Today's gun vote wouldn't stop recent mass shootings, admits leading proponent

Sen. Chris Murrphy (D-CT) is one of the leading proponents of Monday’s senate votes to inhibit the 2nd amendment. Days after the Islamic terror attack in Orlando, Murphy led a filibuster on the floor of the senate demanding votes on a whole host of bills and he said this to his fellow senators as he ended his filibuster speech:

“Ask yourself what can you do to make sure that Orlando or Sandy Hook never ever happens again.”

Clearly Murphy was connecting the ISIS-inspired killings in Florida along with the Adam Lanza mass murder in his home state nearly four years ago and used those tragic losses of life to prey on the emotions of Americans (as well as the GOP leadership in the senate) in an effort to provoke outrage.

So it’s worth noting that during an interview on ABC News Murphy was forced to admit that the bills he has proposed and will be voted on today would have not stopped either Orlando or Sandy Hook or any of the other recent mass shootings in America.

Asked by guest host Jonathan Karl whether the so-called “gun show loophole” would have done anything to stop Orlando, Murphy stammered and finally responded as though he was Miss Teen Connecticut answering a pretty tough question about what his favorite color is.

MURPHY: So, it may have in the sense that if you partner together with the bill that stops terrorists from getting guns…

KARL: But wait a minute. He didn’t buy those guns at a gun show. And he would have passed the background—he did pass a background check.

MURPHY: He did pass a background check, but if the Feinstein bill was in effect, the FBI could have put him on the list of those who are prohibited from getting guns. And what if he went into the gun store and was denied? He could have just gone online or to a gun show and bought another one. *

KARL:  OK. But what I’m trying to get at is that every time there’s one of these terrible tragedies, there’s these proposals. Your proposal would have done nothing in the case of Orlando. It would have done nothing to stop the killing in San Bernardino, and in fact, was unrelated to the killing in Newtown. So why are we focusing on things that have nothing to do with the massacres that we are responding?

MURPHY: First of all, we can’t get into that trap.  I disagree. I think if this proposal had been into effect, it may have stopped this shooting. But we can’t get into the trap in which we are forced to defend the proposals simply because it didn’t stop the last tragedy. We should be making our gun laws less full of Swiss cheese holes so that future killings don’t happen.**

Couple important takeaways here.

1st, let your lefty, gun-grabbing brother-in-law see this so he can stop telling you that you are an accomplice in the murder of innocent people just because you exercise the right to self protection. And repeat it on your social media as many times as it takes: These laws will not stop bad people from doing bad things with guns. Full stop.

2nd, the Orlando terrorist was denied the purchase of body armor and he did not go on line and purchase some, so that kind of defeats Murphy’s hypothetical scenario that if he was denied the gun in a background check (which he was not) he would just legally obtain the weapons on the Internet. And the notion that a person can legally purchase the guns used in Orlando online without a background check is a lie as well, so this example fails at every turn.

3rd, George Stephanopoulos needs to take more days off from This Week on ABC News. Well done, Mr. Karl.

And 4th, when making the case for infringements on the 2nd amendment, one should not make reference to Switzerland, even in a clumsy “gun laws less full of Swiss cheese holes” analogy. Switzerland is really in love with their right and responsibility to carry.


murphy gun