Connecticut is a very gun-controlled state, as are most states in that neck of the woods. The only one that doesn’t suck these days is New Hampshire, and based on some rumblings there, I’m not sure how long that will hold.
The Democrats in the state have pushed for every manner of gun control they can think of and gotten most of them, if not all. They don’t like guns. That’s clear.
However, they’re also facing some blowback for where they don’t seem to mind them, and that’s as a political prop.
State Sen. Ryan Fazio of Greenwich, a Republican candidate for governor, said the state Democrats used “bad, bad judgment” in posting a graphic on social media about political positions on gun safety that showed a firearm pointing in the direction of his head.
The post, which has since been deleted from X where it was posted Monday night, had been viewed there more than 9,000 times. The post was still on Facebook early Tuesday afternoon, but the image has been changed so the weapon pointed away from Fazio.
“CT Republican Fazio says it’s ‘easy” for him “to vote against the gun control laws that have come across my desk in the Senate.” Also easy? Voting for a Democratic governor who backs police and public safety with common-sense gun laws,” read the post, which features a police officer, a handgun with a zip-tie gun lock and a small piece of metal that could convert the weapon into an automatic firearm.
In larger text around the photo image, the post says, “Ryan Fazio can side with Chiefs of Police … or the gun lobby. Which is it?”
The post comes as Gov. Ned Lamont has introduced legislation proposing a ban on the sale or importation of semiautomatic handguns capable of accepting currently illegal devices that convert the firearm to full-automatic fire. State Democratic Chairman Roberto Alves said Tuesday afternoon the issue at hand is that police chiefs stand with Lamont on gun safety.
…
“It’s a sad day when the Connecticut Democratic Party thinks posting an image of a gun pointed at a political opponent’s head is acceptable political discourse,” [Fazio] said in a statement Tuesday morning. “Mainstream Democrats, independents, and Republicans reject that kind of radicalism. I’m proud of my common-sense record supporting our law enforcement, public safety, and our Constitution. Clearly, they are worried about the momentum our campaign is building, but intimidation won’t stop us.”
Here’s the thing to remember about police chiefs. They are far more likely to reflect the political will of their city councils than they are the rank and file police officers on issues like this.
Even then, a lot of officers favor laws based on the impact they will have on their job, not on whether the law in question is right or not. If we left it purely up to law enforcement, particularly police chiefs, the Fourth Amendment would have been discarded decades ago, for example.
That said, this isn’t about what law enforcement thinks or doesn’t think. This is about Democrats in Connecticut thinking that posting an image pointing a gun at a gubernatorial candidate’s head was a good idea.
Especially since one of the major gun control groups is Giffords, which was founded by a woman who was shot, only for the Democratic Party to try and blame Sarah Palin for the shooting, all because her PAC used crosshairs on various congressional districts they were targeting. They claimed the imagery inspired the shooting and did everything they could to make it look like that’s exactly what Palin was going for.
It wasn’t, of course. Crosshairs have long been used to symbolize targeting something beyond firing a gun, but they pushed it just the same.
Now, of course, it’s all good that they did it.
Look, we all make mistakes. What matters is how we handle those mistakes. You can own up to the screw-up and try to correct it, or you can just pretend it’s nothing. Just flipping the gun and hoping no one would notice, though, ain’t it.
Especially since they’re pretending guns are too dangerous to have around.
It seems that they’re fine as political props, but regular folks shouldn’t be able to buy anything that someone else has figured out a way to make full-auto–which is against federal law in and of itself–even if the companies themselves had nothing to do with it.
It’s a double standard, but you know what they say. With anti-gunners, if it weren’t for double standards, they’d have no standards at all.
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
