Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Connecticut Carry - WQUN 1220 AM interview

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

    Connecticut Carry - WQUN 1220 AM interview

    Host John D'Andre did a great job with this interview:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt4NAdjM1_A
    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
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101

    Great Job, Rich!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    Host John D'Andre did a great job with this interview:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt4NAdjM1_A
    You are an exceptionally capable representative of Connecticut Carry, and an effective advocate.
    D. T. Doutel

    What is to the lawyer or cop a "material misrepresentation of the facts", and to the politician "misspeaking" is, in common parlance, a bald-faced lie. And don't let anyone tell you different!

    Visit Connecticut Carry and LiarCop.com for the latest news regarding Norwalk v. Doutel and Doutel v. Norwalk.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    supporting additional training requirements ... terrible terrible

    BR checks .... positive for them except for private sales (need to know the person, call the state? eh .... )

    Agreeing with state laws on pistol permit suitability requirement ... just needs to be better "training" was what I thought was the gist

    We should even be required to have permits ... ??? Why?

    No discussion of SCOTUS rulings ??? ... democrats don't talk about scotus rulings because they don't support their ideas ....


    Sounds like CT Carry supports our current guns laws for the most part ... yippie

    If I had 20 minutes I would be talking about Miller, Heller, and McDonald and how the guns that the gov't owns WE can own and that guns and
    accessories are protected under these 3 cases and that the gun bills proposed are in direct conflict with the current federal law.


    Rich carried himself well but really did not show to have a strong viewpoint that supports our 2nd amendment rights ...
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 02-23-2013 at 09:21 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    89
    davidmcbeth: "Rich carried himself well but really did not show to have a strong viewpoint that supports our 2nd amendment rights ... "

    +1

    1. "We're working with trainers to bring better and more consistent training....like to see more and better training...to go far beyond basic requirements...."

    REALLY? Where is the evidence that gun owners are so ignorant and irresponsible that training is an issue that needs to be addressed by a RIGHTS organization?

    2. (Background Checks) "...don't disagree with this in most regards." (Beefing up and streamlining background checks): "Absolutely..."

    REALLY?

    3. (there is "no psychological model as part of the background checks) "...a great topic of discussion for our legislators."

    REALLY? Be careful what you wish for!

    4. "There is no solution to what happened at Newtown."

    While I concede that criminals and evil people will always try to do what they do, I think an opportunity was missed here to suggest that the best defense is ANY defense, i.e., removing schools from the list of mandated "disarmed victim zones" and let all citizens who already have the trust and confidence of the state to have been issued a carry permit, not have to disarm at the schoolhouse door.
    Last edited by Riverdance; 02-23-2013 at 10:52 PM. Reason: spelling

  5. #5
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverdance View Post
    1. "We're working with trainers to bring better and more consistent training....like to see more and better training...to go far beyond basic requirements...."

    REALLY? Where is the evidence that gun owners are so ignorant and irresponsible that training is an issue that needs to be addressed by a RIGHTS organization?
    I am sorry if you do not agree that more and better training opportunities in our state is a good thing for everyone. We absolutely believe in offering choices and expanding training in our state. Your questions above are mostly strawmen since we have not indicated anything of the sort, so I don't see the need to respond to them individually.

    2. (Background Checks) "...don't disagree with this in most regards." (Beefing up and streamlining background checks): "Absolutely..."

    REALLY?
    You don't believe in streamlining background checks? We do. We have a very ridiculous process here and anything we can do to clear that process up is a win for all.

    And yes, I absolutely believe in background checks. I just don't believe in background checks only for firearms or being done by the government at all. And I certainly don't believe in mandatory-government-enforced background checks.

    That is why we issued the release on background checks that we did.

    http://ctcarry.com/News/Release/e38f...d-eb1e5c68b955

    That is also why we offer access to our state database.

    http://ctcarry.com/ConvictionHistory/StateSearch

    3. (there is "no psychological model as part of the background checks) "...a great topic of discussion for our legislators."

    REALLY? Be careful what you wish for!
    No worries. That is not something that will ever fly. Best to let our legislators toil with something that the ACLU will spend their millions on. Don't mistake redirection for endorsement.

    4. "There is no solution to what happened at Newtown."

    While I concede that criminals and evil people will always try to do what they do, I think an opportunity was missed here to suggest that the best defense is ANY defense, i.e., removing schools from the list of mandated "disarmed victim zones" and let all citizens who already have the trust and confidence of the state to have been issued a carry permit, not have to disarm at the schoolhouse door.
    We have mentioned this many times and it was discussed. The interviewer is actually a professor at Quinnipiac and we talked at length about this since he supports the removal of the GFSZ model, but himself does not think that he is capable or responsible enough to be armed in a classroom. Luckily, in Connecticut we already have provisions for faculty in schools and colleges to be armed. While it would be great to push for permit holders to have no restrictions on this as well, these deals are not won in a single interview or session.

    Not everything makes it into taped interviews. People who don't do this kind of thing on a regular basis rarely understand how difficult it is to get good sound bites into the record. Overall, I am pretty happy about what made it into this interview and how it was framed.


    We build media relationships. That is why we get our time to talk and why others do not. Spending our time screaming "Shall not be infringed" and ranting about SCOTUS rulings is what some people do, but it is not always the most effective method when considering context and audience.

    Some people are effective. Some are not. Guess which ones.
    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

  6. #6
    Regular Member Ctclassic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Plainfield, CT, ,
    Posts
    172
    ooh, ooh, pick me...can I guess?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    89
    1. Rich B: "I am sorry if you do not agree that more and better training opportunities in our state is a good thing"

    Me: Matter of fact I'm an NRA Certified Instructor who trains at least weekly, has taken numerous tactical courses, and absolutely believes that every gun owner should get the most and best training possible.

    But you missed (or intentionally evaded) my point - in most states it is the ANTI-rights lobby that insists gun owners are dangerously untrained. For a supposed PRO-RIGHTS organization to suggest a "need" for gun owners to get more training helps the gun haters with their allegation that we are a problem.


    2. Rich B: "You don't believe in streamlining background checks? We do."

    Me: You missed (or intentionally evaded) my point. It is not the "streamlining" gun owners should find repulsive (if we must suffer the indignity of the checks at all), it is the "beefing up" of them to which you agreed with "absolutely" on the program.


    3. (psychological model as part of background checks a great topic of discussion for our legislators)

    Rich B: "No worries. That is not something that will ever fly. Best to let our legislators toil with something that the ACLU will spend their millions on. Don't mistake redirection for endorsement."

    Me: Suggesting it's a great topic for legislators didn't sound like redirection (redirection for who?); came across as endorsement. Why even go there and give the anti-rights lobby words they can use against us?



    4. (Newtown)

    Rich B: "While it would be great to push for permit holders to have no restrictions on this as well, these deals are not won in a single interview or session."


    Me: Which is why the subject needs to be brought up at every opening; it took us TEN YEARS to win one sensitive issue, and we only did so by bringing up a bill every year and keeping the conversation out there for people to think about and ultimately be desensitized to and accept.


    Rich B: "Not everything makes it into taped interviews. People who don't do this kind of thing on a regular basis rarely understand how difficult it is to get good sound bites into the record."

    Me: Correct. Which is why every word has to be weighed carefully to avoid sounding like you support hurdles for gun owners, or against an interviewer who could string bites together to support HIS agenda. Because the latter could happen in the best of circumstances, I keep a digital recorder in front pocket during interviews, and I hope you do too.

    Rich B: "Spending our time screaming "Shall not be infringed" and ranting about SCOTUS rulings is what some people do, but it is not always the most effective method when considering context and audience."

    Me: Not sure where this point even comes from unless you are mocking davidmcbeth's post. If your point is that the message should differ depending upon who you're talking to, you're wrong. There should be no compromise on freedom regardless of who doesn't like it or want to hear it. With strong opposition sometimes we have to take and be satisfied with small, incremental steps, but that is not the same as giving away that which is not ours to give.
    Last edited by Riverdance; 02-25-2013 at 06:18 AM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverdance View Post
    Matter of fact I'm an NRA Certified Instructor who trains at least weekly, has taken numerous tactical courses, and absolutely believes that every gun owner should get the most and best training possible.

    But you missed (or intentionally evaded) my point - in most states it is the ANTI-rights lobby that insists gun owners are dangerously untrained. For a supposed PRO-RIGHTS organization to suggest a "need" for gun owners to get more training helps the gun haters with their allegation that we are a problem.
    You are right. We should deny that training saves lives.

    You are making silly and absurd conclusions here. We have never advocated, nor would we ever, for mandatory training requirements. We only advocate for more and better training opportunities in Connecticut and we have actively worked towards this goal. We also have some great training available here now.

    Don't keep trying to put words in our mouth about us telling people there is a 'need' for anything as if we advocate for mandates.


    You missed (or intentionally evaded) my point. It is not the "streamlining" gun owners should find repulsive (if we must suffer the indignity of the checks at all), it is the "beefing up" of them to which you agreed with "absolutely" on the program.
    And I stand by it. 'Beefing up' background checks is a good thing for everyone. How we do it is the area for discussion. And we lent our voices on the subject: http://ctcarry.com/News/Release/e38f...d-eb1e5c68b955

    Suggesting it's a great topic for legislators didn't sound like redirection (redirection for who?); came across as endorsement. Why even go there and give the anti-rights lobby words they can use against us?
    Well, you have your interpretation, and I appreciate you voicing it.


    Me: Correct. Which is why every word has to be weighed carefully to avoid sounding like you support hurdles for gun owners, or against an interviewer who could string bites together to support HIS agenda. Because the latter could happen in the best of circumstances, I keep a digital recorder in front pocket during interviews, and I hope you do too.
    Not sure where this point even comes from unless you are mocking davidmcbeth's post. If your point is that the message should differ depending upon who you're talking to, you're wrong. There should be no compromise on freedom regardless of who doesn't like it or want to hear it. With strong opposition sometimes we have to take and be satisfied with small, incremental steps, but that is not the same as giving away that which is not ours to give.
    We have not compromised. That is only your interpretation. The message and the tone of the message must change depending on the audience. Principles don't change. You are free to disagree with that, but I can tell you that it is pretty worthless to not try and engage audiences on topics where they may have interest and to try and get them to see things in new lights.



    I am done with any debate you might have on these issues since I think I covered them pretty well in my first reply and you don't seem to be moving towards a productive path.

    What I think would be helpful is for you to post one of your interviews so I/we could all learn from it and take notes.
    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

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Its unfortunate that the leaked DOJ memo was not available for Rich to talk about .. it shows that they know these laws would have no effect on gun violence and then he could have easily switched to discussion of Miller and Heller case law easily.

Posting Permissions

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