Dem Secures Vote with 15-Hour Filibuster

7

Sen. Chris Murphy ended his nearly 15-hour filibuster early today after GOP leaders allegedly agreed to allow votes on two potential gun-control bills. Murphy said he felt satisfied with the compromise, after vowing to stand and speak “until we get some signal, some sign that we can come together.”

The two measures that will be voted on involve whether to expand background checks at gun shows and online sales, as well as whether to ban those on the terrorist watch list from obtaining gun licenses. “We did not have that commitment when we started today,” Murphy said.

During the filibuster, the Connecticut Democrat discussed mass shootings, background checks, and banning gun sales to those on watch lists. Murphy said, “I can’t tell you how hard it is to look into the eyes of the families of those little boys and girls who were killed in Sandy Hook and tell them that almost four years later, we’ve done nothing, nothing at all to reduce the likelihood that that will happen again to another family.”

Murphy spoke for 14 hours and 50 minutes, revitalized in his effort by Sunday’s mass shooting in Orlando that killed 49 people and injured 53 others. “I’ve had enough. I’ve had enough of the ongoing slaughter of innocents, and I’ve had enough of inaction in this body,” Murphy said. Read more at NBC News.

{Andy Heller-Matzav.com}

7 COMMENTS

  1. I am a longtime politically conservative voter who voted for “Dubya” twice, never voted for Obama, voted for Joe Lhota (remember him?), support the second amendment right of responsible people to own guns for self-protection and sport, and generally side with the “right” on most issues.
    But not on this one.
    The sickening slaughter of innocents with legally purchased assault weapons is a horrifying indictment of our lax gun control laws. There is no legitimate reason for civilians to own such weapons. We forbid private ownership of machine guns and other lethal armaments and the AR-15, AK-47 and the like should be similarly prohibited. Storekeepers don’t need them to defend against robbers and hunters don’t use them to bring down elk.
    The argument that we can’t keep these weapons out of the bad guys’ hands even if they were made illegal is faulty. A nut like the one who murdered the schoolkids in Connecticut or a lone wolf such as the most recent mass murderer both used legally purchased guns and would likely have a hard time getting one if they were illegal. The husband and wife murderers in California were more organized and may have gotten assault weapons regardless, but here’s a question – why didn’t any of these shooters use deadlier machine guns? Perhaps making them impossible to obtain legally does work to a large extent?
    B”H this most recent murderer didn’t target a shul or yeshiva, c’v, but he could have. There are many radicalized Moslems, White Supremacists and others in this country who would celebrate such an attack and it has been thru chasdei Hashem that there hasn’t been one.
    Terrorists in Israel have been stopped by responsible armed private citizens on many occasions, and almost always those citizens were armed with ordinary pistols; not assault weapons. It’s high time for Republicans to find the moral fortitude to buck the grotesque and amoral NRA and employ common sense in banning these implements of mass murder.

    • The second amendment is mainly to protect the people from the government, not just from criminals and for hunting. Millions upon millions of people have been killed by governments over helpless citizens. History always repeats itself and the second amendment is the insurance policy. The massacres which have taken place in this country pale in comparison to the lives lost through tyrannical government. If the right to keep AND BEAR arms were not infringed then most of these shootings would not have gotten too far. One common denominator of these shooting is that they were perpetrated in gun free zones. We need fewer restrictions on the Department of Homeland Security and the right for regular citizens to bear arms the way the second amendment was intended- not more gun control.

    • Not like this.
      First of all, I’m not sure we would term gentiles that (may) have sinned as Reshayim, necessarily.
      Also, they did not flaunt their sin and they did not attack anyone/the Jewish People…
      Thirdly, every person has sinned. Would you apply that pasuk to, let’s say, a non-Shabbos observer that R”L dies from a heart-attack – ?

  2. The second amendment is mainly to protect the people from the government, not just from criminals and for hunting. Millions upon millions of people have been killed by governments over helpless citizens. History always repeats itself and the second amendment is the insurance policy. The massacres which have taken place in this country pale in comparison to the lives lost through tyrannical government. If the right to keep AND BEAR arms were not infringed then most of these shootings would not have gotten too far. One common denominator of these shooting is that they were perpetrated in gun free zones. We need fewer restrictions on the Department of Homeland Security and the right for regular citizens to bear arms the way the second amendment was intended- not more gun control.

  3. The ar-15 (which the shooter was NOT using) does NOT shoot any faster than any semi-auto handgun. All it is is a military STYLE (looking) weapon. In fact it is much harder to conceal making it safer in some way

LEAVE A REPLY