No, really. Rep. Tim O’ Brien has the details on his blog:
I am in the Judiciary Committee hearing on this snowy day at the Capitol. The Committee is holding a hearing on, among other things, a couple of bills to regulate the use of tasers.
A representative of a company that manufactures tasers was testifying about these devices, when Rep. Micheal Lawlor, House Chair of the Committee, asked if the gentleman would use a taser on Lawlor, himself, to demonstrate their safety. The gentleman agreed.
It certainly did not look or sound like a pleasant experience, but Lawlor went through with it. I do not think I have every heard of this happening at the Capitol.
Mike Lawlor has a reputation has a very intelligent and fair legislator. This kind of thing earns him a lot of respect. Whatever position he takes on how legal these devices should be, he will not be advocating for it without putting himself on the business end of one of them.
Earlier this week Lawlor guest blogged here at CTLP, and has returned to the comments section multiple times to answer questions. Hopefully he’ll also stop by to give us a firsthand account of the experience.
H/T to Spazeboy for this.
23 responses so far ↓
>>”Rep. Mike Lawlor Voluntarily Tasered”
..and not a moment too soon is all I can say.
Mike Lawlor rules.
Please someone FOI the security tape for that! I need to see it for myself.
GC–In a media DUMP on a snowy Friday when the cap press corps has left the building, the d-bag Speaker decides to announce that he will no longer accept lobbyist donations in his quest to shakedown folks for his MS gig.
Although….I guess the fact that Amann had to cancel his lobbyist-sponsored roast the other night at the Irish Home in Glastonbury is some modicum of punishment. Hopefully mr. Hughes was able to raise some cash from the concert alone…..but I’m pretty pissed that he would prostitute a fine band like the Wolfe Tones so blatantly.
Are we ready for professional politicians?
CHeck out Caruso’s call at CTNewsjunkie.com
Amman Gives up lobbyists
They should all be tasered…. a few times….
or maybe once for each bill they propose (except if the bill lowers taxes).
I think most of you (except trifles) have missed an enormous point. There were two bills before judiciary today re: stun guns. One was police could only use them in life and death situations (aside — isn’t that what a firearm is for??) and Two, banning the sale of stun guns to CT residents, i.e. get a handgun, or just use a baseball bat when some crack addict breaks into your mother’s house after midnight.
Unlike, say, Sen. DeLuca, who was rightfully reamed here on CTLP for the complete ignorance he demonstrated in his Plan B testimony, Mike Lawlor underwent a very unpleasant physical experience in the name of better understanding two imporant bills before him as a legislator. That is absolutely outstanding and should be commended.
Meanwhile, ACR, it’s past your bedtime.
The GA should stay part time. To go full time would defeat the idea behind the GA, people with real jobs representing their districts.
Of course that Man-Mountain Caruso wants a full time legislature….he needs the raise to move out of his mother’s basement and avoid getting a full time job. But, y’know, it may not be a bad idea….as a part-time legislator Caruso seems to only have time investigating Democrats, and perhaps as a full-time legislator would afford him the time to look a little harder at his own party.
Pardon…I meant that he only has time to investigate Republicans….got a little ahead of myself.
Thesea, so by your rubric, Sen. DeLuca should be raped, taken by ambulance to a Catholic hospital, be the rare victim who is denied Plan B, and then taken to a nearby hospital that does-in fact-provide it?
How does someone with a regular job that isn’t lawyer or MS fundraiser serve in the legislature? Seriously–I couldn’t keep my job if I were elected. It wouldn’t be fair to the job! I’d essentially be gone from January to June (Feb. to May in short session years), with the possibility of special sessions later on in the year. There aren’t many jobs which would be okay with that.
Lawlor is the most impressive legislator I’ve run into. I admire Geragosian, O’Brien, Fleischmann, Ed Meyer, Harris, (and a whole host of others), but Lawlor wins on style points. And to think he gets elected in East Haven!
Genghis for the most part you are correct, but there are some who own there own contracting business, and work in marketing. You have to have an understanding boss.
Clickety, you’re not thinking about things the right way—-Sen. DeLuca is a republican, and if a republican espouses a position that is contrary to the Democrats (liberals) position, then that person is clearly uninformed.
That’s true. In fact, my old state rep was sort of a gentleman farmer.
Still cuts out the vast majority of the middle and lower class, which is not good. See the new post on the subject I just put up.
Babaloo said: and if a republican espouses a position that is contrary to the Democrats (liberals) position, then that person is clearly uninformed.
Party has nothing to do with it. Thompson, and Morris are both Democrats. They were certainly uninformed.
As a recap: De Luca hadn’t read the bill, hadn’t listened in on any of the hearing, and was completely ignorant of what Plan B even was.
Spoken like a true gun nut, Republitarian. The 2nd amendment is outdated and misleading and even after you make room for people to legally bear arms, there’s still room for compromise. Lawlor has been responsible and fair to legal gun owners in all of his efforts in the legislature. Far too many gun advocates are extremist in their NRA-interpretation-of-the-2nd-amendment-or-die mantra. Folks like that need to try raising a child in an urban area sometime. There are kids in their early teen years holding and/or using illegal firearms. If I chose, I can drive into the city and get a loaded handgun within two hours for $80. That’s the price of a human life? Guns have infiltrated and proliferated, and they’re simply not a problem for suburbanites or rural folks because for the most part, they’re well off. Finances might be tight, but they’re not worried about where their next meal is coming from, or how they’re going to pay for their kid’s medication.
People were concerned at some point not too long ago that America was raising a bunch of “super villians,” because video games and television were desensitizing people to violence. There’s probably a kernal of truth to that. But what’s reality for young people? Kids in the city are actually growing up with all kinds of behavioral problems simply based on the constant fear that they might be murdered on their way home from school.
Suburbanites who advocate for their gun rights simply can’t conceive of the life these kids are born into for no fault of their own. But they’re quick to condemn a youth who carries a firearm illegally to protect him/herself. The bottom line is – there are too many guns on the streets. Straw buyers, illegal dealers, and irresponsible manufacturers are to blame – and no one is doing anything about it because of people like you. Lawlor has made efforts to curb the flow of illegal guns. He deserves respect for that because that effort is moral, right, and needed. Gun nuts should be happy to sacrifice a little of that carefree attitude about guns.
What gets me the most is one of the most vocal gun-rights advocates in last year’s public conversation was the downstate gun dealer who the feds took away for selling tons of guns illegally. Now that’s a spokesman.
Lawlor infuriates conservatives perhaps more than any other legislator because he is possibly the most well-informed and articulate member of the CGA. This is a perfect example of him trying to further his knowledge of something before he passes a law. He makes insightful comments and reasonable proposals and it maddens the conservatives because all they can do is resort to the winning argument that he is a “socialist.” (This argument from the same people who would jump all over me for being inappropriate or not contributing to productive debate if I were to call Lou DeLuca a “fascist.”)
Great Googly – What a load of bull… Why don’t you (not you personally, but the powers that be) clean up the REASONS for the crime in urban cities – then they won’t need guns to protect their drug money – why don’t you send in police where they are needed – then they won’t need guns to protect themselves because the police never show up. Why don’t you have enforcement of the carry laws that already exist and you won’t have people illegally having them … the only people who get hurt by the gun laws are the law abiding citizens.. the criminals who steal them and possess them illegally and use them wantonly never seem to get put into jail where they belong.. is that the urban weekend sportman’s fault? is that the fault of the NRA who has done more to promote gun safety than any other organization including our police departments?
yeah blame urban gun problems on “the gun nuts”
You obviously have little understanding of the real underlying issues and find it much easier to allow the population to become unarmed and defenseless.
Are there gun dealers who are unscrupulous.. sure.. just like there are physicians that dole out drugs illegally..
Straw buyers, illegal dealers, and irresponsible manufacturers are to blame – and no one is doing anything about it – because current laws are not being enforced – it’s not because “of people like me”. That BS and you know it.
yeah kids are dying in the cities.. it’s because current gun laws are not being enforced.. and your answer is to curb everyone else’s rights. Good one.
The second amendment is not outdated pal, it’s even more critical now than ever.. I suppose the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights are just as meaningless to you.. that’s what makes you the fine Leftist that you are.
Republitarian says:
Are you saying that the root cause of crime in cities (urban cities strikes me as redundant) is drugs?
Because there’s no way that the root cause of crime in cities could be poor wages, sub-par education, limited employment opportunities, and lack of health insurance. Right?
Actually, Republitarian, I have no idea where you live or work and maybe you do have some experience in this stuff beyond the assumptions of Rush & O’Reilly. But I actually live within a mile or so of one of the worst neighborhoods in CT, and I work in the city with young people. So I am, in fact, working to solve these problems. The opportunity to see this stuff up close has changed my politics to some extent. I believe in the right to bear arms but am now OK with just about any level of regulation, simply because it’ll drive up the price of an illegal firearm and take many of them off the street. I see NRA folks as part of the problem because they’re organized and unreasonable. They throw the full weight of their lobby against EVERY attempt to slow the flow of illegal firearms. You assumed right away that I’m against gun ownership.
And Spazeboy is hitting the nail on the head in terms of your impression of the underlying problems in our urban areas. The reasons are particularly complex, but the big one is poverty. Try not eating for a week and you’ll see what you’re capable of. Try not eating for a week with a loaded gun, and you’ll surprise yourself.
But above all, don’t ASSUME that everyone is a drug dealer, or that every gun control bill is out to get you – the casual gun owner/ardent gun rights advocate. You don’t need a gun to obtain your livelihood everyday, and you clearly don’t understand the pricetag – within our own society – of your right to bear arms.
If you think you need firearms to protect yourself from the government, well, that’s just plain ridiculous. The government has had you and everyone else outgunned for decades. They’re listening to our phone calls and reading these posts. They’re watching you on camera in public places. There is NO WAY you or even a few thousand good-natured, enthusiastic gun rights advocates could conceivably mount an armed resistance to the U.S. gov’t. You couldn’t even do it against the HPD. The concept is ridiculous. Anything beyond peaceful resistance to the U.S. gov’t/war machine is idiotic and suicidal.
So where does that leave us? Fear of being a crime victim in our own homes? We can’t watch television or read a book without a loaded gun nearby? Statistically speaking, the unlikelihood of an armed invasion in a suburban home is off the charts. A casual observer might see a concern over something like that as borderline paranoia. If that’s our mindset, we probably need meds more than guns.
Police – whose job it is to stop crime – are almost never there when it occurs. And they’re on duty 24/7. What makes you think you will be? Based on these astronomical unlikelihoods, what makes you think it’s OK that we allow dirt-cheap illegal guns to continue proliferating so that you can dream of playing quick-draw with a thug someday? It’s not cost-effective, it’s not necessary, it’s not smart… It’s also not Libertarian or Republican.
You must log in to post a comment.