Connecticut Governor Malloy’s Gun Ban – Who Will Protect The Children?

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – The State comes at this from the position that their priority and their preference supersedes or exceeds that of the parent.  Could it not be said that if parents had the ability to keep their children out of all manner of public building where there are public events going on, especially if they’re well-guarded in their home or their environment, that they have then taken measures to deal with their safety?  Check out today’s transcript for the rest…

 

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  Here we have Governor Malloy in Connecticut signing this bill to ban all these assault weapons.  Many of you are going to disagree with this.  Since we’re back to bashing Obama and since we’re back on message now, I again get to say to you that the incorporation doctrine is a fraud.  The first ten amendments to the Constitution were pointed directly at the general government, at the Congress.  I proved this conclusively.  There’s no room for another interpretation.  The first ten amendments were directed to limit the powers of the new general government in 1789 and the first Congress, end of story.  Since the Constitution is a compact, that’s what those amendments did all the way up until they were incorporated.  This was Chief Justice Earl Warren, Thurgood Marshall and others who invented this doctrine that we call the incorporation doctrine today.  They said: No, when they wrote the 14^th Amendment, they meant to apply the Bill of Rights against the states.  That would have been news to the authors of the 14^th Amendment, big news to them.

Even though the State of Connecticut, we would advise against them banning weapons and trying to take weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens regardless of what kind of caliber they are and what have you, they did it anyway.  Here’s Governor Malloy talking about how he doesn’t fear the NRA or any of the people that are opposing him, that if gun manufacturers want to leave the state that’s their business.

[start audio clip]

Governor Malloy: It’s probably a little tougher on everybody. Wayne reminds me of the clowns at the circus, they get the most attention, and that’s what he’s paid to do. The reality is that the gun that was used to kill 26 people on December 14^th was legally purchased in the State of Connecticut even though we had an assault weapons ban. There were loopholes in it that you could drive a truck through. This guy is so out of whack it’s unbelievable. Ninety-two percent of the American people want universal background checks.

[end audio clip]

Mike:  So?  Ninety percent of the American people don’t want to have to get up and work in the morning, too.  Do I have to go to work today?  Well, 90 percent of people don’t want to go to work.  Let’s give everyone a subsidy, not just 47 percent, how about that?  Here’s the clip where he said: I’m not making the gun manufacturers leave my state; if they want to leave the state, that’s their decision.

[start audio clip]

Governor Malloy: We’ve been clear. People are welcome to stay in our state as long as they’re producing a product that can be sold in the United States legally. By the way, those companies have been courted over the years to move many, many times. We’ve been in discussions with some of those firms about their desire to move or not to move in the past. We’ve decided that the public’s safety, that school children’s safety, that school teachers’ safety trumps all of that. I hope they stay and manufacture products that can legally be sold, but if they leave that will be the decision they make. We’re not making them leave.

[end audio clip]

Mike:  We’re not making them leave.  We’re all concerned about school safety.  We’re all concerned about protecting school children and what have you.  I’d just like to drop the seedling into your mind of the ubiquitous nature of school today, and mandatory schooling is just that.  The state tells you you have to send your kid to school.  They have truancy laws on the books.  Since there are truancy laws on the books, if you don’t send your child to school we’ll come after you and throw you in jail.  We’ll make the kids go to school anyway.  The parent doesn’t have the right to say no.  The parent has lost the ability to control the young man or young woman’s education, in whatever fashion the parent has deemed it is a necessity.

The future of the State relies upon the creation or the existence of children.  You would think that the parents have an equal stake in the outcome as well.  As a matter of fact, you would think the parents have a greater stake in the outcome than the State does.  The State comes at this from the position that their priority and their preference supersedes or exceeds that of the parent.  Could it not be said that if parents had the ability to keep their children out of all manner of public building where there are public events going on, especially if they’re well-guarded in their home or their environment, that they have then taken measures to deal with their safety?  You can’t make that claim because you have to accede that your child must attend school, otherwise you’re in violation of these truancy laws.  They’ve got you.  You have to go.

My only question is, if you had private funding of all these things and if it weren’t compulsory, don’t you think you would then have all manner of different approaches to school safety?  Why does everything have to be some kind of top-down, one-size-fits-all, “we know more than you nitwits out there in the hinterland” and ours is federally approved?  What good is that?  Look at all the other things that are federally approved.  How well do they work?  How well do they solve poverty, for example?  They don’t solve it at all.  Many people believe they make it worse.

[start audio clip]

Governor Malloy: I suppose it’s a bit of a compromise. I would have preferred an all-out ban of magazines over ten. The legislature did not agree with me. The reason that that’s important is that Adam Lanza took ten 30-round magazines to a school to kill 26 people and he would have killed a lot more had he had the opportunity.  

[end audio clip]

Mike:  What if he had ten rounds and he had, instead of ten 30’s, what if he had thirty 10’s and the same amount of bullets, just in different clips.  Is someone like Lanza going to be deterred by the amount of bullets he can pump into a chamber at one time?  You do have the advantage there of having a sitting duck victim who can’t go anywhere by virtue of the fact that they’re locked in a school.

End Mike Church Show Transcript