Quote of the Day: Senator Murphy Wants Your Feedback!

“What would save more children’s lives: closing loopholes and keeping deadly weapons away from dangerous people, or doing nothing to stop dangerous people from getting guns but allowing teachers and others to walk around with guns in case there’s a need for a shootout in a classroom? Come on.” – Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy [via thetrace.org]

comments

  1. avatar FedUp says:

    ” closing loopholes and keeping deadly weapons away from dangerous people”

    And what, pray tell, makes you think you are capable of doing that, you disgusting opponent of civil rights?

  2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    How about keeping dangerous people off the streets to they can’t harm anyone (with or without a gun)?

    1. avatar Soylent Green says:

      ^this

      I’ll never understand the “dangerous people” argument.

      It’s like saying you’ll just keep pedophiles away from children vs locking up the pedophiles. If you know who they are, lock’em up.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        What Sen. Murphy wants is for the federal bureaucracy to have the ability to bar people on it’s terrorist watch list (dangerous people) from purchasing weapons. Problem is that there’s no accountability or due process, which is fine if that list only exists to let the various agencies know that – hey these people might be terrorists so keep an eye on them. Let them strip people of their constitutionally protected rights for the ‘crime’ of being placed on a secret government list basically eviscerates the Bill of Rights. It’s by far more pernicious than an ‘assault weapons ban’ or a ‘magazine capacity limit’.

        1. avatar TruthTellers says:

          And the argument about no fly lists and terror watchlists being the backbone of “closing loopholes” is going to be the narrative for the Democrats for years until they eventually get back in power. Most of their “loopholes” don’t exist, they just believe they do.

          Ban online gun loophole? Great, shut down all the online retailers and kill hundreds, maybe thousands of jobs because you think people can buy a gun online and have it shipped right to their door without a background check.

          Ban the gun show loophole? There isn’t one, a bill passed saying that all sales at a gun show have to go through a background check would do nothing to change any status of current laws.

          Ban private gun sales? How do you enforce it? Oh, registration? Yeah, that’ll be a popular one…

          It’s all incremental steps to totally banning the sale, distribution, and manufacture of guns.

        2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          The problem (for Democrats) is that the federal government has no authority under the commerce clause to regulate intrastate commerce. They knew this in 1968 which is why the supposed ‘gunshow loophole’ was created in the first place. Even as contorted as the judicial logic has been concerning what constitutes interstate commerce, there was no way they could get past the courts a restriction on selling a used gun to your neighbor. I’m guessing that Democrats were smarter back then. But getting to keep a secret list that they can put anyone they want on and thereby bar them from purchasing weapons is the Holy Grail of the Statist Party.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Soybean, I think it’s more like, since there are pedophiles, we should lock up all the children.

        1. avatar Stu in AZ says:

          Nailed it. Kudos for finding a valid comparison between children and guns btw. Not sure that’s been executed before.

        2. avatar TexTed says:

          Absolutely brilliant. THIS should have been the Quote Of The Day. Brilliant analogy.

    2. avatar anonymoose says:

      We need to keep dangerous people like Senator Chris Murphy out of our government.

    3. avatar Anonymous says:

      An excellent observation.

      What would save more children’s lives: closing loopholes and keeping deadly weapons away from dangerous people, or doing nothing to stop dangerous people from getting guns…

      Why are there dangerous people loose in public senator? Why are we allowing dangerous people out in public but not weapons that can be used for harm or defense? If “dangerous people” are the source of the problem, why isn’t legislation being pursued to address them? If “dangerous people” can’t be controlled with legislation, why do we think that they can be controlled when they seek weapons or firearms?

  3. avatar Gregolas says:

    1. Train and arm teachers.
    2. Train and arm state militia to be present at schools during school hours ( armed with rifles).
    3. Strictly enforce “3 strikes and you’re out” and other multiple offender laws.
    .4 Don’t release names of mass killers.

    1. 1. Train and arm teachers.
      No. Allow teachers to be armed.

      2. Train and arm state militia to be present at schools during school hours ( armed with rifles).
      I’m all for militias. But during school hours, most of them are at work. There is no school shooting problem that requires an armed militia standing guard.

      3. Strictly enforce “3 strikes and you’re out” and other multiple offender laws.
      This isn’t a baseball game. And no one is trying to fool the criminal eg, throwing curve balls. Second violent offense after serving time for first offense earns a life sentence. Society has no use for those who refuse to obey the law.

      .4 Don’t release names of mass killers.
      FOIA. There is no proof that killers only do it for fame. We try to apply rational thought to the motives of irrational people. Copy Cat only applies to method not motivation.

      1. avatar TexTed says:

        “No. Allow teachers to be armed.”
        Absolutely agreed. Teachers should not be required to be armed. Teachers should teach. Somebody who hates guns, who won’t practice with them, who won’t carry them, won’t be much good at defending the kids if it comes to that. If a teacher is “allowed” to be armed, then we’re talking about someone who gets it, someone who carries regularly, and now is allowed to carry in school — they might be an effective defense.

        “There is no school shooting problem that requires an armed militia standing guard.”
        Well — what does it require? It requires an armed resistance, that’s the only way you can stop them, so — who is that armed resistance? Either we need to station actual police officers at the schools, or we need armed citizens. But we shouldn’t be expecting the teachers to do it.

        “3. Strictly enforce “3 strikes and you’re out” and other multiple offender laws.”
        Would this have any impact whatsoever on school shootings? I don’t know the statistics, but I would deign to guess that approximately 99.9998% of school shooters don’t have any prior offenses. I can’t think of a case where a career criminal went and shot up a school.

        I agree that getting violent offenders locked up is the no-brainer duh solution to society’s violence problem. “Society has no use for those who refuse to obey the law.” — correct, but doubly more so for those who’ve shown that not only won’t they obey “the law”, but they are violent.

        1. I didn’t mean to imply that armed guards or militia men with rifles wouldn’t be effective against a school shooter.
          My point was that school shootings are so rare that overreacting is how bad policy is emplemented. The simple solution is to allow current staff members to bear arms. Zero cost for maximum gain in this scenario. If my child’s school requires military guard, I’m not sending them there.

        2. avatar TexTed says:

          Okay, that makes sense.

          I’d go a step further though — to hell with schools. Why do we need to corral our kids to someplace where they’re bullied, shot at, and taught false history and indoctrinated with liberal idealogy? Ban government schools. They’re a horse & buggy in a self-driving-car world. Surely we can come up with something better, whether home-schooling or community school groups or internet schooling or … something. ANYthing other than the current dysfunctional system.

        3. Absolutely! The problem with public schools isn’t that our children are dying there. The problem is that they are churning out uneducated, unskilled, indoctrinated SJWs that will be the end of the Republic. Many people have traded lives to secure our freedom so now Murphy wants to trade freedom to save just one life.

        4. avatar anonymoose says:

          Just have two armed cops (not unarmed rent-a-cops) in every school during school hours. In one-room schoolhouses in the middle of nowhere (like the Amish one that that nutcase shot up) allow the schoolmarms to be armed.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Michael in GA,

        “Society has no use for those who refuse to obey the law.”

        Ever so slight and GINORMOUS correction: society has no use for those who refuse to obey the law attack others. The problem with using the term “refuse to obey the law” is the fact that governments can pass any law they want — including laws that define you as a criminal if you defend yourself from attack. We don’t want a government that imprisons people forever for violating the whims of the ruling class. We DO want a government that imprisons people forever who have attacked good people multiple times.

        “There is no proof that killers only do it for fame.”

        Um, I wouldn’t be too sure about that. At any rate it must be a significant contributing factor for some killers … so let’s remove that incentive.

      3. avatar Roymond says:

        Not releasing the names isn’t a bad idea. But I think it would be more effective to never show a good picture of a mass killer — only show them dead or in chains. The message to those seeking some kind of fame would be, “This is what your ‘legacy’ will be: LOSER”.

        1. Definitely not a glamour shot on the cover of Rolling Stone.
          But hey, it’s their right.

    2. avatar Jeff K says:

      Reinstate public hangings, no last meal, hung at sunrise.

  4. avatar Shire-man says:

    He’s right. If we pass a few more laws and take all the guns away from the police nobody would ever be attacked again.

    Somebody get the UN on the phone! This could work worldwide!!!

    Something tells me Murphy has armed guards around him everywhere he goes. At home, at work, when out and about telling others how evil they are for having guns around.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Shire-man,

      “Something tells me Murphy has armed guards around him everywhere he goes.”

      Of course he does. And that is fine because he is part of the ruling class. Don’t you know that laws only apply to the serfs?

      1. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

        Of course, this is the real truth. Even after Sandy Hook, I did not hear anyone on the left arguing that armed guards should be removed from the Sidwell school, where the Obama girls (and no doubt the children of many other politically connected folks) attended.

        You see, there is no real “anti-gun” argument. There is only a “guns for me, but not for thee!” argument.

  5. avatar Echo5Bravo says:

    You know what would save more lives? Voting this idiot out of office.

  6. avatar Kapeltam says:

    Everyone has the potential to be dangerous with a multitude of items. Are you going to ban everything, Senator? EVERY SINGLE THING? There are no loopholes. There is what the law allows and what it does not allow. And we are tired of being told guns shouldn’t be allowed. I’d rather have a trained teacher ready, willing, and able to protect children than another law “preventing” something from happening. Laws don’t prevent criminals.

    1. avatar Rick the Bear (now in NH!!) says:

      “Are you going to ban everything, Senator? EVERY SINGLE THING?”

      Nope. Just eeeeevil gunz. ’cause kids.

      Is Murphy’s brain connected to his mouth or does he just say stuff?

    2. avatar Big Bill says:

      Loopholes?
      Well, if I don’t like it, it’s a “loophole.”
      If I like it, it’s a “feature.”
      That’s how it works.

  7. avatar Mark says:

    1. Those ‘loopholes” don’t exist.
    2. What exactly is wrong with having trained personnel on site?

    Stop spewing garbage, you pretentious self righteous piece of shit.

  8. avatar Ollie says:

    He’s running for president.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      He should ask hillary how well that gun control thingy worked for her run.

      1. avatar No one of consequence says:

        So … You’re saying we should encourage him to run?

  9. avatar JDC says:

    The people of Connecticut are not going to vote this guy out. Murphy went straight out of law school into his first elected position at age 24, and has been a politician ever since. He is custom made for Connecticut.

    1. avatar Echo5Bravo says:

      JDC, You are absolutely right. Hes one of the poster children for federal term limits.

      1. avatar Roymond says:

        Term limits — a simple-minded solution to the wrong problem.

        The proper solution would be simply to not allow anyone to run for office who has not spent more time in the private sector than in the public, enough more than the term being sought. Wanna be a U.S. senator? Then spend at least six more years in the private sector than the total of whatever time you’ve spent in the public.

        So if you’re a D.A. and want to run for Congress, you’ll need to have spent more time as a regular attorney than as a D.A.

        And working for giant corporations shouldn’t count for lawyers; they’d need to be working for citizens.

  10. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Chris Murphy sees himself as that little farey from the cracked farey tales, who flys around smiting bad guys with his anti freedom wand. In truth he neither knows, nor cares how much damage his antics cause to real people, freedom, or the Constitution.

  11. avatar DaveL says:

    Let’s give some concrete examples of the measures taken by the federal and state governments to keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous people:

    -Gave Aaron Alexis a Secret-level military security clearance and continued to wave him through security unsearched after receiving reports he was hearing voices.

    -Cleared Omar Mateen off the terrorist watch list, gave him a security guard license and cleared him to work armed security in courthouses.

    -Intervened to repatriate Abdulhakim Muhammad after he was arrested in Yemen with Al Qaeda literature in his car.

    -Cleared the Tsarnaev brothers and Tashfeen Malik for Permanent Resident status.

    -Declared a man who walked into an FBI office and said the CIA was controlling his mind was sane just four days later.

    1. Great point. And addressing the second part of his false dichotomy, wouldn’t it be better to have the killer engaged in a gun fight than allow him to focus unobstructed on his evil deed?

  12. avatar Mike Betts says:

    Oh, crap! Those nasty, child-endangering “loopholes” have raised their ugly heads yet again. It’s too bad that any politician who uses the term “loophole” isn’t REQUIRED to explain just exactly what these dangerous “loopholes” are. Not only would it “clear the air” but it would be fun to watch.

  13. avatar Tal says:

    Criminals will still get guns.

    That’s why they’re criminals. The only people you stop from getting guns are the ones who would adhere to the law and common decency anyways.

  14. avatar me says:

    Feedback? Ok, yes train our teachers, maybe even go as far as military police in schools. Stop trying to blame the tool called a firearm when there are more stabbings, beatings, strangulations, and baseball bats used to kill people than mass shooters, don’t give the mass shooter a claim to fame. Allow us parents the right to carry and protect not only our own children, but every other child that may find themselves in harm’s way, yes that means lift your gun free school zones policy. Keep your violent criminals locked up, bring back public execution as a policy for serial killers and mass shooters, and stop believing there is some sort of ” legal loophole” they call that loophole the black market, and if you are set to kill people you don’t care about shaved serial numbers, or how many bodies are already on that weapon. Maybe even consider not incriminating a good Samaritan that brutally kills your mass shooter and make us all a little less afraid to protect innocent lives, even your self righteous liberal ass.

  15. avatar W says:

    Easy. Do the opposite of whatever Chicago does.

    1. avatar PDW says:

      Excellent point !

    2. avatar Anonymous says:

      LOL!

  16. avatar Murphy's A Tool says:

    When will Connecticut remove “CONSTITUTION STATE” from their vehicle tags?

    1. avatar Tym says:

      Easy to do with some black paint, just saying….

    2. avatar Matt says:

      I petitioned my representatives for just that about 4 years ago. I have yet to receive a response.

  17. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    “or doing nothing to stop dangerous people from __________”

    Reality Check: No one can control dangerous people’s minds and behavior…

    Which leads us to….

    Rational decision based on reality above:
    “but allowing teachers and others to walk around with guns in case there’s a need for a shootout in a classroom?”

    Yes. See how that works? That’s what you call logical thinking. Cause and effect. I know it’s a stretch for liberals and democrats, but with time, you may eventually come around.

    But the elephant in the room is the reality that liberals equate every law abiding individual as a “dangerous person” along with actual criminals, which is where your logic crumbles.

  18. avatar AL - WI says:

    I propose the Liberal Mental Health Bill: “All self-identified “Liberals” are required to get mental health exams at their cost. Liberalism, being a mental disease, will hopefully be treated through an intervention that will save the life of the country. Until a “Liberal/Progressive” receives treatment, their “Pronouncements” will be footnoted by the warning: “This person has not been cured of Progressive mental defect and their words should be disregarded as potential mental disorder”. (Hey, if they are requred to put warnings on addictive nicotine, why not addictive Liberalism”?)

    1. avatar TexTed says:

      If “guns” are a “national health crisis”, then why can’t “liberalism” be classified as a “national health crisis”?

  19. avatar mk10108 says:

    “Supporters of the federal law say its repeal would substantially weaken protections for students.”

    And how many times was the no gun zone sign instrumental in stopping active murders while protecting students?

  20. avatar ButtHurtz says:

    Relax people, Trump is in.

    1. avatar tjlarson2k says:

      Now is precisely the time to remain proactive, vigilant, and alert.

      1. We have the football and the line just opened a yuge hole in the defense. Time to run for a touchdown and not stand there admiring the great work of the pulling guard.

      2. avatar PDW says:

        Oh tjlarson2k….time for Direct Action ? Calling Bill Ayers, phone call for Mr. Ayers !!!

  21. avatar General Zod says:

    Yeah, because shooting back never works…

  22. avatar former water walker says:

    Murphy’s Law…whatever stupid shite comes out of Murphy’s hole?

  23. avatar MikeB in WI says:

    If they end up in one or the other, I think I would rather my children be in a gunfight than a massacre.

  24. avatar Joe R. says:

    Closing the deadly loophole called “Connecticut”.

    Check your map. Your piss-ant little state doesn’t speak for the rest of us, and we’re done with your “We’re F’d up, we need to fix you” crap.

    STFU CT

  25. avatar Ralph says:

    Feedback? Okay, how’s this: Murphy, KMA.

  26. avatar AlanInFL says:

    My feedback would be very simple: if you want to keep on playing the village idiot, please do so because it is much more fun watching you to say something stupid and watch the holes punch thru your narrow minded logic.

  27. avatar jamesdc95 says:

    Flag on the play. Offense used a false dichotomy and a strawman argument.

  28. avatar LarryinTX says:

    Sure, I’ll take a shot at that. Yes, we need to “allow” teachers to carry firearms at school, in the same way we “allow” police officers to carry firearms while doing jobs like meter maids, radar traps, or shuffling paperwork. Want to be a teacher? Then you will be trained, and you will practice and qualify on a regular basis, and you will carry every damn day. And in the next thousand years, there will never again be a school shooting. How’s that for feedback?

  29. avatar Landon says:

    This feels too political to be genuine and taken seriously. But in case not or someone who feels the same way reads these words I would ask the Senator

    “What gun law or restriction is he willing to repeal to enact this new restriction?”

    Asking someone to come halfway to where you are isn’t compromise. If people are serious about finding common ground or “common sense” start offering up the restrictions we all know are old, ineffective, or unconstitutional. Then we’ll talk.

  30. Keeping “dangerous people” out of government would go a long long way.

    In the meantime, the more law-abiding people that are armed the safer we will all be.

  31. avatar Stu in AZ says:

    The 2nd one, obviously. Teachers don’t shoot students. Crazy people who can’t read “No Guns Allowed” signs do.
    Next question.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      Does it count if a teacher (illegally possessing a handgun in a school zone) shoots a superintendent?

      http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-17/news/mn-2841_1_police-report

      At least he had the decency to blame himself (and maybe his anti depressants) instead of the gun:
      http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/04/chelsea_school_shooter_gun_con.html

  32. avatar Roger Cain says:

    I suggest voters remove dangerous politicians from office.

  33. avatar MLee says:

    My response is that I don’t respond to shallow idiotic questions.

  34. avatar Skeptical_Realist says:

    Sounds like Senator Murphy could use a primer on the word “Deterrent”, and what it means in practice.

  35. avatar ropingdown says:

    The question Murphy asks is a classic False Dichotomy piece of rhetoric. First, we will always forbid certain groups of people from owning guns, effective or not. Paranoid Schizophrenics come to mind. Second, we don’t need to allow random people to walk around in schools with guns. We can restrict the people “allowed” to teachers, some staff, and perhaps CCW-type permit holders. Take your pick.

    Neither side of Murphy’s false dichotomy is stated in a neutral way. Of course not. He’s a politician.

  36. avatar Roymond says:

    I’m disappointed — given the title here, I figured there’d be a link where we could send Murphy our thoughts.

  37. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    We will never know what could have happened at someplace like Sandyhook if there were armed citizens on-site.

    We do know exactly what happened in the gun-free zone that prohibited citizens from being armed. Why don’t we do less of this and more of the other?

  38. avatar Resident ct says:

    You mean that weasel wants feedback from gun haters and haters of law abiding gun owners. Murpy isnt good at listening to anyone except those that already agree with him. That reminds me i need to give a donation to ccdl, 2nd amendment foundation and the nra. Did i miss any pro civil rights/pro gun rights groups?

  39. avatar BierceAmbrose says:

    Keep guns away from whack jobs, *or* allow for armed defense, if needed? Why not both?

    Murphy’s – law there seems kinda low energy. Sad.

  40. avatar Anonymous says:

    “What would save more children’s lives: closing loopholes and keeping deadly weapons away from dangerous people, or doing nothing to stop dangerous people from getting guns but allowing teachers and others to walk around with guns in case there’s a need for a shootout in a classroom? Come on.” – Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy

    A loaded question built on false premises, then set up as a binary selection. Typical political strawman garbage. His false premise being that one can stop all gun crimes with legislation, and that stopping all gun crimes with legislation will prevent all the murder in lieu of murderers using some other method.

    It’s against the law to murder people. Some people murder people anyways. How is the left going to fix this? More laws.

    It’s against the law for felons to own guns. Some felons steal, barter illegally, and obtain illegally firearms anyways. How is the left going to fix this? More laws.

    Many of the laws they propose – simply cannot be “enforced.” This is the core issue. They can only be deterred by capital punishment. But ask yourself, If a person is intent on murdering someone (with a gun – as if the method matters), which carries a very steep sentence, why would they care about a sign that says “gun free zone.” Or a piece of paper that some lawmakers signed that says “felon’s can’t own guns.” Or a law that says “background check required.” Laws should be simple, and good common folk should handle the rest.

    It is intellectually dishonest and disingenuous for Mr. Murphy to assume that legislation will prevent murder (murder is already illegal – keep in mind) and that people in high risk areas should not make preparations for said risk. These people (murderers) target “gun free zones.” Why? You might as well put a big sign that says, “victims ready here.” Furthermore, and obviously, the “gun free zone” legislation – simply isn’t working. It’s already in place, why isn’t it working??? Because it’s security theater. It is faux, illusionary, and it doesn’t stop anything. Allowing trained and competent people the ability to defend themselves (if they want to) is two fold – it lets the murderer know that their would-be victims may be armed, and it allows those would-be victims to defend themselves if need be. Both are useful.

    Please Mr. Murphy, why are there no mass shootings at the police station? Why are there no mass shootings at the gun show? Why are there no mass shootings at the shooting range? Because deterrence is obvious.

  41. avatar Scoutino says:

    “What would save more children’s lives: closing loopholes and keeping deadly weapons away from dangerous people, or doing nothing to stop dangerous people from getting guns but allowing teachers and others to walk around with guns in case there’s a need for a shootout in a classroom?

    Is that a trick question? Of course the latter. There are no loopholes to be closed. The law says what’s illegal. Everything else is legal. You can’t keep anything from dangerous people without locking said people up. Many times not even then.

    Why not allow teachers and others to carry in school? Getting shot stopped more would be murderers than signs on door. Sometimes there IS a need for shootout!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email