Quote of the Day: Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy Blames Republicans for Future Terrorist Attacks

Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy (courtesy westhartfordnews.com)

“I’d argue there’s a direct correlation between the ease of which a would-be shooter can get their hands on a weapon and the likelihood of a massive terrorist attack . . . I think there’s going to be a price to pay electorally for Republicans who are so concerned about gun rights that they aren’t even willing to take guns away from potential terrorists.” Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy quoted in Democrats Gamble on Guns [via newsweek.com] [h/t J]


  1. avatar jwm says:

    If stupid actually did hurt this mutherphucker would need morphine.

    1. avatar John L. says:

      Or the rest of us would just from proximity effects.

  2. avatar Omer Baker says:

    This guy may have a point, in France they were giving full auto AK’s away in breakfast cereal boxes. Only the the civilized dead people wanted to limit the access to easy to get guns. /dripping with sarcasm/

    1. avatar Brian says:

      Don’t forget those gun shows, too.
      All those gun shows they have everyday in Paris just handing out WMDs like they’re candy to little kids

  3. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Aren’t we all ‘potential’ terrorists?

    1. avatar Blake says:

      I believe that’s the point Murphy was trying to make without actually saying it.

      1. avatar Rad Man says:

        That’s why Murph is sporting his best casual Friday outfit complete with Armani body armor.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      Actually, I believe the point he is struggling to make is that without “easy access to guns” all psychological, social or religious inclinations towards terrorism simply dissipate.

      I suspect there are numerous victims of kitchen-knife attacks around the world who would disagree. Terrorist attacks are measured by the intent of the attacker/martyr, NOT the success of the attack nor the quantity of dead and injured.

      1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        Ah… Well there are upwards of a million Rwandan Tutsi who’d beg to disagree. Except they can’t. Because they were hacked to death with machetes.

  4. avatar C.S. says:

    I’d argue there’s a direct correlation between the ease of which a would-be shooter can indiscriminately kill in a gun-free disarmed populace and the likelihood of a massive terrorist attack . . . I think there’s going to be a price to pay electorally for Democrats who are so concerned about gun control that they are even willing to take guns away from the citizens they’re suppose to serve.

    1. avatar Mike Crognale says:

      Beat me to it. Bravo.

  5. avatar Parnell says:

    Another “pearl of wisdom” from the one-trick pony from Connecticut.

  6. avatar Alex Peterson says:

    Of the few parrots that Obama still has left in Congress, this is one of them.

  7. avatar Omer Baker says:

    ‘“Obviously, there is a difference between Northern Virginia,” with its many D.C. suburbs, “and Richmond, but this is still Virginia,” Lamb says,’

    Like all across the land people are mixed up like pancake batter instead of being in pockets chosen for various reasons such as financial restraints, family ties, and personal wants, to name a few.

  8. avatar John L. says:

    He may be right, there may be a correlation between general availability and legality of arms, and magnitude or frequency of terrorist attacks. Two problems for him, though.

    First, correlation doesn’t equal causation.

    And second, I suspect the coefficient is negative.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Well, this did come up yesterday. Chart shows Gun Homicide Rate vs Gun Ownership Rate for 48 of 50 States in the US.


      r^2 for the best fit line was -0.0096

      That’s gun homicide…not terrorism. Gun terrorism rate is so small so as to have little statistical value to try to analyze it.

  9. avatar the ruester says:

    Trump should make a new crazy proposal; demand EVERYONE on the no fly list be arrested and deported immediately. It’d force the dems to explain why that would be racist and unconstitutional while a gun ban wouldn’t. It would also corner them into another immigration debate, when they were trying to demonize conservatives.

    1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      Place them in internment camps. Worked for those potential Japanese terrorists in WWII.

    2. avatar racer88 says:

      Brilliant. Stealing for use to stir up ***t on Facebook. >:-)

      1. avatar NEIOWA says:

        Including digging up good old Teddy Kennedy?

    3. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

      Something like 6% of those on either watch list live in the US so it sold be easy.

      1. avatar Dale says:

        Including a bunch of currently working TSA agents if I remember the news correctly.

  10. avatar Shire-man says:

    Whenever somebody from CT says something I get the urge to pat them gently on the head and smile.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Does that smile come with a “Please your heart”?

      That’s how I imagine it, anyway.

  11. avatar dh34 says:

    I’d argue that there is a direct correlation to how stupid someone’s ideas are and their willingness to share them publicly.

    Exhibit A, the Senator from CT

  12. avatar DerryM says:

    …because it makes so much common sense to disarm millions to try to stop a few thousand from getting guns. What’s more alarming is imagining how many read this drivel and nodded their heads in agreement.
    The Truth is Democrats do not care how many Americans get killed by terrorists as long as they can deny our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear Arms, and no Muslims are offended.

    1. avatar jim Bullock says:

      “…because it makes so much common sense to disarm millions to try to stop a few thousand from getting guns. What’s more alarming is imagining how many read this drivel and nodded their heads in agreement.”

      In the end, they’ll be happy only with a world where “Everything not compulsory is forbidden.”

      I wish I could claim credit for that aphorism, but it comes from T. H. White’s “The Book of Merlin”, collecting context and backstory, mostly about Arthur’s childhood under Merlin’s instruction, produced while writing his “The Once and Future King.” “Merlin” is a good read, though it appropriately doesn’t go in TOaFK. (Much more plot and character than Tolkein’s “The Silmarillion”, which kind of has the same relation to its associated more famous novel. Yes, I know that many people argue that TLoTR isn’t a novel. Go with it.)

  13. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    Uh, last I checked, Team Ramrod rammed their wish list of anti freedom gun laws in CT with no debate. If anyone is responsible for the next attack it is people like this guy.

    I’m so glad I don’t live in the northeast anymore. There are too many politicians like this guy hanging around there. They are the “there ought to be a law” types that make living in Massachusetts hell.

  14. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    “… the ease to [sic] which a would-be shooter…”

    So, put restrictions on everybody else?

    How’s that work?

  15. avatar Steve says:

    The Constitution is still a thing, and you can’t take rights away from someone without due process.

    1. avatar Mack Bolan says:

      Rights are not granted by the constitution. And due process can not take them away.

  16. avatar racer88 says:

    Define “potential.”

    Yep. That one word summarizes their entire strategy AND goal. Whoops!

  17. avatar Wiregrass says:

    Just another enemy of the free state exposing himself, not worth clicking on. Clicks only delay the inevitable slow death of Newsweek. I prefer to be merciful.

  18. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

    Hey, I remember that guy. I donated to the NRA in his name after he popped off a couple of years ago. Something about the NRA being a sponsor of a NASCAR event, if I recall correctly. Regardless, I sent him an e-mail when I did it. Never heard back for some reason.

  19. avatar Bob says:

    This is how I read his statement:
    “Potential terrorists, potential criminals (unless they vote D), potential people who disagree with us…the whole lot of them, into the rail car. ‘Cause I said so.”

  20. avatar Mk10108 says:

    Way to go Connecticut. You’ve elected a village idiot.

    1. avatar CTstooge says:

      Oh we got lots of these. Murphy’s just stupider than CT norm. And that’s sayin something.

  21. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

    If they can’t get their guns at your LGS I am sure ATF would be happy to make a deal. /sarc

  22. We can’t prevent mass shootings with gun laws so let’s make more gun laws that make it more difficult to legally aquire a gun. Because we have to do something!
    Impossible to have a rational debate with that degree of stupidity.

  23. avatar LarryinTX says:

    Let’s praise magazine limits, when terrorists regularly reload over and over, maybe they would get tired faster if they had to reload every 10 rounds instead of 20 or 30, and then they might just go home, see?

    1. avatar Fred says:

      If they can’t keep track of recorded serialized items what makes them think they can control unrecorded sales of items that are not serialized? This is like their “bullet control” schemes, based in just as much ignorance. They just want everything related to firearms to be an NFA item.

  24. avatar dragos111 says:

    I think there is going to be a price to be paid by any politicians who are running for election on a platform that includes, “We are going to strip you of your rights.”

  25. avatar Priest of the center mass says:

    Newport RI is where home is for me.
    This mental blindness is common in CT.
    If Dems would stop inviting these folks into the country maybe they wouldnt get the opportunity.
    And to think he has an Irish last name….shame.
    All the Murphy’s i know are all for kicking ass when it comes down to it.

  26. avatar Sian says:

    “I’d argue there’s a direct correlation between the ease of which a would-be shooter can get their hands on a weapon and the likelihood of a massive terrorist attack”

    you’d argue it, but without ANY compelling evidence to back it up, you’d be laughed off the podium.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      You’re right, and that does make me laugh. People will say “One could argue that….” or “A strong case could be made that….”, when in reality, it’s only that exact initial, unfounded claim that can be made. There is no additional, yet unmade argument, backed by facts, ready for release. It’s just that first absurd claim, backed by nothing more than the assumption of depth and credibility, when none exists.

      When people say that, sometimes I’ll stare at them and say “OK, go ahead and make that argument. Let’s hear your case.” Usually they just stammer and sputter “Um….well….basically just what I already said.” Uh huh. Thanks for stopping by.

  27. avatar NikcaP says:

    I’d argue there’s a direct correlation between the ease of which a would-be shooter can get their hands on a weapon and the likelihood of a massive terrorist attack . . . 

    I’d argue that your an idiot. See how that logic works?

  28. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Wait, Connecticut bills itself as the “Constitution State”, as I recall.

    I guess rights in CT come with a disclaimer on the label along the lines of “serving suggestion”, “precooked weight”, and “some settling may have occurred during shipping.”

    Ok, got it. Then their next proviso should read “Gun grabbing statists in rearview mirror are closer than they appear.”

  29. avatar derfel cadarn says:

    There is also an obvious direct correlation between Progressive government and totalitarianism tyranny.

  30. avatar Ing says:

    What the heck is that moron up to in this photo? He’s got an odd velcro-strapped nylon vest and foam earplugs draped over white shirt and tie…some kind of public relations shenanigan, I’m guessing.

  31. avatar Bob301 says:

    Epiphany. The Progressives are making their anti-2nd Amendment drive a campaign issue. With immigrants coming in from war torn areas of the world, with the Progressives pushing to allow immigrants to vote, I bet the Progressives think they can sell these immigrants and others the whole collectivist utopia crap in the next election. Like I have been saying for a while, the only way the Democrat Party is going to win the presidency next year is to lie, cheat, and steal by undermining the very foundation of our Constitution and the rule of law.

  32. avatar Hannibal says:

    I can’t access the article but is there a reason he’s playing dress-up with a kevlar vest?

  33. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    No snappy comments from me that wouldn’t be ad hom-bring it on be-otch…

  34. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Dear Senator: [expletive self-censored] You!

  35. avatar Lagunitas says:

    Unfortunately Connecticut has Murphy(d) and Blumenthal (d) as senators; our congresspeople suck too! Himes (d), Esty (d) Courtney (d) DeLauro (d) Larson (d) and our elloquently speaking Governor Malloy (d)
    along with the (d)emocrat party running CT the state legislature… common (d)enominator (d) . If people cannot see that the democrat party is anti-2A and they want to take away our freedoms… the former-Constitution state is a prime example….

  36. avatar Rick says:

    Mr murphys wife is potentially a prostitute and with that name—well there you go

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