Epic Pro-2nd Amendment Testimony In Connecticut

Just an ordinary, average citizen who realizes that yes, there is a Constitution, and yes, evil exists

(The Blaze) Meet Robert Steed, a resident of Vernon, Conn. who took three days straight off work to attend several gun control hearings in Connecticut. On March 14, Steed was more “aggravated” than usual with lawmakers and he let them know it in his fiery testimony, telling them that they were “coloring outside the lines of constitutional parameters.”

He went on: “I can’t for the life of me understand how this state can have as many gun laws on the books as it does and have members of its Legislature need to take firearms 101. And as far as what I felt were potshots taken at the NRA, they’ve done more for gun safety– they’ll do more for gun safety this weekend than this committee will do in your careers.”

Prior to Sandy Hook, Connecticut had some of the most draconian, restrictive gun laws in the nation.

“Adam Lanza commits a crime, and I’m here to gr0vel and plead for my rights and explain to you that my firearms are kept safely?” he asked rhetorically. “I keep hearing the word “solution”… you’re not going to find a solution, it doesn’t exist. You can’t find a broad brush solution to evil.

An important point. People who want to kill will find a way. Who thought a bunch of Islamists would be able to hijack 4 planes with box cutters and do what they did? Lanza had his plan in the works for a long time. He had an intricate plan, including a 7 foot long score sheet based on the video games he played, to kill school children, because Sandy Hook was an easy target allowing the most carnage. Maybe draconian laws stop someone like Lanza from getting a gun legally. Unfortunately, he’s a criminal, and will get one elsewhere, or perhaps use a bomb. Fertilizer and diesel fuel are easy to obtain. After Tim McVeigh, were those products restricted?

In response to a Democrat saying that their jobs are difficult because the country is not a dictatorship, Steed stated

The reason that your jobs are becoming so difficult is because you’re coloring outside the lines of constitutional parameters,” Steed shot back. “That’s the bottom line. You are trying to marriage up public safety with constitutional rights. The Constitution did not guarantee public safety, it guaranteed liberty. And sometimes what comes with liberty is tragedy, unfortunately.”

Democrats want to regulate away risk. Sugar, trans-fats, body spray, hugs, homemade cookies, lemonade stands, anything they catches their interest. Those are minor. You can’t do away with evil. Or even crime. But while they attempt to do that, they affect the law abiding citizen’s freedom, not the criminals.

Video at the link.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  • Maggie's Farm (March 23, 2013)
    Saturday morning links... Photo from a deep-sea diver Steyn: Big Government's Back Alley abortionists The inevitable result of amoral, secular progressivism: Half of all first children born out of wedlock Confessions of a person with a worthless degree (audio) Florida...
  • ConMom (March 22, 2013)
    [...] MROTD: Epic Pro-2nd Amendment Testimony In Connecticut [...]

5 Comments

Comment by john
2013-03-21 09:32:09

Progressives also wanted to regulate inflammable children’s clothes, and car safety seats. Progressives were the ones who passed the Pure Foods and Drug act. The hugs ?? I think they were regulated by the christianists who are basically afraid of any physical contact becoming sexual. The conservatives wanted to regulate sex between consenting adults. Conservatives wanted to regulate what happens inside of a woman’s own body, they think the state should be in charge of that.
As for not being able to “do away with crime” are you advocating doing away with all criminal laws ? Should the state only pas laws that everyone including criminals will obey? Of course new laws impact EVERYONE not just the criminals. The terrible tragedy at Newtown could have been prevented, I want my government to try and stop things like that from happening.
I also believe RPGs should be a banned weapon, regardless of what the 2nd Amendment says about “rights”

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2013-03-21 10:24:29

John is right. The Newtown tragedy could have been prevented school staff were allowed to be armed. Instead, law abiding citizens were deprived of their Constitutional and God given natural rights. The blood of the children from Newtown stain the hands of people like john.

john, like all progressives cannot make a cognitive argument gow depriving people of their rights makes anyone safer.

So while he tries to deflect and shift goalposts, the bottom line is that he has blood on his hands – the blood of children.

 
Comment by William Teach
2013-03-21 12:22:12

Yeah, I love the way the deflect and shift the goal posts, along with making absurd statements. Meanwhile, john really failed to address 2nd Amendment violations by Dems. He says Newtown could have been prevented, but fails to tell us how. I’d assume by taking guns away from law abiding citizens, since we know Dems tend to be weak on criminals.

 
Comment by Acethepug
2013-03-21 12:24:48

john, why do you keep feeling the need to prove how ignorant you are? Wouldn’t you be better served letting people wonder?

And hey, you want to sing the praises of progressives? Remember “Bush Lied, People Died?” Remember Cindy Sheehan? Gas being over $3.00 a gallon being an issue the President (then GW Bush) should solve? Passing actual budgets? Raising the Debt Ceiling being unpatriotic? Hillary screaming that one should be able to question ANY Administration?

How come none of that applies to President Closet Shelf? I mean, there’s the obvious, that Democrats have no standards save double standards, and that they really didn’t mean that certain actions were evil, right? I mean, those same actions people called GW Bush out for seem acceptable to you and your ilk now that Obama is doing them, right?

Integrity, how does it work, john?

Yes, your problem (and the problem with all the Leftists) is that you feel the need to “do something.” The problem is, you don’t particularly seem to care if that action actually accomplishes anything. You just want to say you did something, because it’s all about how you FEEL, not about any actual achievement.

See, killing people is ALREADY against the law. It didn’t stop Sandy Hook from happening, did it? Would those kids be any less dead if he had used a handgun, or a crossbow, or a hammer? No. Evil will happen, it cannot be legislated away. So if we pass new laws, will they do any good, or will they just be issues for people who were already obeying the law?

Don’t bother answering, your RPG comment says it all.

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains
2013-03-21 21:22:28

Anyone find it ironic that its the same laws that Progressive Socialist Commies inflict upon Lemonade Stands that they do upon legal weapon owners? They think they are doing it to protect those that they are aggrieving. And they get more joy when they make young girls cry.

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9384 access attempts in the last 7 days.