As a thinker, Greenwich Magazine’s Jack Moffly is a pretty good sailor

When dummies fall in love(Greenwich Look photo)

When dummies fall in love
(Fairfield County Look photo)

Abolish the NRA! Confiscate “assault rifles”. I’d expect better from Moffly who, unlike Barry Hussein really has gone a skeeting in the past, but there you have it: a man who considers himself part of the media establishment feels it necessary to editorialize like it too.

A ban on the sale of assault rifles and high- capacity clips [Ah, Jack? These are magazines, not clips.  I take back what I said about you  knowing something about guns – Ed] would not eliminate those already in circulation, and with the threat of new laws that might restrict their sale, both have recently been flying off dealers’ shelves. Therefore, their ownership, not just their sale, must be restricted by federal law, just as the manufacture and possession of submachine guns is restricted [completely prohibited, as Moffly should know and probably does – Ed] , for there is very little difference in killing capacity between the weapons.

The reader who sent along this link calls for Greenwich residents to cancel their subscriptions to Greenwich Magazine but at least in my case that would entail first subscribing to the fluff rag and then quitting – that’s a lot of work just to tell Moffly I’m displeased. Besides, why go to that bother when I can blog?


Filed under Uncategorized

26 responses to “As a thinker, Greenwich Magazine’s Jack Moffly is a pretty good sailor

  1. Mickster

    link not working

  2. greenwich dude

    i thought greenwich magazine was for looking at real estate ads in line at whole foods… did i get that wrong? was not aware there were editorials. when will they tackle “beach cards: a driver’s license ought to be enough at town hall”?

  3. Anonymous

    If I’m not mistaken the dummy Moffly is sitting next to is Janet Hassen of the Journal News. They make a great pair. A pair of what, I’m not sure.

  4. Anonymous

    PS: link for me goes to sign-in to Google docs.

  5. Krazy Kat

    OK, Chris, when I sent it to you I was in the same camp as were you, a non-subscriber. That is why I suggested articulating a potential boycott of the magazine’s advertisers. I appreciate that is harsh but Mofley is as clueless as the boobs in Hartford who think that rifle bans and capacity limits are going to prevent “the next Newtown”.

    Mofley would do well to educate himself by checking out these two blog items I posted on The Patch discussing magazine bans and their minimal impact on gun violence and rampage shootings:

    • The Moffly camp isn’t interested in banning high capacity “clips” – as he admits, it’s all about confiscation of the guns already owned by citizens. Everything they do and say is done with an eye toward moving incrementally toward their ultimate goal, as demonstrated by that police chief I linked to a couple of days ago, promising that all guns of every kind would be gone “by the next generation”. These people are patient.

  6. Balzac

    Moffly is way out of his depth on this issue…..other issues as well.

  7. Zip it Moffly

    Moffly is a chardonnay socialist. He is so far out on the left wing on social issues. I stopped reading when too many editorials were about Planned Parenthood blah blah blah. Planned Parenthood gets handed our tax money whether we like it or not, so what’s the big controversy for them? Now Jack wants us to hand over another decision to Big Government – who has the right to have a gun? Jack and wife Moffly please limit your editorials to who serves the best canapes at town soirees and what your rich little corner of Riverside used to be like in the 1950s.

  8. Cobra

    Should we ever wish to review naive, distorted, left-wing ideology, we could subscribe to The Progressive, Mother Jones, Green Anarchy, Anarcho-Syndicalist Review, The Nation, etc. However, we don’t. While in the past we have sporadically enjoyed reading Greenwich Magazine’s town-related content, Jack Moffly’s current anti-gun editorial prompted me to call the rag’s customer service number (203-222-0600) to immediately cancel our subscription. Greenwich Magazine will no longer defile our mailbox.

    • FlyAngler

      Cobra, Chris has to introduce us. You almost made me pee my pants with “will no longer defile our mailbox”!

  9. Riverside

    I am a conservative and no lover of liberals. I have to stand up for Jack Moffly – I know him well and he is a solid guy who is a great citizen and supporter of many worthy causes in Greenwich. His support (or lack thereof) for gun rights alone should not make him the object of scorn and derision. People need to grow up, or at least be more balanced in their judgements.

    • I’m guessing that being towed backwards by his sailboat a few years ago didn’t help – oxygen deprivation will do funny things to a man.

    • FlyAngler

      Riverside – There is nothing casual about a call to neuter the NRA, ban rifles based on cosmetic features and limit magazine capacities well below their design limits. There is nothing casual about discussing a wholesale infringement of both the Federal Constitution as well as the Connecticut State Constitution (go look up Article 1, Section 15 for an unambiguous right to bear arms for self-defense).

      I am sorry but this is not that time for our elites to get their elite-club card punched by chiming in with loose talk when they clearly have not research the issue. Moffley is entitled to his personal opinion which if kept to himself, would not be a problem. However, when he publishes it as the master of his publication, then he is opening himself up to all of the applause and catcalls that go along with going public.

      Jack’s prior activities in the community (my wife sat on a Board with him some years ago so I know a little about him) is not an excuse because THIS IS NOT A MOMENT FOR LOOSE TALK FROM THE UNINFORMED LIKE MOFFLEY. If he had presented a rational argument that showed a knowledgable appreciation for the issues, the inadequacies of such bans over time and the monumental challenges of enforcement I would feel more respect than this “ban the assault weapons” bull crap that is based on flawed 25-year-old ideas hatched by Democratic staffers in Sacremento in 1989 (look up Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act).

      I was in the Capitol on Monday from 8:30AM up until I delivered my personal testimony to the Task Force after 11pm. I listened to EVERY parent, every professional and every citizen up to my turn at the microphone. The amount of misinformation, lack of knowledge and mis-guided “proposals” is dizzying. And yet, the Dems on the panel seemed to be more interested in surfing the web, updating their Facebook pages, tweeting and otherwise ignoring most speakers. That is not universally true, the GOP folks listened and a couple of the Dems but it was clear they were not looking to hear anything to change their minds.

      Listen Riverside, I have four school-aged kids that I WANT PROTECTED against the next rampage killer to emerge from our squalid culture. As a gun owner, shooter, student of history, I can tell you a dozen reasons why a tighter AR ban and/or mag capacity limits will have NO EFFECT on preventing any future rampage killer from planning and launching an attack. A black rifle was not used at Columbine, nor Virginia Tech, nor Oikos University, nor the CT Lottery, nor Hartford Distributors, nor the University of Texas Clock Tower back in 1966. Further, the Armalite Rifle has been available to the public since 1966 and yet it was not until the 1980s that it became an implement of death in rampage shootings.

      Same for magazine capacity. The msot effective weapons of the Columbine killers where a double barrelled shotgun (reloaded 20 times) and a Hi-Point Carbine fed with 10-round magazines over seven times. Both of those weapons were compliant with the federal AWB. The killer in Oikos used a pistol and mags fully compliant with the California ban that the gun-takers in CT aspire to put in place here.

      Riverside, I have just given you a 102 level of knowledge on these isssues, far in excess of what Jack Moffley knew when he penned his useless and uninformed echo of the dumbest gun control ideas around.

      Sorry Riverside, a nice guy for sure but he is now reaping what he has sown. Consider it his “Dixie Chicks” moment.

      • Riverside

        FlyAngler – you have indeed given a good survey of the issues, which is informative but honestly was not needed for me, as I am already in agreement and on board on this. I was simply making the point that however misguided Jack may be on this issue, he is a good man and I don’t think it is fair to demonize him over this one issue.

        You may disagree and I respect that, but I stand by my earlier point – I have a great deal of affection and respect for him generally even though I don’t agree with him on this one.

        • prosperityfollowsdynamite

          Besides being extremely eloquent and informative, FlyAngler’s post makes the most important point here-nice guy or not, Moffley’s use of his pulpit to distribute misinformation is lazy and irresponsible. He is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. It is pathetic that man of his age demonstrates a first graders knowledge of history. To quote:”…muzzle-loading muskets with an effective range of less than seventy-five yards and required up to three minutes to load each shot.” What? If our militiamen required three minutes to load each shot we would all still be eating crumpets and drinking tea. A militiaman could load and fire at LEAST four shots a minute; his life depended upon it. And more importantly, I am glad that Mr. Moffley and those of his persuasion raise the issue of the musket. The smoothbore musket was the AR-15 of its time. In fact, most colonists owned rifles, which were better suited to hunting animals at greater distances. The rifle took longer to load and fire(but still about a minute, not three) and could not easily be fitted with a bayonet. A musket, a military weapon, therefore, was far more desirable because of its ability for high rate of fire and design to accept a bayonet-the two most essential aspects of combat at the time.
          Sound familiar? In a nutshell: If Washington were alive today he would own an AR-15, probably several.

        • FlyAngler

          Prosp – I am always fascinated by the arguments put up by the gun controllers that the Founders could never had contemplated modern weaponry and thus the AR/AK should be considered beyond the scope of the 2A. What such low thinkers seem to forget is that some of the Founders, like Jefferson and Franklin were inventors, tinkers and/or of a scientific bent. Other Founders were businessmen, a few dabbled in the arms trade. Thus, they were well aware of the potential for scientific advancement, even in firearms.

          If they meant for the people to be limited to some specific weapon or weapon type, they would have said more than “arms”, both in the US and Connecticut constitutions. But they did not and why not? Because they realized that the people were going to have to be able to avail themselves of whatever weapons necessary to confront their potential adversaries. There is not writing in existence that suggests the Founders thought the people/militia should be outgunned by either the government, foreign governments or criminal elements. Thus, the thinking was that the effectiveness and lethality of personal defense weapons would remain even with those generally available in the broader marketplace.

          The Moffleys of the world, isolated in their elite towers and swanky zip codes, never consider the self-defense needs of the hoi palloi. Maybe Riverside, out of the kindness of his/her heart, can run off a few of the results from a Google search of “Connecticut home invasion” and show Mr. Moffley that not all is well in the Constitution State. That in fact, on a regular basis his fellow Nutmegers are routinely being threatened in their own homes, often by multiple armed home invaders.

          The Moffleys of the world also can not appreciate that the ideal suburban home-defense firearm just might be the AR15. More accurate than a handgun. Less damaging to others in the home than either a handgun or a shotgun with 12g a buck (little 55gr 223 bullet dies in walls rather than penetrating through multiple rounds of sheetrock and 2x4s like buckshot or a big fat 45 round). Lower recoil than a shotgun (or even a handgun), allows the AR shooter to remain on target better for follow up shots, if needed. The ability to add flashlights and/or lasers make the AR very handy.

          No, Jack would never know these things. He, like Joe Biden, thinks a double barreled trap/skeet shotgun is a better home defense option. Never mind that it is 44″ long, kicks like a mule and you are unlikely to have shells 3 and 4 sitting in your jammie pocket.

          I do not suffer through the words of fools well. Sorry Riverside.

        • FlyAngler

          That was supposed to say SHOW Mr. Moffley, not shot

  10. anonymous

    Octogenarian, Socially Registered Greenwich Time scribe Norma Bartol summed it up when she referred to Jack as Mr. Muffles.

  11. Balzac

    All these silly liberals want to jump ugly with Wayne LaPierre, head of the NRA. Only a ditzoid liberal could confuse LaPierre, a law-and-order guy, with the ghetto scumbags who use unregistered guns to kill other ghetto scumbags.

    Liberals seem to believe their kumbaya sentimentality is actual thinking.

  12. AJ

    Never trust a guy who wears a bow tie — does it squirt water or spin like a propeller? But aside from that, he makes that same old tired argument that always draws the wrong conclusion. Let’s take a look at his closing paragraph:
    “Those who believe in the sanctity and strict application of the Second Amendment should consider the guns that existed when the amendment was written, which were muzzle-loading muskets with an effective range of less than seventy-five yards and required up to three minutes to load each shot. We believe that our forefathers would have been horrified to know that as a result of today’s weapons technology, their amendment would enable the mass murder of even our innocent children.”

    According to Mr Moffly’s reasoning, we should all be limited to the weapons on hand when the Second Amendment was written. There it is; that old false initial premise trick rears its ugly head again. But using the intent of the second amendment, and at this point in the game I don’t think I need to show all those quotes from the nation’s founders again, and true deductive reasoning, whatever a soldier or group of soldiers can drag or drive onto the field or put into the air, a citizen should be able to possess. As far as atomic bombs go, they are not defensive, but offensive weapons, and target indiscriminately.

    • FlyAngler

      Balzac – why get tied up in the 2A? Just go to the CT state constituion Article 1, Section 15 for an uncomplicated right to bear arms for defense of self and state. Written almost 30 years after the 2A,they had plenty of time to think about the nuances of the 2A and made it even cleaner. No messing with regulated nor militia, just a right. Me likey!

  13. AJ

    Oh no, why don’t they make bulldozers illegal?

  14. Anonymous

    The scene by the fireplace on a cold winter night pre-deadline: “Oh those guns! Damn those guns! Am I twitter trending yet? Muffy, bring me a cranberry spritzer, I’m getting a bit worked up here as I type this editorial. Thanks, dear.”