Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?

the real price we have paid for our own bluster

The prices we have paid for our own mistakes has been at the expense of those not involved in the decision making.

Failures in Vietnam were because of a select few decision makers. Failures in Iraq and AF have been the result of a few decision makers. Failures in our government have been the result of a few decision makers..

And in every case, the decisions being made were to appease a specific agenda or Ideology, not to appease the will of those being governed.

So I don't see bitching about it as bluster.

Attacks against what I have written on this thread have mostly taken the form of a lack of validity

To you maybe. You do have a tendency to see other opinions that differ with yours as not being valid.

Regardless of what you believe personally, holding a hard line and advocating inflexibility in a democracy generates democratic deficits in the conversation and damages social association

The Constitution gives avenues of flexibility and I have no issue with flexibility if the rules are followed. When the rules are not followed and our supreme rule of law is ignored, that is when I or anyone else has the right to call foul and advocate inflexibility. Only Congress and the States have the right to amend the Constitution and it must be done by a majority. The states do not have the right, to legislate on their own, any laws that conflict with the Constitution.

A society that does not have laws or respect those laws is not a democracy.

You may or may not like the rules that our founders put in place. You may think the Constitution is inflexible. But unfortunately you have to live with those rules or get 3/4 of the states to ratify a change that will make you happy.

Good luck with that.

(you as a general term, not YOU specifically Graham)
 
Last edited:
Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?

To you maybe. You do have a tendency to see other opinions that differ with yours as not being valid.
It's no tendency: I do the mental math. The argument either holds up, or it doesn't. Whether I like it or not has nothing to do with the result. It's not my fault if someone posts first and thinks afterward.

BTW, I meant that the attacks on what I said have been that my arguments are not valid, when I expected that people would be making the criticism that my methods will not be effective.
 
Last edited:
I respect your views; they would have been mine before what happened here in New York last year.

Machiavelli may still be in some ways relevant, but I don't think we need to go that far into the past and far afield to seek our guidance and justification, and I firmly believe that direct relevance to the subject of a freely armed populace is actually needed here.

Coming and getting them was precisely the way it was done here in America the last time it was tried. They may not be precisely doing that now, but can you honestly tell me it is a logical impossibility, or that there are so many steps we can see between what we have now and that? When preparing for the obvious becomes inconceivable, my train can't stay on those rails; the curve has become way too sharp.

What's more, that's the same thing that was done when the Weimar Republic was transformed into the Third Reich. I honestly can't think of a way such measures could have been conducive to peace and tranquility.

I personally believe the historical response to those British attacks in Concord and Lexington is as timely now as it was then. I also fail to see the significance of differences in the techniques employed to disarm me and my neighbors; they all equally suck.

I have talked long and hard on this subject with Jews who escaped that nightmare, and their counsel was to stand fast and resist; and if necessary, to take strong initiative. When the Jews fought back in Warsaw, I think they were in the right. The Jews I spoke with who had escaped the Holocaust said they were.

We also agreed that it was too little and too late. The difference between the prospects we face and those of the Warsaw fighters is the difference between success, and not failure, but an ignominious and hollowly symbolic failure. My freedoms and those of my neighbors are worth more than any symbol.

The lesson of the Warsaw fighters is that the time when resistance could have been useful was allowed to pass with a pious faith in the promise of a better future. That better future does not make itself.

When the rule of law is willfully employed in the full knowledge that such laws embolden the lawless, then respect for the rule of law is being deliberately destroyed by those who legislate.

It has never been truer that for wrongdoers to flourish takes no more than the passive inaction and indifference of decent folks. They are working hard to do their wrong, and we are still dithering about basic directions to turn our gaze. I've looked long and hard enough already, I know the right direction; now my thoughts are about seeing confirmation of my fears, and appropriate responses.

Greg
 
Last edited:
I have long been a supporter of the political system, but when laws and policies like those we discuss here become its product, that system is breaking down.

Today we have Diane Feinstein with her tights in a wad because the CIA decided to take a look at the Senate Intelligence Committee computers. She is decrying the violation of her Fourth Amendment rights.

I can hear the kettle calling the pot black, the glass house just cracked. DIFI overlooked the part about "Without sin" and she stupidly tossed the first stone.

The side that created this infringing house of cards seems to be rotting from the inside. Thankfully I have found my way to reading the comment responses to the MSNBC propaganda pieces and the people are not buying the bologna.

The politicians of decay will decide how this ends. They can either collapse and go into retirement understanding they have been rejected yet still enjoy all their perks or they will try to dig their fingernails into the railing in an effort to hold onto power.

In the latter case it gets messy but the outcome is inevitable.

Im feeling mildly optimistic today. Probably because the primer system on my S1050 went up this morning and other than a laundry bill and having to order some replacements parts all is well.
 
Last edited:
In 1934 only F/A type guys bitch, albeit quietly, do to the way it was sold.
In 1968 more bitched, but went w/the program quietly, do to the way it was sold
In May 86 the NRA an Ray-Gun very quitely sold 922(0) as a trade off to brady.
Then came the first Awb, Mc Donalds, Columbine, V Tech, Sandyhook, the LAPD cluster fuck ... With these series/events right before major voting, on gun rights.
Yet again, those not effected called for more understanding, and even shilled those who sighted, the drummers beat.
Now that some events of forward lookers have come home to roost some of those effected have jumped on the wagon, while shills are still trying to do the bidding of their paycheck signers.
 
Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?

A shill is a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into buying, or a person who (falsely) publicizes or praises something for his own ulterior motives.

Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see how or to whom that applies here. Are you saying that gun ban advocates are paying people to pretend that they are pro-gun?
 
Last edited:
Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?

After WWII, Albert Camus was asked why he chose resistance over collaboration when so many of his countrymen opted for abdication and personal survival. He replied that he could not have imagined [himself] doing anything else.

Camus was not a contrarian, he was a man of principle. But he didn't advocate a shootout with the authorities, his guns 'a blazin', either.

Maybe there's more to resistance, for thinking people, than tough talk and rash action.
 
A shill is a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into buying, or a person who (falsely) publicizes or praises something for his own ulterior motives.

Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see how or to whom that applies here. Are you saying that gun ban advocates are paying people to pretend that they are pro-gun?
Yes I am,... what better way to hedge your bet than on the inside.
 
Maybe there's more to resistance, for thinking people, than tough talk and rash action.
I think you're absolutely right, in fact there must be. But I also think that there are no more concessions left on my plate to give away without a lot more quid in exchange for the preceding quo.

The reasonable man recognizes that incessant demands for more and more unmatched concessions are just an invitation to fully embrace the death of a thousand cuts. It is the tactic of those who recognize that their goals are unreasonable and who are eager to find just how much they can grasp from the dullards before they need to don the mailed fist. But the mailed fist is inevitable, it's just a case of how much of our ability to resist are we willing to surrender before we need to resist in earnest.

I say no more, never again. I seem to have heard something like that somewhere before, and from folks who should know the score quite intimately.

No more, in fact not even what they are demanding already.

The legislators and executives have had ample opportunity to enter dialogue with gun owners, but they chose instead to treat gunowners like mushrooms; keep 'em in the dark and feed them nothing but a line of crap. The ball has left their court.

Now it's in the courts' court.

IMHO, it's last chance time.

Meanwhile, when the grabbers extend their grasp, it's time for pushback.

Period. There are no more lines left on this page.

When they come, I will give them what they want; but unwillingly, and with dignity. I'm absolutely certain they could care less about my willingness, or about yours either. But others will and when they do, the change will begin; for the better, at least in the end. Do it for the children, their legacy is what's in the balance.

Some must submit, and in my position few are better for the task than expired cannon fodder like myself. But most should not, and most of those are in a far better position to push back decisively. Do so before your hands are emptied.

That's the name of this game.
 
Last edited:
Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?

I'm sure the folks that rode the trains would agree with your logic but I'm curious, as you seen to have all the answers, what you would have done, prior to boarding? Try to talk them out of riding?
Interesting question... assuming that it's not rhetorical.

I don't know the answer to that hypothetical. But I do know that nobody is being rounded-up in this country. And I don't presume that those who rode the trains had to agree on anything.

Although the one may eventually help implement the other, confiscating classes of firearms and a systematic planned genocide are in no way equivalent.
 
Last edited:
I refrained from joining this thread on day one. The reason being, having watched train wrecks on this site before,I felt no need to be involved in another. I only post now to thank my fellow members for their restraint and also the thought and reason expressed. A very tough subject to discuss while maintaining a calm and reasoned tone.
Greg,,as always....excellent!!!
 
Interesting question. I don't know the answer to that hypothetical. But I do know that nobody is being rounded-up in this country.
You left off the word "YET" at the end. Some folks recall history and can see the hand writing on the wall, then again some remain dreamers all their lives. A dreamer I am not, nor is hope a plan. There are still some Americans who can think for their selfs. I know that is a concept those claiming and liking power hate, but,...
 
Maybe there's more to resistance, for thinking people, than tough talk and rash action.

Each situation has to be weighed individually.


Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

Thomas Jefferson said all of those things.

Machiavelli can kiss my ass. I am not French. Great thinker or not, relevant or not, our American experiment has worked so far. And up until 40-50 years ago, it was doing surprisingly well.
 
Last edited:
Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?

You left off the word "YET" at the end. Some folks recall history and can see the hand writing on the wall, then again some remain dreamers all their lives. A dreamer I am not, nor is hope a plan. There are still some Americans who can think for their selfs. I know that is a concept those claiming and liking power hate, but,...
I understand what you are saying. And I take your point. But I don't believe that our democracy, today, is in any danger of being overthrown by totalitarian interests.

That said, I am concerned that the prevailing interests in our system lean toward the corporate, with a decreasing role and decreasing influence for the individual.
 
I posted some thoughts, but after second thought realized any statement regarding this issue could be considered political in nature, while I agree with many of the Patriots that have posted here, I'd rather not get the "ban hammer" for expressing my views. I wish each one of you that believe in the America enough to risk the "ban hammer" the best of luck.
 
Last edited:
I understand what you are saying. And I take your point. But I don't believe that our democracy, today, is in any danger of being overthrown by totalitarian interests.
Everyone in power is dancing for a seat at the table of a OWG but the US has to fall before than can happen. Before the US falls, weapons in the hands of those who can and have the balls to stop it have to go. It matters little how they go, but they have to go. Again,... Hope,... is not a plan I and many others have as a contingency, might be in your world but I was taught different. Hope did not work for millions, who have been put to death by their own govs, you stick with hope if you want.
 
Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?

Hope,... is not a plan I and many others have as a contingency, might be in your world but I was taught different. Hope did not work for millions, who have been put to death by their own govs, you stick with hope if you want.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I am advocating hope as a solution, but I do not share your belief in a world conspiracy.
 
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I am advocating hope as a solution, but I do not share your belief in a world conspiracy.
Good, you keep thinking that way, and in 40-60 years or less, have your surviving kin decide which of us were correct.
In the 6th grade (1959 Indiana)we had shooting comps at lunch, our 22's were kept in our lockers, now we expel kids for having a piece of bread that looks like a gun, or wearing the American flag as it might start a fight. Hide in the dark if you wish,
 
It's not a numbers issue. Nor does it hinge on one's nationality being French or not French. It's not even about dying.

It is, however, about comprehending the problem.

And no one is advocating giving-in, or giving up.

But I am arguing that calls for an armed revolt at this stage are at best misguided, and at worst infantile.

It IS about comprehending the problem, we agree on that. Perhaps the reason you are hesitant to agree with what I believe is the majority opinion on this thread is that you see the problem differently. It seems that the specific point of disagreement you have with the general or most repeated opinion of the commenters in this thread is one of methodology.

I assume that you believe in the right to keep and bear arms, and that your concern is that using violence to resolve a conflict between people and their government in a modern, well established Constitutional republic that uses the democratic process is wrong and damaging to our system of ordered liberty rather than supportive of it. That is what I perceive from your rebuttals to some of the positions here and is also similar in view to what another poster complained of. In short, the argument is we should stick to democratic solutions to solve problems in a "democracy." I apologize if that is not exactly your argument but since it is a common one, except on this thread, it deserves an answer.

First, your argument At least as I described above implies a few things about the values of the one who holds that point of view. It is argument based in a belief in peace, in the value of life, and maybe most of all a belief in the justice inherent in our system of government. I personally think all those things are good, and even essential in a patriot and moral human being. I do think that our democratic processes are the best way, in an imperfect world, to delegate authority from the people to the government, at least I can think of none better. I do understand that it is impossible for a single individual to agree with every aspect of our government, and that when we disagree with our leadership we should follow the legal remedies in the law to resolve those matters civilly. Otherwise, the law would mean nothing and anarchy would result, which is nothing more than another form of tyranny. However, I believe an exception exists which I describe below.

Consider this: whenever two parties argue, they may do so in good faith or with ulterior motive. You have seen this as a lawyer. The degree to which a party in a disagreement negotiates in good faith is often dependent on the consequences for not doing so. When the parties to a disagreement consist of a people and their government, the people have much reason to negotiate in good faith because there is, by law, a lot of power in government; government has special authorities not available to the citizen. What then is the incentive for government to negotiate in good faith? Without the Second Amendment and it's obvious recourse, the only government incentive is the conscience of the individual agent or agency in respecting the limits the Constitution places on them. That is a thin, and if I may be blunt, naive way to preserve liberty. I believe history proves that when the liberty of the people is dependent on the character of the leadership, instead of external controls, then their liberty will not long remain.

There is another critical point of the argument to consider. When US citizens disagree with government, the question should never be about who is more correct in solving a societal problem because there is a contract involved, the Constitution. It is a one-sided contract, wholly focused on restricting what government may do, not the people. The government is not supposed to break this contract even if doing so would be an effective solution to whatever problem faces the people, and (this is important) they cannot break it even if a majority of the people ask them too. This is the essence of what creates the condition of liberty in a Constitutional republic instead of the inevitable tyranny of a democracy.

If government breaks the contract, then the people may seek recourse through the established legal processes...but an important special case applies here. If the government breaks the contract in a way that also removes any incentive for them to negotiate in good faith in the democratic process, then by definition the people have no recourse in that process and ordered liberty no longer exists. The Constitutional republic has been replaced by the banana republic in that case. The Second Amendment is an emergency clause, a "break glass in case of tyranny" provision that functions exactly like the MAD (mutually assured destruction) philosophy of the Cold War. It functions to keep a relationship honest if not friendly.

In a perfect world, the US and Russia would not be enemies and such a control would be unnecessary. Likewise if men were angels we would need no government and thus no Second Amendment. In the meantime, weakening that amendment by allowing the confiscation of exactly the kind of weapon useful in repelling tyranny would be, to continue the Cold War analogy, tantamount to showing weakness in the face of the Soviet nuclear shadow in an effort to be "peaceful." If we value life, and peace, then we demonstrate our resolve and our true willingness to destroy our enemies so that he will never force us to do so.

One of our founding fathers agreed, a son of New Haven Connecticut:
"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster

He also wrote a good dictionary.

A sincere thanks to LL for allowing us to have on his site what I hope will always remain a philosophical discussion about our understanding of the American way, and how best to preserve what so many of us have taken an oath to.
 
I still believe in our way of life. I serve, and will continue to serve once I separate. We need men of conscious to sacrifice and serve in public office at every level. If done correctly it will be service and sacrifice, not the self serving examples of today.

Police are civilians, they have NO preparation for an endeavor like engaging a hostile armed forces. They do not have the "unlimited liability clause" that the DoD serves under. They can walk quit when things get scary and I guarantee that they would quit in droves. Some out of conscious, some out of fear either way it would be a very short lived event.

Sent from my mind via apathy.
 
After WWII, Albert Camus was asked why he chose resistance over collaboration when so many of his countrymen opted for abdication and personal survival. He replied that he could not have imagined [himself] doing anything else.

Camus was not a contrarian, he was a man of principle. But he didn't advocate a shootout with the authorities, his guns 'a blazin', either.

Maybe there's more to resistance, for thinking people, than tough talk and rash action.

Once a people are disarmed, there is no more discussion, and there is no more capacity for meaningful resistance. Do you really think that logical discourse peppered with references to philosophy and historical precedents is going to cut any ice with a true believer, anti moonbat, or for that matter one who is dead set on making the Constitution an irrelevant relic and throwing this Republic entirely off of its tracks?
 
Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?

Veer, point taken.

It's just that I am not sure whether, in your post, I am supposed to be the voice of reason or the person throwing the Republic off its tracks.

And no one has yet mentioned that the French, like the Jews, were already disarmed when they began to resist.
 
I posted some thoughts, but after second thought realized any statement regarding this issue could be considered political in nature, while I agree with many of the Patriots that have posted here, I'd rather not get the "ban hammer" for expressing my views. I wish each one of you that believe in the America enough to risk the "ban hammer" the best of luck.

I don't think talking about someone coming to your door and "asking" for your weapons is discussing politics.. This discussion has hinted at "political overtones" but is not a political discussion IMO.
 
Well Graham, it seems to me the so called "Thinking People" are the ones that bought us to this point, maybe they are over thinking and twisting the meaning of the plainly written US Constitution and BOR in an effort to justify their own actions. I tend to agree we do go through self correcting periods in our history but that was when all respected the law, I do hope the normal methods of "change" by voting works. Something seems to have changed in my lifetime though, so I think its prudent that all be prepared for the worst case and work for the best course of action through traditional means.

Please don't compare European Experience to the American Experience, almost the whole of Europe's population were Serfs/ Subjects or outright slaves until 150 years ago, many are still subjects even today, they have no concept of individual freedom, rights and responsibility as an American would see it. Not that they are bad, just conformist in spirit and culture whereas Americans are not naturally sheepish or conformist in spirit.
 
Once a people are disarmed, there is no more discussion, and there is no more capacity for meaningful resistance.

I wish one of the Founding Fathers had said this but its not so. kind of trite but speaks to the point you are making.

"Democracy has been defined as two wolves and a sheep discussing plans for lunch."

"Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
 
Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?

ArmyJerry, I am concerned that for some people (I don't mean you, or anyone else here) the world has become too complicated a place, so all they see are conspiracies and all they can propose are extremist solutions.

To me that's the real danger; on both sides.

It's also the same kind of ignorance, racism, classism and simple-mindedness that brought totalitarian regimes to power all over the world in the 20th century.

If we don't understand this, and make the effort required to implement well thought-out solutions to complicated political problems, the American experiment in democracy is in danger of imploding.

So we face not just the danger from selfish and short sighted acts of a few politicians.
 
Last edited:
Once a people are disarmed, there is no more discussion, and there is no more capacity for meaningful resistance.

I wish one of the Founding Fathers had said this but its not so. kind of trite but speaks to the point you are making.

"Democracy has been defined as two wolves and a sheep discussing plans for lunch."

"Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

I was actually thinking in the back of my mind about the wolves/sheep thing when I wrote that.
 
Please don't compare European Experience to the American Experience, almost the whole of Europe's population were Serfs/ Subjects or outright slaves until 150 years ago, many are still subjects even today, they have no concept of individual freedom, rights and responsibility as an American would see it. Not that they are bad, just conformist in spirit and culture whereas Americans are not naturally sheepish or conformist in spirit.

So very true. I was just having this discussion with one of my friends who spent time in Europe like I did and recalled the same feeling about Europeans.

It is very hard for Europeans to comprehend our patriotic thinking and I find it equally odd that they live such a straight line existence.

When I lived in Stuttgart, I met a man who was a fourth generation employee at Diamler-Benz AG. Not only was he on a single track, his whole family was. Everybody has their place in society and there really is no deviation from the class you were born in.

So how can you really truly have an understanding of a culture and how that culture forms your thoughts and opinions when you were born and raised in FRANCE?

I'll stick the the philosophy of the great thinkers that formed our country. You could tell they were men of very deep thought and they really did create a country of the likes that had never been seen on earth. I find it simply amazing that people in this country really have no concept of how blessed they really are being part of what those men created.
 
RH I am not mocking the Europeans, just stating what I know of their history and experience from living there, traveling there, and doing a lot of business there over the last 30 years. Its sad actually. We are blessed and I am not prepared to be known as the generation that gave it all away. Fact is we have to figure our way forward with all the tools our founders gave us. We are actually a good natured people. The drama that is broadcast in and about our country does not paint a true picture, we are a giving people, we give more away to others than all the world combined. However, we are a hard headed people and not easily pushed around, we react irrationally sometimes when pushed too far, hell I would say we always over react in irrational ways to being pushed. Whoever is doing the pushing needs to tread carefully, things might not go the way they plan. The genie and bottle thing.
 
If we don't understand this, and make the effort required to implement well thought-out solutions to complicated political problems, the American experiment in democracy is in danger of imploding.

Have you ever thought that as extreme as some of the opinions you say are on here, perhaps you may be just as extreme in the other direction and over thinking this?

In reality, it will be relatively easy to forcefully remove a state government, even a federal one. I'd venture to say a matter of days. I think our country can continue just fine with the federal government going through a transition. Hell, send all of the governors there to fill the vacuum, the Lt. Governors can keep order in the states where political discourse is not an issue. Outbreaks of violence over constitutional issues would be very localized. This country can weather much more than that.

There are 452 (give or take) men and women in charge of this country. Do you honestly believe the democracy would implode in their absence? If it did, we REALLY have a problem with power allotment in this country.
 
RH I am not mocking the Europeans, just stating what I know of their history and experience from living there, traveling there, and doing a lot of business there over the last 30 years. Its sad actually.

I did not take it that way, and I am not mocking them either, just sharing my observations from living there. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Like Thomas Jefferson said: The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.
 
Regardless of wherever something like this happens. Regardless as to the reasoning of why. Regardless of how many blindly agree with it. Regardless of anything; the root meaning of this needs to happen:

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

There is one book I never finished because I simply couldn't stomach it, The Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn. I felt physically ill reading the accounts of what is described above. I am similarly repulsed by the (often cowardly) notion that it could never happen here because it certainly could, and the machinations to make it so began long ago.
 
Shit, y'all can talk that noise... I'll have warm donuts and hot coffee for the Police when they come for mine. Cuz they're only doing a job they were ordered to do. It's not their fault... gotta be hard on em.

Ah yes, the Nuremberg defense. This is not racing to the bottom of the barrel for the Nazi parallel, it is simply what it is and the term happened to be coined at these particular trials. Even if there is no moral shame, which there should be bucket loads of, at least worry about the historical company being kept.
 
'Round here we talk just like lions,
But we sacrifice like lambs.'

Counting Crows - Round Here Lyrics | SongMeanings

Not disagreeing as I have no personal knowledge of anyone who has posted here, but I think the idea behind this thread has an important place on the slippery slope we're headed down. Long before there is action on anyone's part, whether the offending legislation or any eventual negative reaction to it, the starting point was an idea. That CT passed such a measure indicates the prevailing notion at the time, as unsavory as it is. It is unfortunate that the ideas presented here did not carry that particular day. Whatever the eventual outcome I should hope that many of the ideas presented here make their way to our respective legislators and direct our campaign contributions. I do hope.

In the same way that debate teams and lawyers develop their arguments and practice their delivery for game day, we may use this forum to do the same. If we don't I think much of our effort is lost.

Apologies if that was too political.