Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #11
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Molon Labe: Connecticut’s Terrifying Start Of Gun Confiscation

    Rachel Alexander | Mar 10, 2014



    The latest gun control law in Connecticut has crossed a very frightening line. A standoff has been created between the government and tens of thousands of gun owners now considered felons. It marks the beginning of an Orwellian new phase. Gun owners saw it coming, as evidenced by their recent adoption in recent years of the defiant expression “molon labe.” The phrase originated from Spartan General-King Leonidas, who reportedly responded with “Come and get them!” to Persian Emperor Xerxes’ demand that the Spartans surrender their weapons at the Battle of Thermopylae. The Spartans fought valiantly, but were ultimately defeated. With the prequel to the Hollywood bestselling movie 300 just released last week, Americans are now even more aware of the phrase.
    Until now, gun control laws hadn’t mandated the confiscation of weapons; generally, banned guns were grandfathered in under previous laws so their current owners could continue to legally own them. The Connecticut law changes all that. Passed last year in response to the Sandy Hook shooting, SB 1160 bans so-called “assault weapons” - certain rifles, more recently known as AR-15s, that have been singled out based on purely cosmetic criteria - and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
    The firearms have been banned based on how “scary” they look, not their actual usage in crimes. According to a study from the BATF that came out a few years ago, none of the top 10 guns used in crimes in the U.S. were so-called assault weapons; they were all pistols or revolvers. In fact, the #5 gun used in crimes was a shotgun, which Vice President Joe Biden advised Americans last year to use for self-defense.
    The only way to legally retain one of these newly banned firearms or magazines in Connecticut now is to register it - but most gun owners do not want their name on a government list. They are well aware that a list of gun owners can someday be used by the government for confiscation. If gun owners didn’t register their firearms or magazines prior to the December 31, 2013 deadline mandated by the legislation, their firearms will be subject to confiscation and the owners considered guilty of a felony.
    So far, it appears that the vast majority of gun owners affected by the legislation did not register their guns prior to the December 31 deadline, making between 50,000 and 350,000 gun owners felons. This is frightening, considering the law doesn’t just make the violation a misdemeanor, it makes it a felony, which could result in a prison sentence. Fewer than 50,000 gun owners registered their firearms by the deadline to comply with the law.
    Gun owners who sent in their applications for registration after the deadline havereported already receiving letters by the government instructing them to get rid of their guns. The Hartford Courant notes that the government has records of gun owners who went through background checks in order to purchase AR-15s. The government could potentially go after any of those gun owners who failed to register their guns.
    There is shock that gun owners are showing defiance. "I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register," said Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, the ranking GOP senator on the legislature's public safety committee. "If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't follow them, then you have a real problem."
    On January 30, Federal District Court judge Alfred V. Covello upheld the law inShew v. Malloy. While he admitted that it placed a substantial burden on the Second Amendment, he claimed that it “substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control.” It is astonishing that a judge would use that as justification, considering even Congress sunsetted the federal assault weapons ban due to a lack of evidence showing it was effective.
    Many judges come up with rulings based on their personal political views, or are pressured into a certain decision by outside special interests. Judicial activism is nothing new. Judicial activists have successfully forced a tortured, restricted interpretation of the Second Amendment over the years, in order to diminish its validity. Covello’s disappointing decision is currently being appealed, backed by the powerful NRA.
    Trying to prosecute 50,000 to 350,000 gun owners would be insanity. The liberal activist politicians who passed the foolish legislation in response to an emotional response to the Sandy Hook Shooting do not represent the will of the people who elected them, who want the Constitution upheld. In many ways, the Second Amendment is our most important right, because without it, we cannot protect any of our other rights. There is a reason why it is the Second Amendment, not the 30th Amendment.
    Requiring gun owners to register their firearms puts them on a fast track with sex offenders, who are required to register with the government so they can be monitored for the rest of their lives. If gun owners fail to register for tracking, they are then treated like criminals, just like sex offenders. This is bizarre, considering lawful gun owners are merely patriotic Americans concerned about protecting their cherished rights. AR-15s aren’t guns used in crimes, but are popular guns for self-defense and target shooting.
    Connecticut Carry, a leading gun rights organization in the state, is daring the government to come after gun owners. The stage is being set for massive civil disobedience unless the law is changed. Many prosecutors and law enforcement officers are not going to uphold a law this heavy-handed; nevertheless, this ill-conceived legislation, pushed through by gun-control activists, is going to pit many law-abiding law enforcement officers against thousands of patriotic, American freedom-loving gun owners. It is terrifying that here in America, innocent gun owners would be put in the same category as sex offenders, turning them into felons. Connecticut governor Dannel Malloy (D), who signed SB 1160, seems to have become another King Xerxes. This time around, will the Spartans in Connecticut prevail?


    http://townhall.com/columnists/rache...6403/page/full
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #12
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    1 Million Moms & Women For The 2nd Amendment via National Rifle Association

    Until now, gun control laws hadn’t mandated the confiscation of weapons. The Connecticut law changes all that. So far, it appears that the vast majority of gun owners affected by the legislation did not register their guns prior to the December 31 deadline, making between 50,000 and 350,000 gun owners felons. It is terrifying that here in America, innocent gun owners would be put in the same category as sex offenders, turning them into felons. - NRA
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #13
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Seventy-two Killed Resisting Gun Confiscation in Massachusetts

    Mar 10, 2014
    MLiponoga
    77 Comments
    CLICK HERE TO SAVE UP TO $25 ON NRA MEMBERSHIP AND SUPPORT OUR WEBSITE


    Boston – National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.
    Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement.
    Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals,” issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government’s efforts to secure law and order.
    The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.
    Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.
    One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that “none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily.”
    Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government’s plans.
    During a tense standoff in the Lexington town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists.
    Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.
    Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces over matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.
    Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops.
    Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as “ringleaders” of the extremist faction, remain at large.
    And this fellow Americans, is how the American Revolution began, April 20, 1775.

    On July 4th, 1776 these same extremists signed the Declaration of Independence, pledging to each other and their countrymen their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Many of them lost everything, including their families and their lives over the course of the next few years. Lest we forget…

    http://viralsurvival.com/2014/03/10/...n-in-maryland/
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  4. #14
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    CT Cop Who Wants to Kick in Doors & Confiscate Guns Suspended – Not Before Spilling the Beans on What Gun Registration is all About

    Posted by Prof. Charles Xavier on March 10, 2014 at 10:00pm

    View Blog




    CT Cop Who Wants to Kick in Doors & Confiscate Guns Suspended – Not Before Spilling the Beans on What Gun Registration is all About

    On Saturday, I informed you of a Connecticut police officer who said he wanted to bust through one patriot's door and take his guns. This morning I spoke with John Cinque via telephone and he provided me with screenshots of the conversation that he mentioned in the video. Many people wanted to see the evidence of what John referenced in the video. Some thought it was nothing more than ploy since he was in the video with Connecticut gubernatorial candidate Joe Visconti. I won't attempt to judge Visconti's motives. However, the evidence is clear of what Officer Joseph Peterson of the Branford Police Department said, and in the course of the conversation actually spilled the beans on what gun registration is all about: Taking your guns, which every red-blooded, American gun owner knows already. Take a Look for yourself:



    This article was written prior to speaking with the Branford Police Department's Captain Geoffrey Morgan. Due to the efforts of a concerned citizen, Branford PD has begun an internal investigation. Freedom Outpost has learned that Officer Peterson has been placed on extended leave pending the investigation by Internal Affairs.

    In the update to the previous article, we informed you that Freedom Outpost had obtained the entire conversation, which took place on Facebook, that John Cinque referenced in this video. Below is the substance of those comments and why it is important that we understand the mindset of Officer Peterson and law enforcement officers like him. (The quotes below were made on Facebook and there are a lot of issues with spelling and grammar, so for those who are sticklers over that, I'm just warning you. The links are to the actual screenshots.)
    Peterson told several gun owners, some of whom he engaged were not from Connecticut,
    "I give my left nut to bang down your door and come for your gun…"
    While it is disturbing that an active law enforcement officer would say such a thing, consider the fact that he then went after another Facebook user by saying he was a "criminal law breaking psycho."
    Even more telling is Mr. Peterson's response when those he is engaging over the issue of police enforcing laws such as the one in Connecticut, which require citizens to register their semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines. The fact that Mr. Peterson can't distinguish between a semi-automatic rifle and an "assault we... should also raise concern.
    Peterson was accused of wanting to enforce "Nazi policies," which he said were "not nazi policy…," but "a state statute."
    Sadly, history is not on the side of Mr. Peterson when it comes to this issue.
    In fact, when it was brought up that Nazis could not use the excuse he was providing when it came to dealing with the Jews, he sounded just like the Nazis at Nuremberg and attempted to escape the ultimate logical conclusion of his position.
    While Peterson said that he didn't see what the big deal was to simply register the weapons, claiming that "Nobody wants to take his weapon…they want to take it because he didn't register it…," he then spilled the beans on why people don't want to register their guns. When asked, "Why do they want it registered? For what purpose?" Peterson said, "So they know who's got them (sic) that's what the purpose is (sic) there's no use for assault rifles anyways (sic) you want to own a register him just like your car."
    Here is where he tells gun owners what they already know: Gun registration leads to confiscation. If you don't register your guns, which were previously legal before the law, they're going to take them. If you do register them, it isn't a matter of safety, it's a matter of knowing who has what kinds of guns. Why is that important? Logically, it is to find them, when they enact the next step in their process, which is full gun confiscation, and as Mr. Cinque noted in his talk last year, none of this protects anyone nor does it stop mass shootings. It merely will define law abiding citizens as criminals.

    Again, notice that Peterson cannot distinguish between the two kinds of weapons involved here. Peterson also attempted to draw a parallel between registering an automobile and a gun.
    However, it is the demeaning nature of Peterson's comments that indicate that he knows this won't do anything. As one commenter pointed out, registration is simply another way to be taxed, and it is. However, Peterson scolded the commenter telling him to move somewhere else so he can "play with (his) rifle and not hurt anyone." Think about that. Are people being hurt by law abiding citizens with semi-automatic rifles now in Connecticut? How would registering such a weapon keep anyone from hurting anyone? It won't, but Peterson has already told us why they are doing it: It's so they will know who have these rifles and who doesn't. It's not about safety, just like John Cinque told Republican representatives last year.
    Peterson also told others that they were not going to fire their weapons in their homes in a residential neighborhood, presumably for protection, "because if it goes through the walls into a neighboring house and kills someone then you will truly be a felon." One wonders how registering any gun will keep that from happening. In fact, according to Peterson, policemen have registered their semi-automatic rifles that they use. I wonder if they will be felons if they fire in a residential neighborhood and kill someone. I'm betting the will be handled a bit different, don't you?
    Peterson then mocked a commenter's position connecting gun registration to confiscation. "Nope not at all still not an excuse to break the law (sic) register your gun and you won't be breaking the law… you say the criminals don't have to register theirs… what's that if you can't beat them join them mentality…," he wrote. "But if it's a law I enforce it (sic) I don't make them."
    Then out of nowhere, Peterson played the race card. "Hey everyone good luck with Cameron who (sic) he comes to your door as a medic if you're a racist like he is a (sic) don't see how he could give your good medical care."
    This instance was completely off topic and no one still has a clue where or why it even came up.
    John Cinque finally commented. According to Cinque, he and Peterson have been friends a long time, still John encourages others that not all in the Branford Police Department are like Joseph, nor do they think like him. He also responded to the comment by Peterson, in which he claimed that he didn't get to pick and choose which laws he enforced. In other words, from Peterson's perspective, if it's a law, even an immoral one, he would enforce it. This is important as he was given the scenario that took place in Nazi Germany which led up to mass exterminations, along with gun confiscation.
    Cinque simply reminded Peterson, "I am glad there (sic) a good cops like you double do your job and follow orders no matter what (sic) then again there was something in our past call the Nuremberg trials but that's for another conversation. And Joe they absolutely do want to take the guns all of them but then again that is for another conversation."
    If you think the conversation was going down at this point, you would be right. Peterson encouraged everyone to register their rifles and magazines and then.... Well, now, why would he want them to fight? After all, confiscation would be part of that whole "enforcing the law" thing that he was on a diatribe about, right? Does he not realize he'll be the one doing the confiscating? Or will he have a breakthrough moment and say, "Hey, wait a minute, I can't do this"?
    John Cinque implored Peterson to remember that he is not the only one in his house, but he is the only one that has access to his weapons; so he reminded Peterson that if he were to come to his house for his guns not to shoot his son, who might be holding a XBOX controller, or his wife holding a cell phone.
    Peterson went on to claim that John was making threats, when in reality all Cinque had done was to simply affirm his position of non-compliance in registering his guns. Cinque told him there was no threat. He also indicated that he never said he would win if the police showed up, but did finish by stating, "Last time I checked I still have my First Amendment rights…unless you want those also."
    Peterson even went on from what he perceived as a threat to mock John's Christian faith saying, "Be nice John you carry the bible right? Then don't talk like a man that doesn't."
    Cinque responded, "Don't know what my faith in Jesus Christ has to do with my comments above... othe than the fact that my freedom is granted to me by God... not man... but that is a conversation for a whole other thread."
    Clearly, the conduct and language in the interaction is unbecoming of a law enforcement officer. However, that aside, the realm that we are now moving into where history is not even being acknowledged about the road we are ... and how willing law enforcement is willing to go down that road with corrupt political leaders should be enough to alarm anyone.
    If you are interested, here are the complete files of screenshots provided to Freedom Outp....
    UPDATE: We received a press release from the Branford Police Department earlier, but it had to be cleared. The Press Release reads as follows (Thanks to Captain Geoffrey Morgan). You can download it here.
    The Branford Police Department has launched an Internal Investigation into the allegation that an officer, while off duty, made certain comments during a conversation on Facebook that were later posted on the internet.
    Chief Kevin Halloran confirmed the allegation and said, “We treat every allegation concerning our agency with the utmost of seriousness. This, like any other allegation will be thoroughly investigated and if any law, departmental rule or regulation has been violated the officer will be held accountable.”
    Chief Halloran noted that the officer involved currently is on an extended Workers’ Compensation Leave.
    Any inquires can be addresses to:
    Captain Geoffrey Morgan
    Administrative Division / P.I.O.
    Office: 203-315-3914


    http://patriotaction.net/profiles/bl...msg_share_post


    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  5. #15
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    bttt
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  6. #16
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  7. #17
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    How Connecticut Will Spiral Out of Control

    By Robert Farago on March 7, 2014
    Tens of thousands of Connecticut gun owners failed to register, surrender, destroy or remove from the state their modern sporting rifles (a.k.a., assault rifles) and standard capacity ammunition magazines (a.k.a., high-capacity ammunition magazines) by the January deadline. They refused to comply because the law infringes on their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. This act of civil disobedience has made them Class D felons. So now what? There are lots of ways this could get real ugly real fast. Here’s how I see it going down . . .
    A doorstep firefight between Connecticut gun owners and state or federal police come to confiscate their “assault rifle” or “high cap mag” is unlikely. The State will not go door-to-door to grab guns. There will be no midnight no-knock raids or flash-bang police parties. For a while.
    If Connecticut political leaders and their law enforcement lackeys can hold off on forcible confiscation until after the November mid-term elections, they will. But they probably can’t/won’t. As Ralph reminds us, history is driven by events. If there’s another AR-related spree killing, or an unrelated arrest goes seriously awry (with an “assault rifle”), or a gun rights protest turns violent, the State will not let a good crisis go to waste act on behalf of public safety.
    Why not? The State enjoys overwhelming public support for their gun control policies. That’s how the laws came to be. The State being what it is, its functionaries are predisposed to preserving law and order (i.e. defending their own authority). The Democratic machine controlling Connecticut knows that gun owners are not “friends of ours.” And they know how easy it will be to paint lawbreaking gun owners as public enemies.
    Bottom line: they will move against Constitution State gun owners in violation of the law when the time is right. The good news: the cops in charge of making the collar will make damn sure that any firearms confiscation campaign is a complete success – at least from their point-of-view. By that I mean that law enforcement will do everything possible to make sure they don’t get killed. Or even fired upon.
    As we saw with the Department of Homeland Security’s arrest of gun dealer Bob Adams in New Mexico, the cops are smart enough to intercept ostensibly felonious gun owners away from their homestead, using speed, surprise and overwhelming force. So when Connecticut chooses to make a symbolic collar on a Class D gun owner, that’s how it’ll go down. And there’s not a damn thing sympathetic gun owners anywhere will be able to do about it.
    After the fact, gun rights advocates/patriots will kvetch like crazy. But they will not mount anything other than a legal rescue effort to spring the gun owner(s) from prison. Which is just as well; the security surrounding the scofflaws will be extremely tight and the cops will be equally on edge. Both the fact of the arrest(s) and their own impotence to correct the situation will inflame gun owners in Connecticut and across the country. They’ll organize themselves into militias.
    Note: the point of a citizen militia is not self-defense. Citizen militias are created to liberate fellow citizens from tyranny. See where I’m going with this? Well so does the government. Citizen militias aren’t illegal (they get an honorable mention in the preamble to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution), but the government hates them with a passion undimmed (Hutaree anyone?). When talk of protecting gun rights turns to group preparation for armed, post-confiscation conflict, that’s when the situation will start to get seriously ugly.
    You’ll know what’s coming when you start hearing the words “domestic terrorists” in relation to gun rights groups. The government will feel “forced” to “respond to the threat” proactively; they will swoop down on militia leaders and do some wet work on web work (killing websites to prevent “criminal” communications). In the aftermath of these raids, the State will no doubt producing damning evidence of terrorist intent and a HUGE arsenal of guns (including illegal “assault weapons”) and ammunition (including “high-capacity” magazines).
    Hopefully not; the State may not be as stupid as they have shown themselves to be by passing these laws in the first place. They may hang fire. But they will not back down. As I said above, the State must exert its authority. It’s what governments do. No matter how measured or reasonable their reactions to gun rights protesters, he situation will continue to grow increasingly contentious. Both sides will be looking for an excuse to act. One side to recover their lost rights, the other to establish the rule of law. At some point, worlds will collide. Violently.
    I don’t think it will be a massacre. I think it’ll be far worse than that: an armed stand-off. MRAP-equipped SWAT teams will be forced to wait-out a heavily armed Class D felon or felons. Et voila: Waco redux. Only this time, the cops may face opposition from the other side of the barricades, from armed Americans hailing from in-state or across the country. Not many. Not the first time. But some. Enough for the situation to descend into bloody chaos.
    If that kind of conflict occurs, things will go completely out of control. The crackdown on gun rights supporters by government agents will be intense, on both the State and the federal level. Gun rights advocates’ response will be no less intense. Quite how it plays out from there I have no clue. But it will be a civil war of one sort or another.
    As the weather warms and temperatures rise, there are only two ways to avoid this escalation into bloodshed in the Constitution State: the Supreme Court strikes down the Connecticut gun control laws or the Connecticut legislature repeals the laws. Neither is bound to happen. Although I don’t know the future, the future I see ain’t that pretty at all. And what about gun owners in California, New Jersey, New York, Maryland and Rhode Island? God help them all.

    You may also like -





    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...piral-control/

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  8. #18
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Connecticut Gubernatorial Candidate Joe Visconti: Connecticut “Wants Dan Malloy’s Head on a Plate”

    Tim Brown 2 hours ago
    13 Comments

    With the whirlwind of tyranny taking place in the heart of Connecticut, a bright light has emerged. Long-time Tea Party activist (before there was a Tea Party) and constitutionalist Joe Visconti has thrown his hat into the ring of the gubernatorial race against Dannel Malloy this year. I had the opportunity over the weekend to interview Joe, and I must say that I can see why so many patriots are behind this man. He recently told a crowd that after being on the campaign trail, he has heard from a lot of Connecticut citizens that they "want Malloy's head on a plate."



    You may have seen Joe Visconti in the video with John Cinque, included in my article regarding the Connecticut police officer that was eager to kick in doors and confiscate guns.

    Visconti, who lives about four miles from the capital in Hartford, has been active in politics for several years, fighting socialist Democrats. He is a former Republican Candidate for United States Congress against John Larson, as well as a former West Hartford Town Councilor. He has spent 40 years as a builder and has three children: Michael 20, Gabriella 24, Joey 26.

    Joe Visconti at the Gun Right's Rally - April 20, 2013 - Open Carry is Legal in Connecticut

    Though active throughout the years, Visconti told Freedom Outpost that the gun issue is the issue that broke the camel's back for him, making the decision to run for governor an easy one.

    "I'm pro-2A, pro-constitution,…I've carried a gun for 30 years…so for me it's not that I just picked up the gun issue," Visconti told us. One of the reasons that Visconti carries a gun is from an experience he had in Miami in 1980 during the Mariel Boatlift. "One night coming out of the Diplomat Hotel; everyone was gone, and there was gun fire in the streets, cars burning…I got caught up in something, and I said 'Whoa!'"

    Visconti then moved back to Connecticut and wanted to get into self-protection because in his words, "I experienced the unraveling of society." Though he had Ar-15's and accessories when he was younger that was not what really gave him a passion for the Second Amendment is all about. This 1980 incident really solidified in his mind why people had not only the right, but the responsibility to keep and bear arms.

    Joe not only carries his weapon, but has open carried and continues to do so at gun rallies in the state. He, along with Palin Smith, who has provided the videos in several of the Connecticut articles I've written, has been working for years to make sure the public is informed of what its government is doing.

    For Visconti, the issue of gun owners' rights is "real." He doesn't promote gun owners' rights for show, or to get elected. It's part of his life. Think about that Connecticut: Having a governor who is known to carry his weapon with him. Visconti says that alone would allow him to save tax payer money as he would not need near the size of security the current governor does.

    Visconti points to the issue of constitutional rights as property rights. "Over the years, little by little, we've allowed the public, basically with the state and regulations, to be policemen on our property rights, to the point where we can't even use our own….our land is our rights…Now you have to ask permission (to do with your property what you want)."



    The gubernatorial candidate believes that an explanation of property rights is the easiest and best way for people to "get it" and understand the gun issue. He then referenced how government will take 5 or 10 feet at a time from property owners for electrical lines and such concluding, "More and more we get it; they realize that we've bought a bad piece of land. We call it incremental, legislative infringement," which we also recognize is progressivism.

    Mr. Visconti says that currently, concerning the gun registration law that went into effect earlier this year, "we are heating up… and it's boiling."

    We have seen some of that with the comments from Branford Police Officer Joseph Peterson, as well as a recent video produced by some in opposition to the law. Visconti disavows the use of violence to solve the problem. He, like Freedom Outpost, advocates a defensive posture when it comes to the use of arms.

    I asked Joe Visconti is he agreed with Constitutional carry, and he affirmed that he does agree. He also stated what he would do to help restore the rights of gun owners in the state if he was elected. "I will be seeking to use either executive orders or incrementally reverse legislation to take part of this bill off." While some would ask why he wouldn't repeal the legislation, Visconti answers, "The governor can't repeal it. If they (the legislature) puts it in front of me, I'll sign the repeal."

    Joe Visconti isn't confident that the Connecticut legislature will bring that legislation forward. He does push for taking care of those with mental health issues, but was just as concerned that such things can be abused as well. That was confirmed as we spoke about how our veterans are being railroaded with the capture of their arms and revoking their rights based on alleged mental health issues.

    Visconti also supports having at least one armed guard at government schools. He says that his opposition doesn't want armed guards at schools. "They (the schools) are potential shooting galleries because you can't have a gun there."

    A recent Quinnipiac poll shows that Visconti, as well as other challengers for the governor's seat, is within the margin of error against Republican Tom Foley. That same poll also pointed out that 57% of the people in Connecticut were ok with the new gun legislation (SB1160), but then when asked if they thought the bill went far enough, the majority said it went too far. "It didn't go too far with mental health," Visconti said. "It didn't go too far with school safety. It went too far with registering semi-automatic weapons and declaring large capacity magazines (LCM)."

    Visconti said he went to the state house on the day the legislation was to be signed into law. According to him, the law was never handed out to the people, and no one knew who wrote it, which has only added to the anger of the people of having it rammed down their throats in a similar manner to Obamacare.

    Joe Visconti openly opposes Common Core

    Guns aren't the only issue Visconti is taking on. He has been standing against Common Core standards for quite a while, as well as pointing out how the liberal establishment has been driving Connecticut into the ground for the past 70 years. Jobs have moved from the state; unemployment has risen, and electricity costs have skyrocketed.

    In dealing with the education system, Visconti says that the desire of those in charge is to keep kids "entertained" via internet and other things, and they want to "keep them from anything to do with violence or self-defense or 'thinking on your feet."

    "Let's not talk about that," Visconti said, referencing what the progressives say to keep kids in what he calls a "Pollyanna world that is utopian." He's right. Progressives don't even want kids to make a gun with their fingers, pencils, or biting their pastries to look like guns. We've even seen extreme examples where one kid honestly forgot he had a pocket knife on him, turned it in and got a ten day suspension for his integrity!

    Visconti opposes the redefining of marriage also. He's been on the record on this issue for years. He asks, "Why is someone gay? Because of nature or nurture?"

    "If it's nature, we should teach tolerance," he said. "But if it's nurture, tell me if you can influence, teach and turn my child 'gay.' Because if nurture is what is involved and you can take my tax dollars and influence my children towards a choice to become gay… because I'm a selfish man that has a child that I want to grow up that looks like me, so they don't adopt (referencing the only means practicing homosexuals can have children) and they marry heterosexual and I give them my property, that's my parental right."

    Visconti was recounting an interview from 2008 where he made the statement and concluded that if homosexuality was due to nurture, and that homosexuality is a choice, "Then not with my tax money will you turn my children gay so that they cannot have children that look like me." Clearly, he was speaking of the natural order of things and how that was established by the Creator.

    Visconti said that Obama will be in Connecticut soon and obviously pushing liberal candidates. This is the time for conservatives to stand. "If Connecticut falls, New England falls, and the country falls to the liberals," he declared. "A star burns brightest before it burns out. Liberalism is about to burn out here. There is so much pain and suffering, and there's not money and there's no jobs…everyone's moving forward in the country, but not here. We're borrowing….we can't borrow anymore. This guy (Malloy), that's why his ratings were so bad. We're last for everything economically."

    Forbes produced a piece outlining the poor performance of the Constitution State, asking How Did Rich Connecticut Morph Into One Of America's Worst Performing Economies?The Forbes article explains how a seventy year play out of liberalism has destroyed Connecticut.

    On a final note, Visconti told me what I have said on many occasions, and that is that people for a long time have left the idea of charities, churches and individual charity for the promise of big government to take care of them. In doing so, they have unwittingly succumbed to a statist morality rather than a biblical morality. He also put his finger on how socialists took the principle of Jesus and the Good Samaritan and perverted it from individual, voluntary concern and love for one's neighbor to statist taxation (also known as legalized theft), redistribution, and entitlement; something he wants to see reversed.

    "You can't mandate charity," Visconti affirmed. "And this is how it worked. The 'Jesus Principle' of the Good Samaritan had come over those who had lost their morality and their religious life because it dried up for them in a conflict of interests, and when they came into the secular world, they have a hard time up here feeling they won't give to charity or give more taxes to help the poor, but the act of charity and love, which is Christian, was removed, and the secular world made it a mandate and a law. So no longer could you choose."

    He then drew a direct line from the government taking over mandated redistribution and the loss of love between people. "This is the conflict between Christ and the secular world. This is what's happening. They don't want us to feel the act of love, where there is nothing between you and the act of love." To get a better sense of what Visconti is saying, I highly recommend a video I helped produce for NiceneCouncil.com, called Not Yours to Give.

    In talking to Joe Visconti, I get the sense that the time is ripe for a sober-minded governor in the state with real solutions, and he seems to have his feet on the ground, understanding it will be an uphill battle, but it is a winnable battle. So far, Joe has received support not only from citizens of Connecticut, but also from at least 17 states across the nation (I think I may have made it 18). He believes that he can win the gubernatorial race in Connecticut if people will support him from abroad and they are stepping up. You can also see him on video on a myriad of subjects here. You can visit his website here and make a donation to his campaign directly.

    Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

    You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.


    http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/03/co...ys-head-plate/
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  9. #19
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Conservatives Against Obama's Liberal Agenda

    War is about to break out in the ever-unstable New York. Dom the Conservative

    BREAKING: Gun Owners Refuse to Register Their Guns in New York



    Posted by Dom The Conservative On March 18, 2014 0 Comment

    Rebellion against gun control is spreading like wildfire all across the country. Citizens are revolting against the tyrannical and unconstitutional attempts to confiscate guns.
    In Connecticut, potentially hundreds of thousands are in open defiance of the state’s new registration law. The state police is warning that they have one last chance to register before they become felons. The NRA is warning that the situation in Connecticut could completely unravel over the arbitrary enforcement of gun control laws. It’s surreal.
    In New York, citizens are literally burning registration forms by the thousands as New York’s SAFE Act requires so-called “military-style assault weapons” to be registered by April 15.

    Author: Dom The Conservative

    Dom is a Christian conservative, mother, and wife. Dom’s purpose for writing is to inform, anger, and unite “We the People”.

    http://universalfreepress.com/breaki...s-in-new-york/
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  10. #20
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Connecticut Gubernatorial Candidate Joe Visconti: Stop The Liberals Here And The Nation Will Follow

    March 21, 2014 by Sam Rolley

    VISCONTI FOR GOVERNOR
    Visconti (right) attending a Connecticut gun rights rally in April 2013.

    Recent national election cycles have proven that conservatives have a big problem recognizing the difference between candidates who adroitly pander and those who are truly dedicated to Constitutional leadership. But in regions of the country where liberal policy triumphs, knowing the difference is key to restoring the voice of the robust but underrepresented conservative populations that exist outside of leftist power centers.
    Joe Visconti, 51, a candidate in the 2014 Connecticut gubernatorial race, believes that his State is the perfect place to demonstrate on the national stage the difference electing a true Constitutional conservative can make in areas long-dominated by misguided liberal leadership.
    “What happens in Connecticut gets exported everywhere in America,” Visconti said in an interview with Personal Liberty. “So the line in the sand is in Connecticut.”
    “Republican Gadfly”
    Visconti, who lives just miles from the State capitol in Hartford, is no stranger to Connecticut’s liberal politics.
    Between 2007 and 2009 Visconti served as a council member in West Hartford, a town he once described as “the liberal capital of the world.” It was there that the gubernatorial candidate said he learned to recognize ways in which he could work with Democrats to further his conservative goals instead of taking a combative approach that would get him shut out of the conversation.
    During the 2008 election for Connecticut’s heavily Democratic 1st Congressional district, Visconti mounted a GOP challenge against incumbent Representative John Larson.
    To say the candidacy was a longshot would be an understatement. The one-year councilman not only lacked name recognition, but was vying for support in a district that had not elected a Republican in almost 50 years.
    But for Visconti, the challenge wasn’t just about getting elected. He wanted to do more than complain about the liberal policies he believes are leading the Nation toward ruin.
    He wanted to send a message.
    “He’s part of the establishment that needs to go,” Visconti had told a reporter at the Hartford Courant at the beginning of his candidacy.
    Reading archived news reports about the race makes clear that it was really a surprise to no one when Larson handily swept up 70 percent of the electorate to Visconti’s 28 percent.
    If Visconti were a politician, the defeat might have signaled that Connecticut isn’t really the best place for a conservative with little name recognition to dabble in electoral politics. But researching his past political endeavors and speaking with gubernatorial candidate Visconti makes clear why one unfriendly Hartford-area scribe repeatedly referred to him as a “Republican gadfly” in long-forgotten pieces about his early dealings with his local town council.
    Visconti isn’t a politician — he’s a fed-up conservative trying to set an example for his similarly-frustrated compatriots.
    Running for Governor
    On April 4, 2013, the same day that Connecticut’s Governor Dannel Malloy signed into law a comprehensive gun control bill which effectively abrogated residents’ 2nd Amendment rights, Visconti officially joined a crowded GOP field seeking to unseat the Democratic incumbent in 2014.
    “I am the guy,” Visconti told Personal Liberty when asked if the timing of his joining the race was symbolic of his support for the 2nd Amendment. “I wear a gun, for thirty years I’ve worn a gun.”
    Visconti said that after 40 years working as a construction contractor and his previous ventures in electoral politics, he was content to spread the conservative message as a Tea Party activist in a harshly liberal area. But when the Connecticut legislature’s harshly anti-2ndAmendment bill — described by the candidate as a knee-jerk response to the tragedy at Sandy Hook that did much to target gun rights and little to limit gun violence — was signed into law, he decided he had to run for Governor.
    “The day he signed it, I went right across the street … to the Secretary of State’s office,” he said.
    Jumping in the race so quickly does pose some difficulties for the candidate, not the least of which is the lack of the information usually gleaned from the exploratory committee that’s usually formed ahead of high-profile races. In a State like Connecticut, funding is also a major issue for anyone vying for office from the outer edges of the political establishment.
    Visconti doesn’t seem extremely worried about the unconventional beginnings of his bid for for the governorship. He reasons that his “live off the land” approach could appeal not just to voters in his State, but to people all over the Nation who want to see a conservative underdog topple the establishment of a liberal stronghold.
    And so far, he hasn’t been wrong.
    “We were hoping to nationalize this issue and it’s going good,” Visconti relayed. “We got money from sixteen States in the last two days, which is great … We’re looking for a lot of people with a little money to help us.”
    Prior to and throughout the past year of campaigning, Visconti has become something of a national figure in pro-2nd Amendment and liberty circles as a result of his efforts to spread the message about the over-reach of Connecticut’s gun law. There are several videos floating around the Internet of him appealing to lawmakers at different levels of government to think about the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment’s inclusion in the Constitution.
    Most recently, Visconti appeared in a YouTube video with a Connecticut resident whose words went viral throughout the conservative blogosphere last year, when he told Connecticut State Senator Leonard Fasano and State Representative Dave Yaccarino — both Republicans who voted for the bill — that he would not comply.
    “[If] you’re going to talk the talk, you have to walk the walk,” resident John Cinque told the lawmakers at a packed hearing in New Haven.
    “I tell everybody I’m not complying,” Cinque went on. “I can’t — you have to be willing to stand up and say no. And there are a lot of us who are going to say no.”
    After the video of Cinque’s remarks took off online, he said a police officer from his hometown of Branford reminded him of just how serious the threat posed by the political attack on the 2nd Amendment was in Connecticut.
    Officer Joseph Peterson, evidently relishing the potential power to kick in otherwise law-abiding citizens’ doors because of a failure to comply with the government’s demand that guns (and magazines) be accounted for, remarked on Facebook, “I give my left nut to bang down your door and come for your gun.”
    Cinque is not alone in his civil disobedience with regard to the Connecticut gun regulations. Connecticut news reports last month indicated that only about 50,000 applications for the certificate of registration now required for so-called assault weapons had been filed, meaning as many as 350,000 Connecticut gun owners have decided to become felons under State law rather than register their weapons.
    The figures elicited an editorial from The Hartford Courant that seemed to advocate the sort of response that Officer Peterson would enjoy:
    Although willful noncompliance with the law is doubtless a major issue, it’s possible that many gun owners are unaware of their obligation to register military-style assault weapons and would do so if given another chance.
    But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.
    Visconti said that he understands the decision of Connecticut gun owners not to comply with the unConstitutional legislation, but because the State has “the most liberal media in the country,” he doesn’t expect the newspapers to agree.
    He also noted that some Connecticut residents are not outright disobeying the law. They’re “playing chicken with the police” by taking advantage of a portion of the legislation that allows for restricted firearms to be destroyed but provides no requirement of proof.
    Because of his candidacy, Visconti said that he has taken the steps to comply with the State’s gun laws by declaring magazines for his Berretta 380, which were over the 10-round threshold imposed by the legislation.
    “I wanted to go through the process,” he said. “For me it wasn’t about disobedience, because I’m taking a political course.”
    Part of taking the law on from a political standpoint means that Visconti can’t advocate for disobedience — but he wants gun owners in Connecticut and all over the Nation to know that supporting his candidacy is a step in the direction of restoring the 2nd Amendment.
    If elected, Visconti’s power to completely repeal the law would be limited unless the State Legislature first voted for a repeal. But he said he has a plan to incrementally reverse portions of the legislation using executive power while working with the Legislature to address the mental health and safety concerns not addressed in the legislation. If the Legislature put a repeal bill on his desk, however, Visconti said he would sign it without hesitation.
    Visconti makes it clear that he is not a one-issue candidate. His platform includes tax reform, parental education rights and Common Core opt-out options, State spending reductions and pro-business energy initiatives. But he also knows that the Connecticut gun law is his best bet for harnessing “organic outrage” throughout the State and getting the support of Connecticut’s underrepresented rural population.
    A recent Quinnipiac poll shows Visconti and other GOP gubernatorial contenders trailing behind Republican Tom Foley, who lost the last Governor’s race in the State to Malloy.
    The poll also notes that the “rest of the GOP field are virtual unknowns with 72 percent to 89 percent of voters lacking enough information to have an opinion.” Quinnipiac also found that, while 57 percent of voters aren’t actively opposed to the State’s new gun law, 36 percent say it goes too far and 55 percent believe it does little to make the State safer.
    If that sounds like bad news for Visconti, perhaps it’s not. He can increase his name recognition by discussing better alternatives to gun control laws that many Connecticut residents have still not embraced. And that, combined with the support from gun owners both in- and out-of-State who are motivated to do whatever is necessary to restore the 2ndAmendment, could be enough to get the longshot contender the keys to the Governor’s office.

    Filed Under: 2nd Amendment Under Fire, Conservative Politics, Government, Liberty News, Staff Reports,Voices

    http://personalliberty.com/2014/03/2...n-will-follow/
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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