban private property. This is a clear violation to the constitution and to the representative republic we have here. The very suggestion is offensive on many core levels.

    Congressman Larson also stated his support for ammunition taxes and bans on ‘Saturday Night Specials’. Both of these types of laws, historically, have roots in trying to keep people of lesser means from being able to defend themselves. This is a vile concept. The people with the least means have the most need to be able to defend themselves and their loved ones. Both criminals and people with greater wealth will hardly be affected by either of these kinds of laws.

    All the while, Congressman Larson continued to comment on the large crowd that had showed up to discuss his anti-gun agenda, but failed to acknowledge that a significant portion of those people were there to criticize that agenda. The crowd engaged in booing and shouting down many of the people who had the courage to stand up and question the hysteria that the Congressman was trying to stir up with the crowd. With all the talk of the ‘reasoned discourse’ and ‘common sense legislation’ that the Congressman kept mentioning, he did nothing when a man was loudly and violently yelled at by one of his constituents for having the courage to assert that an ‘Assault Weapon Ban’ would not be a valid solution to what had happened in Newtown.

    Congressman Larson repeatedly told his constituents that the “NRA did not come” and yet he had numerous NRA members and representatives of state organizations like Connecticut Carry that he did not invite to this forum and quickly dismissed in entirety. Congressman Larson is right. The NRA did not come. Nor should they. The membership of the NRA hasn’t massacred any students and has no responsibility to engage Congressman Larson’s hysterical cries to ‘do something’. But state organizations like Connecticut Carry do not have a choice. We are under attack by Congressman Larson and others with political agendas.

    If Congressman Larson wants to engage ‘the other side’ like he so vehemently talks about, we left him our contact information. He should get in touch with us and learn why the terms he is using are so offensive to the over 100 million citizens of the United States that he will impact with his witch hunt.

    When Connecticut Carry President Rich Burgess called Congressman Larson out for his manipulations of the truth and his intent to stir hysteria, the Congressman tried to retreat and assert that he had simply ‘confused his nomenclature’. We know the truth however. The Congressman then followed Burgess’ corrections by trailing off that he would ‘get the numbers and get back to us’. We invite the Congressman to do so; we are sure that he will be surprised to find out how little he knows about any of the issues he proselytized at this forum.

    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Contact:
    Richard Burgess
    President
    Connecticut Carry, Inc
    Ph: 203-208-9577
    Email: rich@ctcarry.com
    http://ctcarry.com


    Read More...
    Last edited by Rich B; 12-23-2012 at 06:59 PM.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    And what #s did he back to you with ... hahahaha

    Idiot ...

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Shelton
    Posts
    138
    I didn't know Ed was running CT carry lol. http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/politic...m#.UNhYs3eJl8E

    Ed Peruta, director of a pro-gun group, Connecticut Carry, suggested that laws should be changed so gun-related crimes would go to federal court rather than state court. He says that might avoid plea bargains in state.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Shawn Mitola View Post
    I didn't know Ed was running CT carry lol. http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/politic...m#.UNhYs3eJl8E
    Ed is a director of Connecticut Carry. CTNewsJunkie has been asked to retract or correct their story naming him as President and attributing the press release to him.

    The WTNH article is correct in that Ed's title is 'Director'.

    http://ctcarry.com/About/Bios
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Mr. Peruta is currently a plaintiff in the case of Peruta v. San Diego where he is attempting to obtain a Concealed Carry Permit from the San Diego Sheriff’s Department.


    I read some filings in this case ... I just thought it was another with the same name ... what's next the world court? lol

    I see that he got his feet wet during the 2007 Kuck / Goldberg cases.

    I have been politically and professionally involved in 2nd amendment issues since 1985 ... in several states.

    I must say that in CT these people here are wackos ... so anti-gun its amazing. And their logic defies reason. So I do a lot of yelling ...

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    And look at Anna's pic ! I bet she makes regular viruses go retro with her Colt 1911 lol!

    Does she have to put down that she's fluent in English? lol

    "Dislikes: communists, socialists and Executive Directors who make her post a Biography."

    So I can see why a clarification of who is the director is warranted !

    (really though, as a PhD level scientist myself, I see issues with a woman's right to choose .. as it supports the killing of members of our own species. Is a fetus a member of our species? I think the definition requires this conclusion). Other than that, her page section is a hoot.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Obsession and extreme views

    To: David Godbout Phd. aka Davidmcbeth

    You are fast approaching 3,000 posts on this message board since joining in January of 2012 which provides evidence that you have posted nearly 8.23 time per day.

    I have for some time refrained from commenting on your posts, but felt that it was time to publicly state my feelings.

    I have read your posts and listened to your opinions on several occasions.

    I am NOT impressed with your opinions or advice and believe that you have serious issues which concern me in many ways that I will not discuss in a public forum.

    I was NOT impressed with your presentation at the recent Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, and found it extremely interesting that you of all people would make the simple stupid mistake of NOT acknowledging your military service on the application for a Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers. You held a place on the Board's backlogged docket which could have been filled by someone with real issues.

    I have personally, (face to face), told you of my concerns and beliefs regarding how you address issues, and hope that your opinions and beliefs do not represent the average law abiding individuals who visit this message board.

    You should really seek out a professional to discuss your concerns with firearms, Freedom of Information, Hartford Parking Authority and I'm sure other areas in your daily life.

    And please refrain from attempting to contact me regarding this post.

    To the moderator of this board, this IS NOT a personal attack and is based on factual information.

    I have serious concerns that Mr. Godbout's comments are distracting others from the information and debates that are published on this message board.

    Respectfully,

    Edward Peruta
    edperuta@ctgunrights.com

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Peruta View Post

    To the moderator of this board, this IS NOT a personal attack and is based on factual information.

    Edward Peruta
    edperuta@ctgunrights.com
    Did I not state to the issuing authority of my military service? Then why did they list my refusal to provide a DD214 as a reason for the denial? Only military servicemen get DD214s, right? AND I spoke to them prior to the submission as well so it was clear from the record that I did disclose my military service & a judge will see it that way~the law is not that rigid. And, on the DPS form, I stated that the inquiry for a DD214 is not required, although I did also write that I was discharged under honorable conditions on the DPS form (discharge=military vet, right?) ... it was a check-box error which is very common and not dispositive of the question (check box answers are "weak evidence" (ie a red herring)). Compare form 4473 to the dps form .. you'll see why a check box error can be seen as only weak evidence ...

    And you seem to imply that I am not a law abiding citizen. Ridiculous and a vague statement. If I have an issue, I'll present facts to support a claim. Like the next paragraph.

    Stop showing that letter from Hatfield around like it means anything regarding transportation under 29-35 when the letter itself clearly details that the letter would not estoppel the government from obtaining a conviction. 29-38 penalties and verbiage is quite clear via the statue and court opinions: you need a permit to transport a handgun. Your waving of that Hatfield letter is only going to get someone put in jail or prison. I am asking you to stop telling people that they can carry or transport a handgun w/o a permit. Google search 29-38 and find the elements needed for a conviction..then you'll see why the Hatfield letter is dangerous.

    There is nothing wrong with asking irrelevant questions on a form ... but just because a query is on a form does not mean its relevant. Proper ways of answering an irrelevant questions include: (a) not answering it at all or (b) objecting to it. So I objected to several things on the DPS form ... you don't like that I did that. The board thinks that everything must be answered on the DPS form - the law does not agree with this blanket viewpoint.

    Oddly, there was no or very limited argument from the opposing party in respect to the reasoning why the queries are not irrelevant but much evidence and testimony showing the irrelevance of the queries.

    I just think CT has painted themselves in a corner with too may laws about handguns (carry, permit, transportation) and I used these laws, and recent court rulings, to actually require a loosening up of the requirements to get a permit. Of course, these are my opinions ... others can chime in about them. You don't like my opinions? Don't care.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •