Connecticut Gun Control Group Plans Hartford Rally

'March for Change' is planning the event for Valentine's Day.


A grassroots group that began forming the day of the Newtown shootings is planning to rally at the state capitol on Feb. 14, Valentine's Day, to draw attention to the need for gun control.

The group 'March for Change,' started by several Fairfield County women after the shootings in Newtown that killed 20 school children and 6 women, are planning the rally for 11 a.m. on the north steps of the state Capitol, according to The Day, of New London.

One of the organizors said she expects about 2,000 people to attend.

The group has worked closely with the organization Connecticut Against Gun Violence, which has submitted several gun control recommendations to state lawmakers, including a ban on military-style assault weapons, similar to the one Adam Lanza, the Newtown gunman, used during his rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14.

State and federal officials are considering numerous gun control proposals following the Newtown tragedy and one task force formed by Connecticut's General Assembly will begin hearings soon on the issue.

Another group also rallied at the state Capitol this past weekend in support of gun ownership.

That event, held on what was dubbed "Gun Appreciation Day," on Jan. 19, drew hundreds of supporters.

Howard January 23, 2013 at 05:33 PM
As I understand it, what these people want is for the state to ban and confiscate all firearms and anything else capable of propelling a projectile. They want people to be reliant on government for protection from predators (which we know government can't or won't do) and to be unable to resist government in times of tyranny (such as confiscation of food during natural disasters or civic unrest). The are either misguided, brainwashed, and/or proponents of revoking the state and federal constitutions. Yeah Jerry and crew, I know, you are worried about me.
Jerry January 23, 2013 at 06:52 PM
Howard, at long last we are starting to agree. I totally agree with your last paragraph. Unfortunately, your first paragraph is without any verification whatsoever. You are still looking behind bushes for things that simply do not exist.
Howard January 23, 2013 at 07:02 PM
Jerry: Are you following current events at all? Are you monitoring our state legislators or the Congress? I am not looking behind bushes, I am seeing through the branches.
Jerry January 23, 2013 at 07:33 PM
Howard, I do in fact pay close attention to current events. I must pint out that looking through branches rather than behind bushes will not help you see what only exists in your imagination. The fact remains that there simply is no government action afoot calling for the state to ban and confiscate all firearms and anything else capable of propelling a projectile.
Howard January 23, 2013 at 08:59 PM
Jerry, I should give up on you. You must be wearing very thick rose color glasses. I'll bet you think the national debt is no big deal.
jane January 24, 2013 at 11:02 AM
As you understand it? Please link source that indicates where his 'understanding' came from. As far as I know, except for a couple of bloggers here and there, I know of no group that wishes to take all firearms away from legal owners.
jane January 24, 2013 at 11:06 AM
Howard, if you really think that our legislation is really doing what you say, it should be easy enough to provide a link. When people don't back up their statements those statements become meaningless. You do know, though, that just becasue the NRA says something is true doesn't make it so.
Howard January 24, 2013 at 11:52 AM
Here are some links to start. I am short on time this morning but I will post more information later. Keep in mind that the Feinstein bill is going to be submitted today and Blumenthal is working his bill. Here is the question, why all this legislation to degrade the Second Amendment? The excuse is to protect the children, which I am all in favor of, but is that the real reason? Why disarm the populace? Look up gun control in Germany in 1936-1937 and Turkey in the 1910s. Connecticut H.B. 5268 An Act Requiring the Maintenance of Liability Insurance by Firearm Owners and Establishing a Sales Tax on Ammunition http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB05268&which_year=2013 H.B. 5452 An Act Requiring Gun Owners to Carry Liability Insurance http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=5452&which_year=2013&SUBMIT1.x=0&SUBMIT1.y=0&SUBMIT1=Normal S.B. 42 An Act Concerning the Criminal Possession Of Ammunition http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=SB00042&which_year=2013 S.B. 122 An Act Concerning Restrictions on Gun Use http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=SB00122&which_year=2013
Howard January 24, 2013 at 11:52 AM
S.B. 124 An Act Banning Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=SB00124&which_year=2013 S.B. 161 'An Act Concerning The Reduction Of Gun Violence' http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=SB00161&which_year=2013 Federal H.R. 117: To provide for the mandatory licensing and registration of handguns http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr117?utm_campaign=govtrack_email_update&utm_source=govtrack/email_update&utm_medium=email H.R. 138: To prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr138?utm_campaign=govtrack_email_update&utm_source=govtrack/email_update&utm_medium=email H.R. 142: To require face to face purchases of ammunition, to require licensing of ammunition dealers, and to require reporting regarding bulk purchases of ammunition http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr142?utm_campaign=govtrack_email_update&utm_source=govtrack/email_update&utm_medium=email
Howard January 24, 2013 at 11:58 AM
Jerry & Jane - Here is a link to something you should read and consider when you advocate repeal or over restriction of the Second Amendment http://sites.google.com/site/mythoughtsandstuff88/home/why-the-2nd-amendment
Jerry January 24, 2013 at 02:09 PM
Howard, I never have and never would advocate repeal or over restriction of the Second Amendment. Please do not misinterpret my position, all I ask is that you justify yours. So far, you have not been able to do so.
Jerry January 24, 2013 at 05:25 PM
Howard, you post an interesting list of links. Unfortunately, none of them support your original post that "these people" want the state to ban and confiscate all firearms and anything else capable of propelling a projectile. Jane is correct, the more you try to justify your position, the less meaningful your words become.
Howard January 24, 2013 at 05:39 PM
By the way, Jerry and Jane, I should point that ALL of the proposed legislation in the CGA that deals with various types of firearms and/or magazines, bans them. ALL the legislation prohibits possession without grandfathering making many law-abiding citizens instant criminals. Some of the legislation would make EVERY gun owner an instant criminal. Those criminals would then be subject to arrest and prison time not to mention confiscation of the firearms. I believe that some of our lawmakers (Williams) would force the issue and compel law enforcement personnel to enter private homes by force to seize all guns and arrest the new criminals. Do you see where I am going with this? Do you see the potential violations of the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the federal constitution? Check out the legislation for yourself. It is all accessible via the CGA website http://www.cga.ct.gov/
jane January 24, 2013 at 10:49 PM
The point is Howard, no one is asking anyone and confiscate all guns. Restrictions? Point out one law in the Constitution or any of the Amendments that are absolute with no qualifications. There are none. Not even my right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Howard January 25, 2013 at 06:37 PM
Jerry & Jane - Are you guys in a relationship? You seem to have a tendency to parrot each other.
Jerry January 25, 2013 at 08:29 PM
Only for you, Howard, would I answer such a question. No relationship other than two people being able to think things through in a reasonable manner and seek verification of outlandish points of view. If you think there is a relationship, your really are seeing things that do not exist. Speaking of parroting, is the NRA your parrot or is it vice versa?
Justin January 25, 2013 at 09:58 PM
Im not going to argue with any of the J's. However Id like to point out, if you only owned the firearms that they would ban/confiscate. They would be taking all the weapons. I think Mr. Marx said it best, "To each according to his needs". When you propuse restrictions to certain types, based on a citizens needs. Your proposing communism J's.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »