Murphy, Blumenthal, Esty, Feinstein To Propose Assault Weapon Ban Thursday

by Categorized: Newtown Date:

\"blumenthalMembers of Congress and a coalition of mayors, law enforcement officers, gun safety organizations and other groups will hold a press conference Thursday, January 24, to introduce legislation on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.

Sen. Murphy\’s office reports the group will include: Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.),  Sen.Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.), Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-5th), Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, The Very Reverend Gary R. Hall, Washington National Cathedral, law enforcement officers, gun safety organizations  and victims of gun violence.

The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

41 thoughts on “Murphy, Blumenthal, Esty, Feinstein To Propose Assault Weapon Ban Thursday

  1. Professor Poop

    It’s a beginning. And when the Congressional side rejects it, we can target for removal those who voted against the measure in 2014.

    1. Kim

      right now, we can target those fools who SUPPORT this harebrained, innocent-person targeted scheme, and vote against them in 2014

    2. Maineprepper

      It’s beginning and when the Congressional side rejects it, we can target for removal those who voted in favor of this assault on the 2nd Amendment just as we successfully did in 1994.

  2. Rich

    This would NOT have stopped any of these shootings, even Obama admits that. Just feel good legislation by liberals. Like Obama said if we can even save one life , we have to try. I agree, and this garbage does nothing to do that. Criminals do not care about the law! We CAN make a differance by repealing GUN FREE ZONES! Why must we advertise that there are sitting ducks here. Your laws only make the law abiding people vulnerable to your laws , not the criminals. Arrogance!!

  3. Howard

    I am a gun owner. This is NOT gun control. This is targeting honest law abiding people who’s crime is that they own guns. We need to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. This going after the legal gun owners who try to obey the law. This is so wrong

  4. Kim

    and still, not a word on input from honest, responsible gun owners or those who have benefitted via armed citizenry. Hundreds if not thousands of people are saved from being victims EVERY DAY in the U.S., by legally, responsibly licensed gun owners.

    These pandering politicians don’t give a hoot about the truth, or they would include the above. And the fools who are going along with them are equally and willfully ignoring the truth.Ignorance is bliss, apparently.

    In the meantime, Thailand courts have sentenced a magazine editor to 10 years for INSULTING the Thailand’s monarchy. No free speech if you’re a Thai citizen. Now, if Thai citizens had a second amendment, they could defend FREE SPEECH. This is what the ignorant are leading this country to. You get rid of one freedom, you start down the path of NO freedoms. You get rid of the 2nd Amendment, you start down the path of tyranny. How will you protect your right to free speech? Begging the government to be reasonable? Right, that will work.

    Thanks in advance to the freedom haters who would rather live in servitude to the government masters, as long as they FEEL safe and protected in return. Do you think the Thai citizens feel safe and protected?

  5. susan

    You’re right Professor Pop, the people who own these assault guns are evil, wicked sinfull people, all capable of mass destruction. Doing right has no end Professor Pop.

    1. Jimbo

      Who made you the arbiter of what is right? If you want to do right, fix the illegal gun problem in the inner cities which results in hundreds of killings a year. This ban will not fix that problem.

      Liberals will not rest until we’re a socialist state, complete with a statist big brother Government. We’re already well on our way.

    2. johngaltwhereru

      I hope that was sarcasm.

      The only reason I would even question whether it was sarcasm is that some people who post on these pages probably think that was a brilliant post.

  6. Kim

    Feinstein owns a handgun for personal defense. She also has armed guards. Yet she is constantly pushing for laws that prevent you and I from having weapons for self defense. That alone should be a huge red flag.

    But ignorance knows no hypocrisy

  7. Gun Owner

    What a surprise all democrats on the pannel! Law Enforcement officials who sit behind desks and owe democrats for their positions.They have no clue what happens on the street just paper pushers and butt wipers to the Dems.Still not one of them can utter the truth that this will do nothing.

  8. Kim

    Some interesting quotes:

    “The gun control controversy is only the latest of many issues to be debated almost solely in terms of fixed preconceptions, with little or no examination of hard facts.

    Media discussions of gun control are dominated by two factors: the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment. But the over-riding factual question is whether gun control laws actually reduce gun crimes in general or murder rates in particular.

    If, as gun control advocates claim, gun control laws really do control guns and save lives, there is nothing to prevent repealing the Second Amendment, any more than there was anything to prevent repealing the Eighteenth Amendment that created Prohibition.

    But, if the hard facts show that gun control laws do not actually control guns, but instead lead to more armed robberies and higher murder rates after law-abiding citizens are disarmed, then gun control laws would be a bad idea, even if there were no Second Amendment and no National Rifle Association.”

    “The central issue boils down to the question: What are the facts? Yet there are many zealots who seem utterly unconcerned about facts or about their own lack of knowledge of facts.”

    There are people who have never fired a shot in their life who do not hesitate to declare how many bullets should be the limit to put into a firearm’s clip or magazine. Some say ten bullets but New York state’s recent gun control law specifies seven.”

    “Virtually all gun control advocates say that 30 bullets in a magazine is far too many for self-defense or hunting — even if they have never gone hunting and never had to defend themselves with a gun. This uninformed and self-righteous dogmatism is what makes the gun control debate so futile and so polarizing.

    Anyone who faces three home invaders, jeopardizing himself or his family, might find 30 bullets barely adequate. After all, not every bullet hits, even at close range, and not every hit incapacitates. You can get killed by a wounded man.”

    “When it was legal to buy a shotgun in London in the middle of the 20th century, there were very few armed robberies there. But, after British gun control zealots managed over the years to disarm virtually the entire law-abiding population, armed robberies became literally a hundred times more common. And murder rates rose.

    One can cherry-pick the factual studies, or cite some studies that have subsequently been discredited, but the great bulk of the studies show that gun control laws do not in fact control guns. On net balance, they do not save lives but cost lives.

    Gun control laws allow some people to vent their emotions, politicians to grandstand and self-righteous people to “make a statement” — but all at the cost of other people’s lives.”

    The words belong to Thomas Sowell, one of the most respected intellectuals of our time. And he doesn’t have a dog in the fight. There are few as objective as he. It would be refreshing to see such honesty and objectivity from the zealots who want to erode our freedoms just because they think if ‘feels’ right.

  9. Kim

    On a side note: those of you who like to pretend that Obama is not a socialist – please review his inaugural address for the term ‘collective’ – just as bad, if not worse as socialism generally includes facets of collectivism.

    We get what we deserve, and we are going to get it over the next 4 years thanks to the freedom-haters

  10. A Patriot

    No gun owner in his right mind needs an assault weapon. It seems that gun owners not in their right mind also use them with horrible results as in Sandy Hook, Aurora, and Phoenix. Time to vote against those in Congress who support assault weapons.

    1. mosco

      Can you explain what an “assault weapon” is? On what basis do you presume to know what others “need” and don’t. And how did you become an arbiter of “right mind”?

      Having lived and worked in remote areas a lot, a semi-auto rifle has deterred violence on several occasions. But I know others who have deterred violence in urban areas after disasters too. And yes, they are accurate and versatile to hunt with. And if the left wing collapses our economic system, I’d like the defensive option, thank you.

      Since there’s a lot you’re apparently not aware of, you should check the latest from NBC. Seems the Sandy Hook psycho didn’t even use the “assault weapon”. So the premise of this latest ban push is a fraud.

      The Orwellian move to exploit ignorance and hatred to demonize and criminalize gun owners is about to meet some MAJOR backlash.

    2. 1776

      Um.. I guarantee you that a gun owner in his “right mind” has every reason to “need” an assault weapon.. For one, try to define assault weapon for me, go on.. An “assault” weapon is just a gun like any other, in fact my AK47 is less accurate and less powerful than hunting rifles like say a Remington 700 and it’s non-NFA so it is semi automatic only. For another, when Katrina hit folks defended their homes and properties using just such weapons until local law enforcement took it upon themselves to systematically disarm all legally holding citizens they could while looters and criminals ran rough shot over victims of the storm. In the LA riots, how do you think people defended themselves and their store fronts when the mobs of freaks came out to loot and pillage? And for the finale.. It is my human right to hold in my hands the same fearsome weapons as the government and military that we currently reside under carry. Now before you go and say “well why can’t I have a nuke then?” I think that would be obvious. In regards to “arms” and not weapons of mass destruction my second amendment and my founding fathers made it a point to give me that right when they drafted our bill of rights. To all who support the “infringement” of the second or any other amendment, I want you to ask yourself what you are even still doing in the USA if this is your home. Apparently you don’t respect or care to uphold the constitution. You know, the thing that made it so you and your ancestors didn’t have to live under a regime like maybe I dunno, Mau or Stalin? Maybe you need a history refresher to remind you that the “guns” are what keep you and I free, always have been and always will be.

    3. The Conn-servative

      The day the government bans you from this and all other websites, might be the day you regretted your comment above. The question I ask you is, what freedoms is/are a so called “patriot” willing to give up?

      1. Kim

        my comments have been selectively and repeatedly removed by Rick Green over the last few days. Those days are already here, Conn-servative

    4. Kim

      patriot: you’ve read it enough I imagine, so you ignoring the words says a lot about your post. Assault weapons have been mostly banned since the 1930’s. Assault weapons were NOT used at Sandy Hook or the other places popularly depicted in this anti-second amendment frenzy (those places you mentioned, for example).

      People in their right minds make some effort to know what they’re talking about

  11. tony

    When Congressional side rejects it, we can target for removal those who voted for the measure in 2014.

    1. Kim

      the ruling elite know that. That’s why the push to disarm the citizens. All tyranny’s start that way.

  12. Connecticut is dying too

    That’s just what we need: another cause for liberals to distract us from the melting down of our economy in front of our eyes. Lets take guns away from the lawful gun owners while turning a blind eye to the thousands killed by illegal guns in our cities.

    Liberalism is a mental disorder.

  13. Sharpshooter

    As I read the article I kept hearing ‘3 Blind Mice’ playing in the background…..their efforts will help to keep American criminals safe from the law abiding public in the future…grat work…

  14. Josh White

    Assault weapons are already illegal in CT and numerous other states. Ignorance is forming an opinion based on emotion without having complete understanding of the facts.

  15. american

    Propose anything you want. We the people are watching and you will be held accountable for your actions. Your attacks on our rights are non negotiable if you think were giving up our guns and or magazines get ready for it because your going to ruin lives. Police and military won’t enforce the laws your about to break. Come get some.

  16. jschmidt

    WELL you elected them folks. Murphy and Blumy from the formerly great state of CT. They have been given their orders from the liberals controlling the state. The only way to get CT back on its feet is to get rid of the Democrats running it. Otherwise it is more debt at the Fed level, more taxes at both levels, and steamrolling of the rights given to us by the Constitution.

  17. pro 2nd A

    contact your reps and let them know you’re pro gun..Hitler was for gun control. he took the guns and he took control!

Comments are closed.