search
top

Sandy Hook Advisory Commission Releases Interim Report

A panel of people, containing no firearms experts or Second Amendment advocates, and generally composed of people Certified Better Than You, comes to the shocking conclusion that the State of Connecticut needs a whole lot more gun control, including universal registration, a ban on background checks, licensing, ban on magazines these Certified Better People deem too large, draconian storage requirements that render firearms useless for self defense, restrictions on how much ammo one can purchase, and my personal favorite:

Requiring gun clubs to report any negligent or reckless behavior with a firearm, or illegal possession of any firearm or magazine, to the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, Commissioner of Public Safety, and local law enforcement.

All good citizens report zheir neighbors to ze Gestapo, Ja? They have their pretext, and now they can do whatever they want to those of us who actually take the Bill of Rights seriously.

16 Responses to “Sandy Hook Advisory Commission Releases Interim Report”

  1. Granny says:

    We don’t need more gun laws to protect the schools; we need people in the front offices following rules. I went to pick up my grandson for my dau-in-law today; had never been to that school before, walked right through the door with the key pad lock on it (wasn’t locked); ask to pick up Nick; she looked at her computer and mumbled Grandmother (I am sure it had my name listed but I was not ask for my name nor was an ID requested). I couldn’t believe how easy it was for me to get in and pick up a child when it was rather clear I had never been in that school before.

    • alcade says:

      Asking you for your ID would have been racist. Or so I’ve been led to understand.

    • Thomas says:

      Robert Ducibella,
      Founding Principal, DVS Security Consulting and Engineering

      This guy was a contributor to the report. Based on his companies profile he should have expert knowledge about small arms and at least a basic understanding of force protection.

      Bernard R. Sullivan
      (Vice-Chair)
      :
      Former Chief of Police, City of Hartford / Former Commissioner,
      Connecticut Department of Public Safety / Former Chief of Staff to House Speaker Tom Ritter

      Barbara O’Connor
      :
      Director of Public Safety and Chief of Police, University of Connecticut

      And two people that look like LEO. My preference would have been to have the local Sheriff involved instead.

      I apologize for adding the three individuals above, but I found the lead in of the post inflammatory and it is rather hard to not be angry after reading that report, at least for myself.

      In general, I found the report to be unprofessional. The tone of the report tries to manipulate emotions too much for my taste. The report sites observations, but provides no impact or link to how significant these findings are on current violence. The report also make recommendations, but offers no supporting evidence that what is proposed would and could work to reduce the violence. Also the report provides only one option. Most such reports make a best recommendation and provided an alternative that can be implemented.

      I’m surprised that people familiar with force protection would consent to such a report. I’m also surprised some of the more basic security standards were not mentioned. Like an ECP away from your personal.

      Cheers

      • Ducibella makes money by selling security upgrades. That’s why there is an entire section of the report detailing expensive upgrades.

        Sullivan was an appointed political hack in a very anti-gun city. Politics & ideology trumps reality. How many city police chiefs support the 2A or even the idea of self-defense? Crickets.

        O’Connor is of the bunch that believes that peeing on yourself and claiming to have AIDS is the best anti-rape strategy.

        These people do not care about saving children’s lives. That’s not what this is about. In fact if they actually took steps to save lives it would probably hurt sales of security architecture and impair future progress towards their disarmament objectives. They need more victims to get what they want.

        Why would they actually suggest something that has any chance of saving lives? It is against all of their self-interest to do so. Their kids will go to private schools with good security, after all. The point of this exercise is not to save a single life. They need to finger paint with the blood of innocents and it profits them to do so.

  2. Now you see why I started WR2A. CT is full of mental incompetents who prefer emotion over logic, and feel their feeeelings trump The Second Amendment.

    Yep.

    • Keegan says:

      Yep, pretty much all anti-gunners think that way. If it saves ONE child! Guess what, banning all automobiles and requiring us to use public transport would save a lot more lives, but you don’t see us doing that, because it violates this thing called CIVIL RIGHTS.

      BTW – Is that supposed to say “a ban on background checks” in the first paragraph? :)

  3. Sigivald says:

    And of their suggestions, which ones would have stopped the Sandy Hook killings?

    Private transfer background checks? Nope.
    Gun club reporting? Can’t see how.
    Licensing? Nope.
    Registration? Nuh-uh.
    Ammo limits? Never woulda stopped a single killing in the US.

    Storage requirements? Unlikely. I mean, if you’re willing to murder your mom to take her guns, I think this means you can steal the key. Or open the safe with a grinder or a torch; even a big safe only stops a casual thief who doesn’t want to take time or make noise.

    Big magazine ban? Only thing with any connection, and it turns out it’s easy to change magazines, and carry more of them.

    I’ll think they’re serious when they have something that could somehow prevent the thing they’re claiming to try and stop – and isn’t just a laundry list of The Same Stuff They’ve Wanted All My Life.

    • If only the perp had taken his mom’s guns to the FFL to get them put on his Connecticut Pistol Permit after he killed her and stole them. :(

  4. Rob Crawford says:

    Does the requirement for ranges reporting reckless behavior include those operated by and for the police? Because…

  5. Straw Dog says:

    And they wonder why we mistrust their intentions… Idiocy if they think these measures are plausible…Or maybe their point is the more laudable one — to highlight the ridiculousness, hopelessness and waste of time and effort in crazy attempts to come at social problems from a Bill-of-Rights-burning, liberty-extinguishing mentality. The sooner we see the impossibility of gun infringement thinking as a remedy, in short, the sooner we’ll move on to realistic, effective solutions addressing crime, drugs and sociopathology.

  6. jones says:

    If we asked the same people their opinion on Miller’s “he Crucible” I am sure they would be unanimous on the evils of right-wing fanaticism pitting neighbor against neighbor.

  7. Mike Gordon says:

    And if and when all these measures are put in place the people of Connecticut will have surrendered a great deal of their individual freedom and not have made themselves one bit safer. The U.K. has implemented far more stringent gun controls in reaction to a similar incident only to have another rampage killer like that in Cumbria in 2010 strike again.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

  8. Roberta X says:

    Gun issues aside, the security requirements for schools could easily lead to a Triangle Shirtwaist fire situation — and these “experts” will be the cause.

    • Jack says:

      Which is darkly ironic. As the one thing schools in the US have managed to prevent are mass-casualties due to fire.

      But hey, Bill X casues problem Y thus jusitfying Bill X+1 which causes problem Y+1 thus justifying…

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. CT: Advisory Commission Chooses Stupidity Over Logic | Gunalizer - [...] “Sandy Hook Advisory Commission,” compromised of those who pretend to be concerned with the Bill of Rights have come…
top