National Review
Charles C. W. Cooke

Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut released this statement on Twitter today:

Let’s call it like it is: the horrifying inaction of Congress, slaughter after slaughter, has become a green light to would-be shooters, who pervert silence into endorsement.

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) May 18, 2018

This is pretty strong stuff. And yet I’m left unclear as to what exactly Murphy is talking about. As the New York Times has confirmed, the shooter in Texas used a shotgun and a .38-caliber revolver — and nothing else besides. Moreover, because he was 17-years-old, he was ineligible to purchase a gun either privately or commercially, and thus had no contact with NICS background-check system that Murphy wants to expand. What, precisely, did “Congress” fail to do here? What perverted signal did it send? What “endorsement” did it provide?

If his public statements are to be believed, Senator Murphy does not want to ban shotguns or .38-caliber revolvers, which is why he has made no effort to convince Congress to do so. Per Murphy’s website, the senator favors “universal background checks, cracking down on straw purchasers and illegal weapon sales, and limiting access to high-capacity magazines and military-style assault weapons.” In addition, he hopes to secure “legislation to close loopholes in our background check system; to make it illegal for those on the FBI terror watch list to buy a gun; to end the ban on gun violence research at the Center for Disease Control; to encourage licensing requirements for handgun purchases; and to help keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers.” None of these provisions intersect with today’s incident. Which means that if, as Murphy claims, Congress is to blame for not having taken steps to stop what happened today, then Senator Murphy is, too. He cannot have it both ways. If today’s murders were the result of congressional inaction on shotguns and revolvers — if, to borrow his unlovely phrase, a “green light” was shown to the killer — then he must share in the responsibility. And if he isn’t responsible, then nor is anybody else.

I am sometimes asked why so many conservatives do not believe mainstream gun-control advocates when they insist that their ambitions are limited in scope. This is why. Had today’s shooting been carried out with an AR-15, a weapon that Murphy has long wanted to ban, then his reaction would have at least have made internal logical sense. Likewise, if the shooter had bought his firearms privately and skipped the background check that might have thwarted him, Murphy’s finger-pointing would have been expected. But it wasn’t, and he didn’t. And yet Murphy still chastised Congress for not acting. As far as I can see, there are only two reasonable ways to interpret this behavior: 1) That Senator Murphy is a grandstander who does not understand this issue well enough to do anything but shout “do something!” whenever he sees an abomination on the news; or 2) That Senator Murphy actually does want to ban shotguns and revolvers and everything else besides — and, by extension, that he wants to repeal the Second Amendment to the Constitution in order to get it done. Neither of these options is likely to reassure his skeptics.

As for the implication that is embedded in Murphy’s tweet — namely, that declining to prohibit a given tool is in some way an endorsement of those who would abuse it — well, I can think of few more destructive ideas in a free country. Was Thurgood Marshall sending a “green light” to the KKK when he voted with the majority in Brandenburg v. Ohio? Are the many opponents of the Patriot Act offering an “endorsement” to the devotees of Jihad? Hardly. By suggesting that his opponents disagree with him because they are happy to “allow” massacres, rather than because they think that his proposals (such as they are) will be useless, Murphy is seriously damaging our debate over guns, and hurting our political culture. He’s also making it obvious that his views are more radical than he’d like us all to believe. Sometimes it pays to sit a round out.

Link

democrats will never, ever miss an opportunity to capitalize on a tragedy

never

even if they have no clue as to what they're talking about, they cannot help themselves

I'm convinced its a mental defect, and not just a personality defect

To go further, even if Murphy had called for the complete ban of ALL semi-auto firearms, he'd still miss the mark as semi-automatic rifles or pistols weren't even part of the equation here.

Personally, I could give a rats ass what this liberal, progressive democrat slime ball says, thinks, wants or expresses. Bottom line is that these democrats want to ban all firearms regardless of any argument you may present. They don't care about constitutional rights, personal rights or what the actual people want. I suspect he is a shill for Bloomberg and/or Sores? I suspect he received campaign funding from them, and in exchange, he has to push their narrative of gun control and confiscation. What is it with this continuous push for Universal Background Checks? They want to know who you are, what weapon it is to include serial number, caliber, make and model, etc. so it will be easier for them when they come take them.
Shame on the people in the states that voted this crap in.....and they will live to regret it.

I often ask this of lefties to watch their heads explode, but which law exactly would have prevented this tragedy?

Which one?

They are as phony as the day is long. We have a local chapter of Moms Demand something or other, and they keep saying on the news that MOMS is not a gun control organization, they are a gun safety organization. STFU, lady. Apparently, either you don't know the organization that you are a member of or you are too much of a coward to admit that it is a Soros funded gun control organization, to which you are a stupid puppet. And the worst part is that you don't know that you are that dumb.

Hmmm, Connecticut IS "The Constitution" state....

Murphy is a liberal idealogue, a coward (after Sandy Hook, he went to the State Police range to be shown what an AR was and he wore a bullet-proof vest) and an embarrassment.

I honestly can't say who is worse - him or Dick "I served in Vietnam" Blumenthal.

I hope the people of this state come to their senses soon and start voting less liberal, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting.

Most anti 2A people are kids and housewives, reality tv watching Californians.

quote:

Originally posted by Cousin Vinnie:
Personally, I could give a rats ass what this liberal, progressive democrat slime ball says, thinks, wants or expresses.

THIS. A thousand times this!

I don't hate liberals, I just don't have any use whatsoever for them.
I've been trying to find a redeeming feature and so far have come up with nothing, zilch, zero.

Fox News Sunday guests will include Oliver North and (gag, puke) Mark Kelly (Mr. Gabby Giffords).

http://www.foxnews.com/shows/fox-news-sunday.html

I doubt it'll be a debate type event, usually each guess is interviewed separately. However, I expect the usual horseshit from Kelly.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
I'm convinced its a mental defect, and not just a personality defect

Bingo! The goal is to ban all guns, period. Anything they say short of exactly that is utter nonsense and lies.

quote:

Originally posted by Cousin Vinnie:
What is it with this continuous push for Universal Background Checks?

Just a means to an end when universal gun registration is the end goal.

This states my position more plainly than I ever could:

Sen. Murphy's latest butt-nugget of wisdom.

quote:

Originally posted by Cousin Vinnie:
Personally, I could give a rats ass what this liberal, progressive democrat slime ball says, thinks, wants or expresses. Bottom line is that these democrats want to ban all firearms regardless of any argument you may present. They don't care about constitutional rights, personal rights or what the actual people want. I suspect he is a shill for Bloomberg and/or Sores? I suspect he received campaign funding from them, and in exchange, he has to push their narrative of gun control and confiscation. What is it with this continuous push for Universal Background Checks? They want to know who you are, what weapon it is to include serial number, caliber, make and model, etc. so it will be easier for them when they come take them.
Shame on the people in the states that voted this crap in.....and they will live to regret it.

On one side, I agree. Let the asshole babble his ignorant, uninformed BS. On the other side, unfortunately, there are the useful idiots who listen to his BS and think it came down off the mountain with Moses.

Unfortunately, there is no intelligence test to run for federal offices. And assholes like this one demonstrate that failing.

Some wise person stated, years ago, that our nation would face a severe crisis of public ignorance. And we are there.

I taught at Hampton U. back in 1990. And the level of ignorance was astounding back then. Those kids were not stupid, they were ignorant!

And it has only gotten much, much, worse.

We used to joke about people who spelled shit with 2 (Ts). not a joke any more.

To senator murphy, (uncapped by intent) he is living proof that our nation is in very deep doo-doo.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
I often ask this of lefties to watch their heads explode, but which law exactly would have prevented this tragedy?

Which one?

They are as phony as the day is long. We have a local chapter of Moms Demand something or other, and they keep saying on the news that MOMS is not a gun control organization, they are a gun safety organization. STFU, lady. Apparently, either you don't know the organization that you are a member of or you are too much of a coward to admit that it is a Soros funded gun control organization, to which you are a stupid puppet. And the worst part is that you don't know that you are that dumb.

YEA!

Look at England, for a prime example. Exactly how have their asinine "weapons" control done anything to stop the violence? Are they not now debating which knives are acceptable for daily use? As in in the kitchen?

When do they outlaw rocks small enough to be used as a weapon? Just as one example.

And, the idiots who ask for justification/explanation why our Founders included the second amendment: They clearly explained it, yes, way back then. The God given right to self defense.

quote:

Originally posted by Storm:
Sen. Murphy's latest butt-nugget of wisdom.

That's a butt-nugget alright.