Is This Lawmaker Suggesting That We Use Muskets For Defense?

24
817

One of the common arguments that I hear anti-gunners use when trying to justify disarming gun owners is that the 2nd Amendment was only talking about muskets and wasn’t intended to allow private citizens to own semi-automatic firearms (and certainly nothing as scary-looking as an AR-15!).

Of course, they’re wrong, but that doesn’t mean that some anti-gunner politicians haven’t jumped on this idiotic bandwagon, too.

One of these clueless legislators is Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) who recently tweeted,

Nobody needs an AR-15 to hunt.

Nobody needs a semi-automatic rifle to defend their home.

But mass shooters NEED these weapons in order to murder as many people as efficiently as possible.

And so nobody will miss them when they are illegal – except for the killers.

You’d think that Murphy wants all of us to defend ourselves and hunt with muskets!

Murphy, of course, has absolutely no understanding of what makes someone dangerous (hint: It’s the human brain and intention. Firearms are only tools.).

Fortunately, for your convenience, AWR Hawkins has the explanation to give your anti-gunner friends who agree with Murphy’s nonsensical tweet. Hawkins writes,

Consider three of the most egregious aspects of Murphy’s claims:

1. “No one needs an AR-15 to hunt” — This 180 degrees from ATF Deputy Director Ronald Turk’s emphasis that AR-15s have become a standard platform for hunting. On January 20, 2017, the Washington Post published a “White Paper” wherein Turk wrote, “The use of AR-15s, AK-style, and similar rifles now commonly referred to as ‘modern sporting rifles’ has increased exponentially in sport shooting. These firearm types are now standard for hunting activities. ATF could re-examine its 20-year-old study to bring it up to date with the sport shooting landscape of today, which is vastly different than it was years ago.”


2. Murphy suggests “semiautomatic rifles” are not needed for home defense — On May 28, 2017, Breitbart News reported that an Oklahoma homeowner’s son was home alone and outnumbered 3-to-1 by home invaders. He was able to level the playing field by retrieving an AR-15, which he used to kill all three invaders in self-defense. On August 19, 2018, Breitbart News reported that two Glen St. Mary, Florida, residents turned the tide on seven home invasion suspects by opening fire with an AR-15 and a 9mm handgun. One of the invaders was killed and the others fled–or crawled away–amid shots fired in self-defense.


3. Murphy says mass shooters “need” semiautomatic rifles to carry out their heinous acts — In reality, mass shooters just need a gun free zone. Such a zone gives them the benefit of time wherein they can use any kind of gun they want to take innocent lives at their pace. The Virgnia Tech gunman (April 16, 2007) killed 32 using only handguns. He had the benefit of knowing that none of his victims could shoot back.

It doesn’t take a genius to understand that Murphy is wrong about gun control, but it does take someone with intellectual honesty and the courage to stand up to emotional basket cases who screech for gun control without understanding that guns are never the issue.

Sadly, at the time of this writing, it doesn’t appear that Murphy has either the intellectual honesty or the courage to do the right thing on this subject.

24 COMMENTS

  1. The most ridiculous thing I hear said,time & time again, is “GUN VIOLENCE”.
    I don’t know of a single violent gun, just violent people!

  2. Long live freedom and our CONSTITuion

    I have a legal sawed-off shotgun. It is for defense. I have never pointed it at a person or they would probably not survive. I am in a wheelchair and it fits my size beautifully. I praise our Constitution. I am not aggressive just protective.

  3. I will NOT be put on a train. I will Not Be put in a concentration camp. I will NOT allow myself to be indoctrinated. Another words Murphy. I will NOT comply. PERIOD. When all you corrupt politicians give up yours. Then come talk to me.

  4. One state would add words like ” if you think that person would a crime in future ” fo not sell or lent the a gun for hunting.

  5. I had the MISFORTUNE of having to live in Connecticut for two years while my Father finished his Military Service this was in the 60’s at that time all I could hunt with was a Shotgun shot for Squirrels and Birds and Slugs for Deer small game I could use a .22 short or long round when he Retired we came back to TEXAS and been here ever since I did not leave a DAMN thing in that screwball state

    • Well break out the muskets you probably wont be able to buy any miming balls so pick up some rock salt and some finishing nails at the store . That’s what they are trying to get us down to then they will ban nails.

  6. Are lawmakers really so stupid to believe that violent people will obey a new law . There are thousands of pages of laws that are not obeyed . Then these laws are not always enforced .But these killers will be front page , top of the news reports , likely movies will be made and stupid people will continue to demand more laws be made with the only result with law abiding people being killed because they can not defend themselves because they obeyed the law .

  7. The second amendment does not address hunting.
    Constitution of the United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    There is a period after “infringed” for a reason. Guns don’t kill people – people kill people! Guns, knives axes, spears, planes, automobiles even water, the list goes on and on and there is always a person usually initiating the event. Do we outlaw all things that people have been killed with?

  8. If I had my weapons in December of last year, I doubt very seriously that I would have been assaulted in my own apartment. Fortunately I was able to reach my kitchen,after the intruder stuck a box cutter into the palm of my hand,and I reached for one of my knives that were hanging on the wall on a magnetic strip. Unfortunately for me and fortunately for him,I ended up grabbing the wrong knife but either way I scared him so much that he had trouble getting out the door because he kept locking one and unlocking the other lock.

    You might ask what happened to my weapons, I will tell you THEY WERE STOLEN DURING MY LAST MOVE AND THE POLICE WERE NOT ANY HELP!

  9. The thing the good senator is forgetting is that the second amendment came about because of the tyranny of the British army. At that time, both the military and the civilians had weapons of parity. Not so much any longer. The writers of the constitution wanted something close to civilian parity with the military in case they needed to defend themselves against the military. Hence, the AR-15.

    • That was why the WELL REGULATED language. The people at the time was as you say at parity with the armies of the day. But at the time of the ratifying of the Federal Constitution, the states were reluctant to trust in a central government, knowing the problems associated with distance and travel abilities.

      In order for the states to be willing to ratify the constitution there was a promise of amendments of the like of the second amendment that spoke of the concern for the states of being defended by the raw and economically feasible material on hand luckily being SKILLED WEAPONS HANDLERS supplied, maintained and trained upon the weapons of self defense of their choice and that on the people’s own dime.

      The word REGULATION comes as follows. The SMALL STANDING REGULAR ARMY would have REGULAR SOLDIERS that could be used to train already SKILLED RIFLEMEN (or swordsman or whatever other weapon) in the arts of being moved about in mass units of men under stratagem, requiring only a few months for that purpose as opposed to having two or three or more years to train people in the use of weapons at the skill already at hand. When the REGULAR SOLDIERS have sufficiently beat up these recruits to the specs of parity to a REGULAR ARMY, then as MILITIA, they would be a WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

  10. What a idiot as the flintlock was the assault weapon of it’s day and every one had one. EVERY ONE! We citizens were the militia that when called to service became the Army. As time has past guns have changed as well. But Assault weapons have been under Government control since 1934. Assault weapons are select fire or also known as full auto. The AR-15 is semi auto ONLY! They only look similar. But are very different and these elected officials know this but will lie to you about it so they can ban all guns. Because with out guns you are a subject and cannot fight them back. With guns they are afraid of that we would fight them back. This is why we have the Second Amendment. Our fore fathers saw this and gave us the means to defend our selves.

    • “Assault weapons are select fire or also known as full auto.”

      No, Assault rifles are selective fire. Assault weapons are whatever ignorant politicians and media define them to be.

  11. Apparently Murphy-the-Mutt has never heard of the Puckle Gun.
    Invented c 1718, it is a multi-shot firearm.
    .
    Bottom line; their aim is civilian disarmament. They can’t control us unless (until?) they disarm us.

  12. I did not write the following, it was written originally by Robert Greenslade:

    “All gun rules, regulations, policies and laws are unconstitutional and MUST be removed! Regarding the governments ability to impose “Reasonable Restraint” which has now become the mantra of our liberal influenced government.

    Supporters of the bill of rights claim they have a constitutional or Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Opponents counter even if it were the case, the government was granted the general power to place restraints on the right. Both of these assertions are based on a misconception concerning the intent of the document known as the Bill of Rights.

    When the Bill of Rights was submitted to the individual States for ratification, it was prefaced with a preamble. As stated in the preamble, the purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being recommended. The Amendments, when adopted, did not create any so-called constitutional rights or grant the government any power over individual rights; they placed additional restraints and qualifications on the powers of the government concerning the rights enumerated in the Amendments.

    By advancing the myth Amendments grant the American people their individual rights, the government has illegally converted enumerated restraints and qualifications on its power into legislative, executive, judicial and administrative power over individual rights. The government claims it was granted the constitutional authority to determine the extent of the individual rights enumerated in the Amendments and/or impose “reasonable restraints” on those rights. This assertion is absurd. The government does not have the constitutional authority to ignore, circumvent, modify, negate or remove constitutional restraints placed on its power by the Amendments or convert them into a power over the individual right enumerated in the particular restraint.

    A denial of power or an enumerated restraint on the exercise of power is not subject to interpretation or modification by the entity the restraint is being imposed upon. The restraints imposed by the Amendments, which were adopted 4 years after the Constitution was ratified, override the legislative, executive, judicial or administrative powers of the government. If this were not the case, then the restraints would be meaningless because the government could simply circumvent, modify or remove them. Why would the States have requested and adopted enumerated restraints on government power, subsequent to their ratification of the Constitution, if the government possessed the authority to nullify them?

    When the government infringes on one of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights it is not violating anyone’s constitutional rights; it is violating the additional restraint or qualification placed on its power by the particular Amendment where the right is enumerated. The distinction between rights and restraints is critical. [The right is not given by the Government. Our rights are given by God and are inalienable. Therefore, they can’t be limited or taken away.]

    As stated in the Declaration of Independence, the American people have unalienable rights that come from a higher source than government or a written document. By acknowledging people have natural rights, which are bestowed by a creator, the Founders laid the foundation for the principle the government does not have the lawful authority to take away or infringe on those rights. This principle was incorporated into the preamble and structure of the Amendments to secure individual rights from government encroachment; that is why they were designed and imposed as restraints on the exercise of power.

    If the individual rights of the people had been created by the Constitution or an amendment to the document, then they would cease to be unalienable because the right would depend on the existence of a document. If the document or a provision of the document disappeared, so would the right. The belief individual rights were created by a written document has opened the door for the government to claim the power to define the extent of any right enumerated in an Amendment. This has transformed constitutional restraints placed on governmental power into subjective determinations of individual rights by the institutions of government. By failing to understand the difference between amendments that create rights and amendments that impose restraints on government, the American people are watching their individual rights vanish as they are reduced to the status of privileges bestowed by government because the constitutional restraints placed on governmental power are being replaced by government decree.

    Opponents of the Amendments always try to diminish the right enumerated in the Amendments by asserting rights are not absolute. This is just another straw man argument because the Amendment is about imposing a restraint of the powers of the government concerning a right: not granting a right or defining the extent of a right. In addition, a review of the Second Amendment shows the restraint imposed by the Amendment does not contain any exceptions.”

    Legal precedence supporting constitution and bill of rights.

    Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”

    Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”

    Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”

    Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622: “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.”

    Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 1974: Expounds upon Owen Byers v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Your rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.

    Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616: “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.”

    Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured (Affirmed) by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”

    Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

    Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489: “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”

    Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748: “Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.” “If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” —Samuel Adams, 1772

    Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821): “When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.”

    Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.”

    S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.

  13. At the time the second amendment was enacted. the standard weapon of issue to the military WAS a musket. The second amendment was enacted to prevent a despotic government from being formed because the citizenry would be armed and able to prevent it. Today. the military is issued M-16s and M-4s. The ownership of AR-15s only keeps the people of this country on a par with it’s military. That and the fact that it would be unlikely that the military would willingly take up arms against the citizenry.

  14. FredK… This nut job from CT does not care who gets shot. He is in with the group who wants to disarm the people, they are easy to control. Communists don’t allow an armed populace because an armed people can not be controlled by an tyrranical government.

  15. I am sure everyone knows there are crazies out there and probably always be there. For every nut job that kills people there are millions of law biding gun owners who obey and protect the laws. The NO GUN ZONE is the biggest advantage a killer could possibly want. They can go in with guns blazing and no one to return fire. I still can’t comprehend the reasoning behind them. All they do is invite disaster. Gary

  16. BEST ARGUMENT: Using the same reasoning, that would mean that the FIRST AMENDMENT’s “freedom of the press” only applies to a hand-operated (and hand type set) printing press. Modern presses, radio, and TV are then NOT COVERED under “freedom of speech.”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here