Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Sunday conceded that a federal ban on assault rifles is unlikely because of a lack of congressional support but pushed for lawmakers to consider a bill that would require training before purchasing such a weapon. [More]
It’s past time to let the GOP know that if they expect to keep the voting charade going another year they’d best get their Vichycons under control to stop this in its tracks.
Because the ultimate reality is, Republicans need people who will not disarm more than people who will not disarm need them.
[Via Dan Gifford]
“There’s not the votes to do that,” Murphy said ……………Uhm, so what? Even if there WERE enough votes, its still the wrng thing to do. Dummy needs to go back and reread that Second Article of Ammendment he swore to uphold.
But I think we’d be a safer nation if we required just a little bit of training before you bought the most dangerous weapons commercially available.”
……………It is blatantly obvious that the mentally ill female who bought those rifles and brought them to the school was quite skilled in their use. You want her to have MORE training? then, who decides what training is sufficient and who is “qualified” (and at what price) to DO this training? And how y gonna GET training without something with which to train? But you gotta buy the pony before you can get in the cart to ride into tow to buy the pony….
“the most dangerous”, eh? One of them, if I got it right, was a pistol calibre carbine firing the nine by nineteen, a VERY feeble round much beyond rock-throwing distance. And the .223 the other one eats is not even legal for hunting deer, it is too small and feeble. I’ve got an eighty plus year old Swede military rifle that is far more lethan and capable at range than that tiny littie cartridge he claims is “the most dangerous”.
Where do these guys get their “facts”, anyway? Off CNN, Mad Magazine? The Mad Mamas’ manifesto?