September 29, 2020

Lies and More Lies Used To Take Away Our Guns

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

It really doesn’t matter where you go, lies are common place and considered normal social behavior. Recent studies have even shown that the vast majority of kids today view cheating in school as an acceptable practice in order to “compete”. I remember an old saying used many years ago when referring to a bunch of hunters sitting around telling stories – “One storyteller would lie and the other would swear it was true.”

In Montville, Connecticut one man if proposing that city officials come up with an ordinance that would essentially ban guns and the right of anyone to discharge a gun within town limits. This means that a person could not defend themselves even if they had a gun for protection. And to show just how ridiculous some people can be, this same ordinance as worded, would prohibit any kid under the age of sixteen from discharging a squirt gun.

At issue is the belief by one man, John Dufrat who is chief warden of the Milo Light Nature Preserve, that a nearby resident who target shoots is endangering the lives of people using the preserve. Dufrat says he is frustrated because it is not clear who regulates target shooting.

“We have joggers and walkers going through the preserve all the time,” Dufrat said. “This is where the frustration lies. The whole process has been sort of a pingpong game. I like to target shoot and reload, but I do it at a proper range.”

Dufrat wants the town to regulate target shooting and to do so believes that an ordinance virtually banning guns would do the trick. The NRA has gotten wind of such an ordinance and has this to say about it.

“This proposed ordinance would prohibit all types of recreational shooting, even where it is safe to do so,” read the posting. “More importantly, it makes no exemption for the use of a firearm for self-defense.”

It is unclear but it appears that nobody has even gone to the site of this one person who is using his own property for target shooting to see if safety precautions are being taken. If this is true what kind of knee jerk, reactionary town officials live there?

The mayor, Joseph Jaskiewicz, who agrees with the idea of such an ordinance says it is necessary to close up a big gap in law enforcement. The NRA says this is simply a matter of a neighborly dispute between one man who has an issue with guns and another who has the right to use his own property as he sees fit.

“As far as I’m concerned, this is a public safety issue,” Jaskiewicz said. “There are no state statutes that I know of that cover target shooting.

“Montville is growing,” Jaskiewicz said. “This ordinance is to address a serious gap in state law and protect our citizens and their pets and livestock to the best of our ability from stray bullets. Nothing is foolproof, but again, I felt an obligation to at least try.”

Stray bullets? What is a stray bullet? I have asked this question before. What ever happened to a safety official, whoever the town has designated as such, visiting the homeowner who is discharging his guns and making sure proper safety issues are being addressed? If as the mayor says this is a public safety issue, then address it in a reasonable responsible manner. At least send someone to go look.

What angers me is the use of the same tactic of instilling fear in the masses. The mayor’s use of “stray bullets” to describe what is taking place is wrong and he shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it. Without evening go to this person’s house to investigate, the mayor has irresponsibly profiled all gun owners and shooters as those who errantly shoot their guns at anything causing “stray bullets”.

For those who don’t believe that each and every little restrictive law that any authority puts on guns only leads to more restrictions, those proposing this ordinance say that they want a law just like some other towns in Connecticut.

The proposed ordinance was modeled after those in Avon and West Hartford.

“All I want is to put the same restriction we use on hunting on target shooting,” Jaskiewicz said. “But, it’s up to the council.”

Dufrat agrees.

“It parallels an existing state law and establishes a minimum safe distance a shooter needs to be from a house or park or a place where people would be gathering,” said Dufrat, who is a member of the NRA and certified firearms instructor for the NRA.

Don’t you just love how the writer of this article inserts that Dufrat in an NRA member and certified instructor? Like that somehow makes his ideas valid and reasonable?

But it only gets worse. Even those opposed to the ordinance continue to spew forth lies and repeating the anti-gun rhetoric as though it is all truth and facts. One town council member, Ellen Hillman, is against the ordinance.

“I believe it’s unconstitutional to restrict people’s rights for their own personal property use,” Hillman said.

It is unconstitutional and three cheers to Ms. Hillman for standing up and saying so. One concern of hers is wording in the proposal that prohibits discharging a firearm within 500 feet of any animal, including your dog.

“I believe this hampers hunters who use their dogs to retrieve game or flush out game,” Hillman said. “It’s cruel to make farmers leave a sick or lame animal when they can put it down themselves.”

There’s never much common sense that is used by gun grabbers in their agendas to steal our Consitutional rights.

This ordinance would also prohibit any minor under the age of 16 from discharging a firearm, rifle, CO2 gun, air gun, BB gun, slingshot or bow and arrow within town limits. Coucilman Hillman thinks this is foolishness.

“Parents should be able to teach their children proper gun safety when they feel their child is ready,” Hillman said. “My biggest fear is we’re asking our town officers to enforce this by knowingly walking up to someone who will probably have a loaded gun and issue an infraction. It puts our officers at a terrible risk.”

Where the first part of her statement is one that I can agree with, the second part is absolute hogwash. Her statement contradicts anything she has said to this point about guns and gun safety. She is telling the world that all gun owners are potentially ready to shoot at any police officer who approaches them. This is the kind of garbage that gets slung around the media and by the anti-gun crowds to convince others that guns are dangerous. Shame on her. The only time officers are put at risk is when they approach an armed criminal who is more than likely possessing a gun illegally.

Hillman then goes on to explain how when her grandchildren turned 6, they each got their own BB guns complete with all the safety gadgets and proper instructions from qualified adults. She said from there they would graduate up to a .22 when they felt it was time.

“It’s a rite of passage,” Hillman said. “When they are old enough, they get a .22 caliber. They always learn proper gun care. For my family, it’s a part of growing up.”

This proposed ordinance by one man because he has a problem with a homeowner shooting his guns, is a classic example of a Constitution gone bad. It’s like calling in the fire department to put out a match. People have to have a right to own a gun and use it for recreational purposes and self-defense. No one person should be able to take away the people’s Constitutional rights.

This effort is so blantantly gun-grabbing and fear mongering it needs to be stopped. All gun owners need to stand up and tell facts. Even Ms. Hillman needs to get her facts straight if she is going to successfully fight against the gun grabbing, law making, control freaks who just can stand it that they can’t be the one in charge of everything.

Tom Remington

Share