The Hartford Courant Misfires at Republican Candidate Joe Visconti

Republican Gubernatorial Candidate
Joe Visconti is the latest victim of
The Courant's anti-gun agenda

Have you seen it?  I'm referring to the half-cocked editorial Bravado Alone Won't Stop Gun Toll which served as a hit piece on Gubernatorial Candidate Joe Visconti published by The Hartford Courant's editorial team early last evening.  This entry responds to the the poorly contrived notion that somehow Connecticut's newest gun law - touted as "the toughest gun law in the land" is the panacea for curbing gun violence that both Governor Dannel P. Malloy and The Courant's staff writers claim.  The editorial, much like 2013 law, is an election year stunt contrived to exploit a horrific local tragedy for political gain and to paint Republicans in a bad light in order to deflect away from an incompetent Governor's exceedingly poor performance in Hartford.

The Courant's dismissive characterization of Joe Visconti's view that his armed presence would have made a difference at Sandy Hook (in similar contrast to NRA Executive Wayne LaPierre's viewpoint) is "too simple to be helpful" is an unfortunate attempt to fudge the issue. Whatever one's view of armed police presence at schools, it's irrational to conclude that an armed guard wouldn't have made a difference at Sandy Hook Elementary on that terrible day.  Then to use a singular example of an armed deputy missing his fired shot at Columbine as a justification for their position is simply poor argumentation; The King would urge The Courant to do their homework and research the dozens of stories where shopkeepers, would-be victims, and ordinary citizens have been saved (and saved others) in many situations because they were armed.  

It's a far stretch to assume that registering magazines and guns would've somehow prevented heinous crimes like those which occurred at Columbine, Aurora, the Navy Shipyard, Virginia Tech, or even Sandy Hook, and pure fantasy to assume that taking such action would prevent similar crimes in the future. Registries might be utilized as research tools after a crime has been committed, but it's highly unlikely that any of the villains of the aforementioned atrocities would have gone to their local municipality to fill out a pile of government-mandated paperwork, and even if they did - it's highly imaginative to insist that any of these atrocities would have been prevented.

"The editorial, much like 2013 law, is an election year stunt contrived to exploit a horrific local tragedy for political gain and to paint Republicans in a bad light in order to deflect away from an incompetent Governor's exceedingly poor performance in Hartford. " - The King

This mad line of thinking is further trumped by the insistence that somehow schools wouldn't be safer with armed security guards or any type of armed police or security presence - as is the case in several metropolitan cities and suburban towns.  Not only do children and families feel safe in these districts, they actually are safer as a result of taking such proactive, preventative measures.  Despite the prevailing utopian academic view, not all violent crimes can be magically prevented by the use of over-medication, psychology sessions, and community meetings.

While the editors make the unsourced claim that 32,000 gun deaths occur every year (and taking their word that they didn't make that statistic up), the Center for Disease Control and the NHS report that you're more likely to be killed in an auto-accident than in some random gun shooting.  In fact, according to the FBI, you're more likely to be killed with a club or hammer  or by someone's hand or foot than by a rifle of any type.  Since most union members own a hammer, we won't sit and wait for The Courant and Dan Malloy to seek an outright ban on this controversial weapon. (Mr. Visconti as former carpenter would likely make the short list).

"It was likely Mr. Green in the Conservatory with a Hammer"

And did it ever occur to the Rhodes Scholars at The Courant that it only takes one bullet to commit the act of suicide?  One would surmise this would rule out the use of large capacity magazines as the cause.  If The Courant is so hell-bent on banishing guns, then why not call for an all-out ban on the most utilized weapon by criminals - the handgun?  And isn't this what The Hartford Courant is really hoping for?  An outright ban on all guns? And by the way - while half of suicides are reported to be committed by firearm, the other half are committed by poisoning, suffocation (hanging), and other means.  There is nothing scientific to suggest that if a person intends to commit suicide that if they didn't have a gun that they wouldn't find another method to kill themselves. 

Missing from any argument by liberals are statistics showing gun ownership as a deterrent against crime.  Evidence suggests that due to the increase in gun purchases/ownership that crime is down.  And while mental disorders have played a role in violent crime (and suicides), there is little evidence to suggest that guns of any type are the root cause for these incidents.  

If liberals really want to find out the root cause for violent crime and suicides then they won't have to look very far to find the answer.  It lies in the increasing decay of economic and social conditions in inner cities, and in middle class neighborhoods - and a general ineptitude by parents refusing to properly raise their children.  With the rise in unemployment spurred by anti-business policies enacted by Governor Dannel Malloy, the Democratic Party, and President Barack Obama, coupled with the ongoing state-sponsored mockery of the traditional family unit, it's no wonder that Connecticut crime statistics are increasing to record highs.  It's unfortunate that after years of Democratic Control over both Connecticut Legislative Chambers that Connecticut's media is unwilling to make the clear connection.

Like most other liberal activists, The Courant's editorial team is notoriously anti-Second Amendment.  The past two days of editorials and a scan of their archives illuminates this fact.  Truly, the only time The Courant takes interest in either the Bill of Rights or The Constitution is when they believe their Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Press is being encroached.  Freedom of Religion, they believe, only extends to Muslims who are just trying to navigate their way in a world full of hostile Christian Fundamentalists. The remaining Constitutional provisions, they believe, are best left relegated to the Age of Sail - never to be invoked again.

Before The Courant opts to write a hit piece on behalf its Democratic allies, it would behove them to get their facts straight, source their work, and like a legitimate journalistic shop - recognize that there  very well might be more than one point of view of gun ownership aside from turning all gun owners into potential mass-murderers.  Until then, their editorial is just another self-inflicted wound on their dwindling credibility.

And other Republicans Candidates should heed The King's advice - cowering to progressive whims, or fearing to challenge the looney left's coordinated attack on basic Constitutional Rights (such as Second Amendment Rights) out of fear that they too will be singled out, brought up on stage, and "made an example of" by our local media radicals - will make you not only an enemy of The King, but also of Country.

The bottom line is - if the rest of the country followed Connecticut's lead, violent criminals - nationwide - who would be unaffected by these pointless laws, would have an extended Field Day.

I AM

THE KING