You won’t find a democrat who is more anti-gun that Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy. His entire existence revolves around pushing unconstitutional gun control on the American people, which is why his recent admission is so out of character. He actually said that all of the gun control laws on the books don’t do a damn thing to reduce crime or make people safer. Don’t worry, he’s as anti-gun as ever and said this in the context that we actually need more ineffective gun control. Still, he was finally right about something and deserve partial credit for that.
Time magazine let Murphy write an anti-2nd Amendment op/ed piece because of course they did. There’s really not much in this that he hasn’t said a million times before: NRA are terrorists, Republicans are cowards, the 2nd Amendment isn’t an actual right, etc…
But then came this stunning admission. After lying that there have been 150 mass shootings this year and naming off only 3 of them, Murphy lamented, “One thing is clear: the laws on the books are insufficient and an ineffective deterrent.”
Hold me, I’m scared. I actually agree with something an anti-gun democrat said. He’s right in saying that all of the gun laws on the books don’t do shit to stop criminals from committing crimes. The logical explanation for this discrepancy is that for some reason criminals don’t follow the law.
That however is as long as Murphy’s moment of clarity would last, because this is what he wrote next:
The proof is in the ever-increasing death toll, and an overwhelming majority of Americans now agrees we should implement stricter gun regulations.
That’s a lie as most Americans and certainly not an overwhelming majority agree we need stricter gun control. Murphy did strike some comedy goal with this two conflicting sentences though. He’s saying that current gun control doesn’t stop bad guys from doing bad things, but more gun control will do the trick. How does that make any sense? If you can’t climb a greased poll, putting more great on it won’t make it more climbable.
Chris Murphy’s “grease” is to close a bunch of nonexistent loopholes, get rid of due process, and ban a class of weapons that are almost never used in the commission of a crime. Again, any law that doesn’t target criminals will fail at reducing crime. It really couldn’t be more simple than that. If a farmer wants to stop locusts from eating his crops he doesn’t throw a hand grenade in the chicken coop.
And while Murphy stumbled upon the truth that gun control is ineffective, the entire rest of his missive is one lie after another. Here’s my favorite:
Guns like the AR-15 aren’t used for hunting and they’re not viable for home protection. They have only one purpose, and that’s to fire as many rounds as possible, as quickly as possible.
Fact Check: AR-15s are used for hunting and they make great self-defense weapons. If the purpose of this weapons was to fire “as many rounds as possible, as quickly as possible” they wouldn’t be semi-automatic. They’d be more like a belt-fed full-auto rotating-barrel minigun, which can fire up to 6,000 rounds per minute. It would take me all day to get 6,000 rounds through my AR.
Including federal, state, and local, there are 20,000 laws related to the the manufacture, design, importation, sale, purchase, possession, use, and storage of firearms. With the passage of each of these laws, we were promised that they would put an end to crime and make us safer and that hasn’t happened. What are the chances that 20,001 gun control laws will get the job done when 20,00 couldn’t?
