Bridgeport resident Curtrina Murphy will attend President Obama’s State of the Union Tuesday as Rep. Himes’ guest. Last summer, her then three-year-old daughter was shot while they were walking on a street in Bridgeport, caught in the crossfire of a gun fight. Her daughter made a full recovery.
“It is time to act on legislation to reduce gun violence, and our constituents who have been victimized by gun violence deserve the chance to tell their stories,” said Himes in a press release.
Himes is one of 80 members of Congress to bring someone affected by gun violence as their one guest to the State Of The Union. Reps. DeLauro and Esty are also participating in this effort. Both invited constituents affected by the Newtown tragedy: DeLauro’s bringing Victoria Soto’s brother, Carlos Soto, and Esty’s bringing Natalie Hammond, lead teacher at Sandy Hook who was shot but survived.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
9 Responses to Himes Bringing Bridgeport Mother Of Gun Violence Victim To SOTU
About Capitol Watch
The Hartford Courant’s Capitol Watch blog provides insightful and in-depth coverage of Connecticut politics... read more- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
NEW! CT Politics App.
Courant.com brings you the latest CT political news, blogs, tweets and photos, powered by the Hartford Courant and FOX CT.
Download it now:
- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
What a disgusting display by our so-called ‘leaders’, those who are sworn to protect and defend our Constitution but instead resort to dishonesty and verbal gymnastics to push a clearly one-sided agenda.
shame on all of them – they should all be given fiddles to play while the country burns around them
I’m afraid the country has already burned. Load up.
If you don’t like the mayhem in Bridgeport you’ve got two options. Move or vote for a city council and mayor who will hire a sheriff to clean up the mess. That’s IF you don’t like the gang warfare.
Himes will exploit the poor woman.
How would you like to be anywhere near that LA cop that is killing everyone with his department issued guns, while the government wants to seized your guns. How do you protect yourself when the government cant?
Dan G, he shot 5 police officers and 2 died. Don’t police have guns to “protect” themselves? Then he encountered two unarmed housekeepers. He tied them up. Would they be dead if they had guns and tried to fight? Then he grabbed a pickup at gunpoint from a motorist who escaped unharmed. Maybe the motorist would be dead if he tried to “protect” himself with a gun.
Let’s look at the score, shall we:
5 armed cops shot, 2 are dead.
3 unarmed civilians with no injuries.
Sorry. The “no guns” people win. Thank you for playing.
typical liberal argument: when self protection doesn’t work in a few instances, the solution is to take away everyone’s right to defend themselves. It doesn’t matter that personal defense is the most basic right there is. One caveman lost to a sabre-tooth tiger, so make all spears illegal for everyone.
I’d say ‘thanks for playing’ Mike, but this isn’t a game.
Mike, if you were being honest with yourself and the readers here you would admit that your argument here could be used against social welfare programs. They obviously haven’t worked in a vast number of cases, so why keep them?
But then, intellectual honesty is not necessary when agendas’ and feelings rule.
The “Mother of Gun Violence.” Sounds serious.
Poor babies. Did someone say something negative about guns? Bring it up at the next Militia meeting.
Mike, your thinly disguised bias is rearing its’ ugly head more than usual. My ‘creep meter’ just pegged out. Perhaps you’ll be true to yourself (and us) and come completely out of the closet soon