Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Firearms Board Member Says Malloy Wants To Boot Him For Pro-Gun Stance

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

    Firearms Board Member Says Malloy Wants To Boot Him For Pro-Gun Stance

    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
    Kuck was originally appointed to the board by Gov. John G. Rowland in 1998. After M. Jodi Rell became governor, she asked the Gun Guild to provide the names of three nominees for the spot. Kuck, who is treasurer of the Guild, said the group replied that it was not obligated to identify multiple nominees, "and if she didn't like that, we'd send up three names, and they'd be Peter Kuck, Peter Kuck and Peter Kuck."

    from the article ...



    Thats the ticket .... or nominate me ... I would give permits to anyone who has their gun rights intact .. irregardless of anything else .. you have your gun rights? Here's your permit.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247
    Mr. Peter Kuck as a private citizen and member of the Board of Firearms is well aware of the the fact that old and new Connecticut firearm laws, regulations and policies have never been reviewed following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Heller 2008 and McDonald 2010. One only has to follow the postings on these firearm related message boards to find problems with current law enforcement activities.

    Regardless of whether you like firearms or not, supporting Constitutional rights should be a priority to everyone.

    For those who seek the removal or replacement of individuals who support Second Amendment rights, consider the fact that there are those in government and the private sector who seek to contol and/or remove those that gather and report news and support the 1st amendment.

    The news outlets we depend on to keep us informed, often choose a social or political position and then write and edit their articles and reports with a specific editorial agenda in mind.

    As a supporter of 1st and 2nd amendment rights, I would like to see editorial opinions limited to the editorial page segment of the news and left out of regular news reports.

  4. #4
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101

    Hear, Hear!

    Boy, Ed! Couldn't agree with your post more; looked at another way, an agenda is merely a form of opinion, and we all know that opinions are like A**H**ES; everyone has one. Reporters of the news have an obligation NOT to pull it out of their A**es.
    Last edited by DDoutel; 07-12-2013 at 08:40 PM.
    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.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Peruta View Post
    Mr. Peter Kuck as a private citizen and member of the Board of Firearms is well aware of the the fact that old and new Connecticut firearm laws, regulations and policies have never been reviewed following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Heller 2008 and McDonald 2010. One only has to follow the postings on these firearm related message boards to find problems with current law enforcement activities.

    Regardless of whether you like firearms or not, supporting Constitutional rights should be a priority to everyone.

    For those who seek the removal or replacement of individuals who support Second Amendment rights, consider the fact that there are those in government and the private sector who seek to contol and/or remove those that gather and report news and support the 1st amendment.

    The news outlets we depend on to keep us informed, often choose a social or political position and then write and edit their articles and reports with a specific editorial agenda in mind.

    As a supporter of 1st and 2nd amendment rights, I would like to see editorial opinions limited to the editorial page segment of the news and left out of regular news reports.
    Don't even pure news articles have some degree of political agenda? After all, they choose to print/publish one story but not another. This selection process itself is political.

Posting Permissions

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