Connecticut newpaper using the 1st Amendment to destroy the 2nd.

I first saw this op-ed from the Hartford, Connecticut litter-box liner The Courant several days ago.

It made my blood pressure rise enough that I set it on the back burner for a few days so that I could write about it without having to use one non-stop string of expletives.

Only the leftist, bed-wetting, communist-pinko sympathizing thumb-socking, political ass-kissing losers in the Fourth Estate could be this blind to the blatant hypocrisy they demonstrate, daily in most cases, with an op-ed about going after the "scofflaws" in Connecticut who have refused to register their so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines per the state's new anti-Constitutional law.

Yes, you read right: The editors at the birdcage-liner, The Courant, refer to those refusing to yield their Second Amendment rights as "scofflaws" and they do it in the headline of their slop-ed piece.

Here's an interesting little snippit:

Guns defined in state law as assault weapons can no longer be bought or sold in Connecticut. Such guns already held can be legally possessed if registered. But owning an unregistered assault weapon is a Class D felony. Felonies cannot go unenforced.

 I especially love that last line: "Felonies cannot go unenforced."

Really, now.

What was one of the original rallying cries of the anti-gun control movement? I think it went something like "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Congratulations Connecticut. With the stroke of a pen, you've created fifty-thousand more criminals in the Constitution State--an irony that does not escape the rest of us. And now, the very rag I wouldn't use to clean dog crap off my work boots, The Courant, is urging tough action by the authorities.

Yet, the same rag has a number of stories praising or promoting civil disobedience by those Americans who disagree with a particular law or verdict. The dead-fish wrapper, The Courant, had an editorial praising the civil disobedience after the Trayvon Martin verdict, naturally, and decided that perhaps some laws needed to be re-examined or changed.

The rag praised the civil disobedience of blacks on Martin Luther King Day. Isn't that interesting. Nobody denied Rosa Parks a seat on the bus. Nobody denied blacks water in department stores. But Ms. Parks wanted equality and to be able to sit at the front of the bus. Blacks wanted to drink out of the same water fountain the white folks did. So they exercised some civil disobedience--for equality--and the modern day newspapers, rightfully, praise them for it.

Yet those same papers, using the term loosely, are willing to discriminate against those seeking their Second Amendment civil rights and instead turning them into felons and then encouraging their arrest.

So what we have is a newspaper, albeit using the term loosely, cowering behind their First Amendment rights working overtime to deny tens of thousands of residents in the Constitution State their Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights and demanding action by the authorities, which would mean the police, in apprehending and trying these "scofflaws" who dare exercise their Constitutional rights.

Perhaps the sniveling cowards at the not-fit-for-even-paper-mach´rag, The Courant, might want to think about something:

There are an estimated fifty-thousand plus owners of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines who are telling the "authorities" in the Constitution State to kiss their freedom-loving, patriotic asses. There are over a quarter of a million gun-owners in Connecticut alone. There are less than seven-thousand total cops in Connecticut.

The reasonable conclusion?

Molon Labe.