Those "wise" words were offered by a keynote speaker last Friday at a symposium on gun rights hosted by the UCONN Law School.  She quesitoned why “we keep such an allegiance to a constitution that was driven by 18th Century concerns?"

Malloy was also given a platform to praise his own unconstitutional law.  As an alum, I was invited but couldn't attend.

Check out the comments.

http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/archives/entry/law_professor_calls_for_repealing_2nd_amendment_leaving_gun_rights_up_to_st/

The article is dated 2013.

You know what's funny about that?  I was thinking - Didn't they have a similar symposium last year?  This must be such a hot topic that they wanted to do it again.

This is old.  I was at this event and she wasn't the keynote speaker.  Just a guest speaker from Texas scared legal carry would be allowed on campus.

The keynote speaker was a huge anti gun guy with a long list of credentials.  Well I destroyed his presentation with logic during his Q&A.  I had half the room come over and talk with me at an intermission.

Haha really?  How did that go?

I'm guessing he had no actual clue what he was talking about or looked like the infamous lady with "we really need to stop the shoulder things that go up" or what ever.

No, he was knowledgeable on the subject.  He had been in the gun control game for 30 yrs.  He started off his speech talking about how each side is entrenched.  That words like ban and control shouldn't be used in the gun control debate.  Yet he kept talking about banning this and that.  He went on how he doesn't want to ban handguns.  When the Q&A came up, he was given some softballs and a heartbreaking suicide story.

I started my questions on how many features made up an assault weapon in 94.  Then in CT how many?  As a gun owner, why should I trust him when 20 years later, we now define an assault weapon with one feature and now pistols are being banned.  Guns owners couldn't trust him because what would define an assault weapon in another 20yrs.

Then he switched tactics by saying we gun owners should be willing to compromise.  He went over the numbers and I pointed to the large amount of suicides vs violence.  He felt gun control was worth it, if one live was saved.  I told him I was a verteran and fully understood you can't save everybody.  That people will commit suicide no matter the tool.  I'd rather focus on saving those that want to be saved.

It ended when my friend told me to give it up.  He said I made my point and it was clear the keynote speaker wasn't going to acknowledge my points.

At the intermission, I was shocked at all the lawyers coming over to talk to me.  Nobody really talked to each other during the other intermissions.  My friend went outside to grill the keynote speaker on sentencing and punishments.

Later, a CT attorney defending the law referenced me hoping I wouldn't ask such detailed questions of her.

The video was up on UConn laws website last I looked.  You might not like what you watch.  Malloy and Blummie speak.

Ya I've heard a few people talk about the gun "side" needing to compromise, then ask them to look at the last 60+ years and see who's been doing all the compromising.   Ever since the 1934 law was passed its been the gun side giving things up.  

So, what questions did you ask the other CT attorney?


I've suprised many with what I have to say about the laws and ideas around guns.  I've always looked it from an unbiased factual side similar to how I see everything else instead of with emotions.  It shouldn't even be a rights or a "why do you NEED a gun" type issue.  For many people it's just their version of golf, riding a motorcycle or even building a fast car, it's just for fun.  I ask them why are guns the only thing they want to take away when there are more things that kill people each year.  

Easiest way is to take them shooting, show them what an AR is and how it works.  I've had 2 people already give that "huh wtf?" Look as I showed them what magazines are and how an AR works.  But many won't even give it a 2nd thought and just be ignorant.

I didn't it ask her questions.  It was pretty clear she didn't know anything about firearms beyond what she was told to say.  That was obvious as she described each banned feature, it's function and use.  She described a flash suppressor as a means to conceal your position, making it harder for law enforcement to find you.

I got the impress she was just doing her job with no bias for/against firearms.

here are the event's details with a link to the event on video.  When it comes to q&a with the keynote, you might have problems hearing me.  I gave up the mic because I thought I made my point.  Then he changed the debate on me.

https://www.law.uconn.edu/calendar/symposium/arms-second-amendment-modern-republic

a good review of the event.

https://www.law.uconn.edu/about/press-room/conference-second-amendment-brings-more-200-law-school

       





 

I get propaganda from the law school a few times a month. Mostly hitting me up for money. I rarely read it since I now live in a free state 150 miles away. I was an editor of the law review so I get symposium invitations. He'll if I remember which was what and when.