‘Republicans Have Decided to Sell Weapons to ISIS’

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) told the Washington Post be that Republicans are partially culpable for attacks like the Orlando nightclub shooting because they refuse to restrict gun sales to those on the terror watch list.

Said Murphy: “We’ve got to make this clear, constant case that Republicans have decided to sell weapons to ISIS.”

He added: “ISIS has decided that the assault weapon is the new airplane, and Republicans, in refusing to close the terror gap, refusing to pass bans on assault weapons, are allowing these weapons to get in the hands of potential lone-wolf attackers. We’ve got to make this connection and make it in very stark terms.”

FavoriteLoadingSave to Favorites
Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone
  • spiff

    Well said, call the SOB out on this. Being a Vet, I take personal offense that Republicans are allowing OUR enemies to use OUR own weapons against our troops and citizens. Run an ad depicting this fact nationwide until November. Call the cowards OUT BY NAME. List the Republicans that voted against this, they are DIRECTLY responsible for every mass shooting from here on that can be avoided by limiting assault firearms.

  • Cedric

    This is a pretty hard attack. Is it overstating things? Will it backfire or will it give a critical edge to Democrats on arguing who is best to fight terrorism.

    • chibeardan

      I think you are right that it is overstating. It should be stated as, “Republicans refuse to restrict ISIS from buying weapons of war.” That would be an accurate statement, and not overstating it at all.

      • Cedric

        Now so like that better and it is more accurate but still strong.

    • jharp

      “Is it overstating things? Will it backfire or will it give a critical
      edge to Democrats on arguing who is best to fight terrorism.”

      No and no.

      And it is the truth. And when did it become a wise decision to not let the truth be known?

    • oldhandatthis

      The argument is over the top, but Republicans love to make this sort of attack on Democrats. I’m good with it.

      • Agreed.

        I know that sometimes our arguments get lost because real solutions to real issues are complex and require detailed, nuanced answers. But sometimes you just want something that fits on a bumper sticker.

      • Cedric

        I understand the desire to hit hard at the GOP. I advocate it here on PW a lot. But looking at the statement it seemed a bit borderline…and I have seen those boomerang back on Democrats. We need strong but smart statements.

        • oldhandatthis

          I just responded to you above, before we try for legislation we have to find a way to weaken the NRA.

    • ‘ere I am, J.H.

      Nah, it’s fair political hyperbole to amplify the point.

      • Larry McD

        Don’t get the hyperbole issue. It’s right on point.

        • Rhysem

          It is hyperbole. The GOP isn’t “selling” weapons to ISIS, they are enabling the purchase of weapons by ISIS sympathizers. That having been said, I’m okay with it :p

          • true though a case could be made that they work for the gun industry

    • Hawk2240

      The Republicans will say Sen Murphy is calling Joe Sixpack, All-American vet who just wants to defend himself, an ISIS terrorist, and how dare he. So it probably is not helpful to the case. Better to stick with the simple fact that the Republicans are willing to let civilians buy semi-automatic military weapons and do nothing as innocent children get mowed down in their classrooms, just so NRA can make more money and more campaign contributions.

      • Snakegirl Lyn

        Then we point out the ban doesn’t apply to Joe Sixpack, regular guy nextdoor. The ban is for Jihadi Joe, who the FBI has on their terror watch list due to his communications with ISIS members or his positive comments about waging jihad on terrorist network sites. It can be done.

      • Calbengoshi

        Aside from the fact that Joe Sixpack is unlikely to be on the terrorist watch list, I think more voters are afraid of terrorism than they are of the risk posed by “crazy” people.

    • ScienceWonk

      It’s pretty incendiary. I think it backfires. Take the high road, Dems.

      • Buford2k11

        nah…the high road is littered with the wreckage of many good bills…the gop is now, the only ones responsible for this wreckage…the road blocks have to be torn down, and that means getting dirty…that is how it got this bad…the NRA doesn’t play by the rules…and it just isn’t the NRA, it is the think tanks, and ALEC, and the rest of this corporate monstrosity…they are the ones with innocent blood on their bank accounts…no more friggin’ high roads…no more both sides garbage, either…no, the high road is in tatters….

    • Larry McD

      Backfire? Hell no!

    • docb

      The blood of the thousands of US citizens , men, women and children ,slaughtered due to the gop bags being owned by the gun nuts is on their hands and heads forever…Continuing to shield the white male domestic terrorists and now ISIS..

      .Morally destitute and impotent degenerate little sheep for the nra…The detritus of the Nation…right there in the well of the Senate…for the World to see…Eunuchs for the almighty donor dollars..

  • TheFreakinGorn

    This is absolutely 100% true. The repubs AND people who won’t ban gun sales until the terror list is 100% perfect and good and constitutional.

  • jharp

    And it’s the truth.

  • littlejohn

    Yes, call them out on it.

  • TexasLou

    This is where there’s a huge disparity between Democrat/Republican, Left/RIght…

    An attack like this would be greatly aided by an agenda-supporting “TV Network”, rabid hosts of “Talk Radio”, and a diligent (not sensationalist) “Press”, but the Democrats don’t have any of it.

  • Quagmire

    If they weren’t willing to do anything after a bunch of first graders were slaughtered then this was as predictable as the sun rising in the east.

    • oldhandatthis

      I think many of them fear the NRA going after them.

      • Quagmire

        Pathetic when fear in general and fear of the NRA outweighs protecting 6 year olds in school.

        • Snakegirl Lyn

          So much for “pro-life”, eh?

          • Calbengoshi

            Sadly, I think most people who call themselves “pro-life” don’t really care about the life of someone who has transitioned from fetus to newborn infant.

          • Snakegirl Lyn

            They almost certainly don’t give two rips about the mother. Also very sad.

          • sosuume

            More like “forced birth.” Afterwards, you’re on your own.

  • TexasLou

    When GOPBaggerNutJobs (see the Governor of my home state) are CONSTANTLY LYING OUT OF THEIR ASSES about ISIS/Terrorism, I think Murphy and Democrats deserve a little leeway.

    http://i.imgur.com/4D88mEJ.png

    • abctefg

      Ffffaaaakkk!
      How could less educated people ever figure this shit out? It’s outrageous. Why are their no lying litmus tests that have actual consequences? Instead we get this joke: pants on fire.

  • jedjethro

    Holy triangulation, Batman!

    The Clintons need to sit this liberal down and tell him you beat the Republicans by adopting their positions and making them your own so that you gain office or continue in one, not by doing what’s best for the country or what’s normally considered the goals of your own party.

    • Stormageddon Bloodstar

      You make zero sense.

      • jedjethro

        Thanks to your constructive criticism, I see my failings in a new light.

        My gratitude is genuine and ever-lasting.

        • For what it’s worth, his criticism is at least adorable.

        • Larry McD

          It’s the Washington Post new word winner from a couple of years ago: Sarchasm.

    • Larry McD

      Totally got the snark! Sorry more people didn’t.

  • Hawk2240

    Here is a better case to make: In the last 10 years in Denver, “Researchers found that gunshot wounds are larger now than a decade ago and penetrate more deeply into the body. The findings also show the number of gunshot wounds per victim increased.”
    http://www.cpr.org/news/story/denver-gunshot-wounds-are-deadlier-they-were-decade-ago

    • exObjectivist

      I don’t see this as “a better case to make…” But it is noteworthy and very relevant.

      ^vote. Thank you.

  • vance

    And Chris Murphy is exactly right. That’s an argument that will have real power with a lot of people. There is no response for it.

    • jbinphilly

      Will that argument have real power with a lot of people? I doubt it. It sure didn’t after Sandy Hook, when young children were the victims and the perpetrator was not motivated by ISIS or any other Radical Islam terrorist group. The argument sure didn’t have real power after Aurora or any of the other mass shootings here in recent years.

      One of the items shared on this site earlier today gives a very good explanation as to why. Opponents of gun control are far more rabid about their position than supporters of gun control. Even if the vast majority of Americans support gun control, a lot of them still vote for anti-gun control politicians for other reasons they consider more important (the economy, foreign policy, etc.). Conversely, the voters who oppose gun control will almost always vote for gun control opponents.

      • Calbengoshi

        I think most people viewed what happened in Newtown or in Aurora as the unpredictable act of someone who was crazy, and therefore as something that could not be prevented. However, I think many of those same people view what happened in San Bernardino or Orlando as the predictable, and thus potentially preventable, act of a terrorist.

        Thus, I think that many people may be willing to consider a limit on gun sales to persons identified as potential terrorists even though they would not support a limit on gun sales to persons who are suspected of being crazy but who haven’t actually been adjudicated to be dangerous to others.

        • Robbissimo

          The families of gun lovers most often pay the price when those weapons are used in domestic disputes.

        • jbinphilly

          We’ll see in November. If Republican Senators in swing or blue states like Pennsylvania (Toomey), New Hampshire (Ayotte) and Ohio (Portman) get re-elected despite opposing the measures up for vote last night, we’ll see that gun control really isn’t that big a priority for its supporters.

          • Calbengoshi

            I think one of the reasons gun control legislation seldom passes is that most people who support gun control tend to be multi-issue voters, whereas many who are opposed to gun control are willing to vote against (or for) a candidate based solely on the candidate’s views/votes relating to gun control.

          • jbinphilly

            Exactly.

      • TimWolfe

        Sen. Murphy does speak to that intensity gap in the WP piece: “Ultimately, we’ve got to build a political infrastructure on our side that rivals that of the gun lobby,” he said. “I want to win some votes along the way, but everything we do needs to be in service of creating a political powerhouse that ultimately beats the NRA on the big stuff.”

        I think that political reality is clear, but it’s no reason not to go on offense rhetorically. This line of attack shifts the debate onto uncomfortable ground for Republicans, and to judge from the squawking from her GOP colleagues after Sen. Warren tweeted in support of Murphy’s salvo, I’d say it’s already having an effect.

        https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/745030474339323905

    • TimWolfe

      Yep, and it’s exactly what I was suggesting a week ago: that it’s time to become politically ruthless on this issue.

      As much as I (like most Democrats and lefties, I think) shy away from absolutist politics, I think the time has come for — and the logic supports — such a tack on this issue. It’s insane that the Republicans can maintain this position and not pay a heavy political price for it.

  • tiredofit

    So apparently this is now about winning elections and not getting guns off the streets. We have a bill that is no more than optics, they have a bill that is no more than optics, each side yells that the other side loves the terrorists.

    And, as a result, the weapons are still out there for anyone to purchase and soon we’ll have another mass shooting. Probably within a day or two.

    • heropsycho

      Normally, I would agree with you. I’m a political moderate. I just want effective laws passed and a competent government to enforce them.

      Yes, I agree with you that a law to ban people on the terrorist watch list is optics. It’s not going to be effective in reducing gun violence. This guy in Orlando might not have directly been able to buy a gun with the law, but he would have gotten his hands on what he felt were suitable weapons to do what he was planning.

      So, here’s the problem with the GOP’s stance, and why I’m still in favor of the law, and it’s quite simple:

      The Republican Party will reject any and all gun control measures. Period.

      Did you ever see John Oliver when he was on the Daily Show when he did a segment on gun control? He actually asked a gun lobbyist to raise his hand to signal if he objected with a series of gun control measures. After objecting to every single one, Oliver asks him about a minimum one hour waiting period to buy a gun, and he objected. That, in a nutshell, is the GOP on gun control. They will not budge at all on any gun control measure.

      The only “moderate” gun control measure that may help even a tiny bit is universal background checks, but how will you ever come even close to that if you can’t even get a bill passed that will simply prohibit sale of guns to people on a terrorist watch list? That’s about as simple and obvious and politically feasible as you could ever come up with for a gun control measure. It is about the most rudimentary background check you could possibly imagine. It is effectively saying, “see if this person might be an enemy of the state before you sell them a gun.”

      The GOP is the reason why this is the debate. The debate right now, because of the GOP, can’t be about laws that would institute effective gun control. The debate is about simply the concept of gun control, because the majority party in both houses of Congress made that the starting point.

      The system is clearly broken as is. This is a similar situation to health care when Obamacare was passed. Believe common sense gun control won’t reduce gun violence all you want, but you know what? What we have now isn’t working, so why not try it, and do an honest assessment and see if it helps?

      One party right now is roadblocking even trying the most basic of gun control measures. I don’t know what else the Democrats can do but start this basic and beat the GOP over the head with their complete refusal to even try to make things better.

      • tiredofit

        But the GOP is putting up a bill tonight that would allow Homeland or the DoJ to go to court within 3 days to block people on the watch list who try to buy a gun. That way the GOP can vote to keep assault rifles out of terrorists hands, the bill (like the Dem bill) will fail.

        Now the GOP can say they have supported “reasonable gun control measures” but those damn Democrats wouldn’t join them to pass the bill.

        • heropsycho

          The problem is it doesn’t make sense that the potentially dangerous person be allowed to buy a gun if the government doesn’t make the case within three days. Three days is obviously a window picked because it won’t work. There can’t be a 30 day window if you oh so happen to be one of the <5,000 American citizens nationwide on this list?! Hell, why not a year if you happen to be on the list.

          We're not talking about something you need to earn a living. We're talking about a gun.

          The only thing the GOP compromise bill does that might be useful is notify the federal gov't someone on the no-fly list bought a gun, and fat lot of good that'll do. Shooters will just make sure they buy it the day they're gonna go on the shooting spree.

          I'm tired of this crap. The no-fly bill the Democrats offered was already pretty ineffectual as is.

    • eve

      The part you are leaving out is that if we want gun control we have to get people in office who support it. This is part of that strategy. This is not just some pointless exercise. It is aimed at the long game of how we get gun control.

      This IS doing something.

      • tiredofit

        How is it doing that? As a result of the filibuster both sides are putting up bills to stop people on the watch list from getting assault riles. The GOP will vote for theirs, the Dems will vote for theirs, neither will pass but the GOP can now claim to have tried to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists. They can also claim to have put up a reasonable gun control measure that failed because the Democrats refused to be bipartisan about it.

        You will know they’re full of it. I’ll know they’re full of it. But the media will play the both sides cause gridlock coin and we’ll achieve nothing.

        If we wanted a long-term strategy we would put up a bill that banned the manufacture and sale of automatic rifles and demand a vote. Then we could complain that they were just putting up a bullspit bill, and we were trying to stop terrorists and criminals from killing Americans.

        But they way they are doing it gives the GOP cover since they can vote for their bill, and blunts any future attacks since the GOP can now lie that they voted for gun control.

        • Calbengoshi

          Aside from the fact that I am not aware of any mass killing perpetrated with an automatic (rather than semi-automatic) firearm, in 1986 Congress amended 18 U.S.C. Section 922 to include language making it illegal to sell or possess a machine gun (i.e., an automatic weapon) manufactured after that the amendment became effective. Thus, the manufacture and sale of automatic weapons for private ownership has been heavily restricted for many years.

          A blanket restriction on semi-automatic weapons isn’t practical, because that would include handguns other than revolvers and rifles that don’t require the user to load a new cartridge after each shot. That’s why the term “assault weapon” was invented to refer to subcategory of auto-loading rifles that are particularly useful for anti-personnel purposes.

          • tiredofit

            I’m not writing legislation, but commenting. I should have written assault, not automatic. I also never mentioned semi-automatic. You are using semantics and word choice to appear logical and above it all, but are adding nothing to the discussion. You are, rather, throwing smoke to obscure important discussions.

          • Calbengoshi

            My apologies for pointing out the errors in your comment that, in my view, made is useless for any “important” discussion.

          • tiredofit

            Change the word “automatic” to “assault” in the 2nd paragraph and there are no errors. As I said, it was a mistaken word and from that one word you went on a lecture that had no bearing on the majority of what I wrote.
            I accept you apology, and your use of scare quotes.

          • Calbengoshi

            Your comment still makes the mistake of assuming that one can easily define an “assault rifle” in a manner that prevents the manufacture and sale of firearms that easily can be used for killing lots of people in a very short time.

            The fact that there were so many firearms being manufactured and sold that were functionally equivalent to those defined by the law as “assault weapons” but that managed to evade coming within that definition is one of the primary reasons that the 1994 assault weapons ban was allowed to lapse.

          • tiredofit

            No, it does not. It assumes that people writing the legislation could do so. As I noted above, I am not writing the legislation.

          • Calbengoshi

            Why do you assume that the people writing legislation banning “assault weapons” will be able to succeed this time when they failed the last time?

    • jbinphilly

      For most politicians, everything is about winning elections. Especially in an election year.

    • moderatesunite

      curious tiredofit, if you know what the problem was with the R’s terror watch list proposal. I get that it was weak but was there any real killer for it? and what would be a reasonable compromise in your view?

      • LarryBurt

        Yes, there was a real killer for each of the Republican bills. Read what they were here

        • moderatesunite

          based on that article I definitely see the killer for the republican background check measure (which wouldn’t change/ increase background checks)
          But the terror watch list republican measure I still don’t really see the problem with, at worst its useless, but I don’t see a reason to oppose it(unless they are trying to get a better deal like the one Susan Collins is rumored to be proposing)

          • LarryBurt

            I agree with you on both bills. The problem I have with the watch list one, is that it does nothing, while allowing them to take credit for doing something. Backlogs being what they are, I think that allowing 3 days to stop a purchase would be less effective than doing nothing, by creating more diversion. I do however respect any alternate opinions.

      • tiredofit

        The issue I have is that the way it “prevents” people on the terror watch list (TWL so I don’t have to type it again) from acquiring guns is by giving the Attorney General or Homeland the right to seek an injunction through the courts within three days of an application.

        The problem with this is that there is no reason for them to seek an injunction. If the person is a serious terror threat the authorities do not want to tip them off that they’re on the TWL, so will let the sale go through. If the person is not considered a serious terror threat, they will let the sale go through to see what the hell they’re up to and if they need to be moved to a higher level or are working for someone at a higher level.

        A reasonable compromise? There is none from the gun control perspective, because the GOP is completely unreasonable. The only gun control legislation they have considered in the past 25 years is this, and all it winds up being is a WAR ON TERROR(tm) marketing ploy.

        The only purpose for an assault rifle like the AR-15 is to kill lots of people. There is no reasonable rationale for a civilian to commit a crime by killing lots of people. Therefore there is no reasonable rationale for a civilian owning an AR-15, and they should simply be illegal.

        The same is true for rocket propelled grenades, artillery guns, silencers, sarin gas, nuclear bombs, etc. There is no reasonable rationale for civilians having any of these “arms” unless it is to commit a crime, so we have made owning them illegal.

        The same should be true for assault rifles.

        And this joke of legislation from both the Dems and GOP last night aren’t even half-measures even if they did pass. They would accomplish nothing.

    • LarryBurt

      Read about the bills here. There were real differences, and although the Democratic bill was intentionally minimal to try to get at least something passed, it was more than optics.

      • tiredofit

        What makes you think I don’t know what’s in the bills? Talk about condescending arrogance.
        Yes, there were non-trivial differences but everyone knew they were going to fail and even if they passed would not get a vote in the House. If they passed the House, Obama would sign them and a few thousand Americans would not be able to purchase certain firearms, leaving pretty much 300 million other people who could.
        Not one person who has committed one of the 136 mass shootings in the United States this year, or any of the more than 290 mass shootings last year was on the Terrorist Watch List.
        It’s all optics, and bad optics since it reinforces the idea that terrorism is the greatest threat to safety of the United States and not Americans with guns, and that the Terror Watch List is a proper use of executive power to determine guilt without court review.

        • LarryBurt

          Please accept my apology for any unintended arrogance. I would erroneously never have suspected that the statements you made could come form anyone who had read them.

          • tiredofit

            Apology accepted, but not one thing I said was wrong. All the bills failed, sales are up, and nothing was accomplished except to validate the Terror Watch list.

            The entire effort failed and did more damage than good.

  • conspiracy

    Indeed.

  • mhandrh

    That is what I call fighting fire with fire. Adopting Republican tactics.
    They’ve already blamed Obama for everything wrong in the world — and they do it every day. So I welcome turning tables on them.

  • qwerty

    Good messaging, but I don’t understand why Democrats blocked the Republican amendments. While they obviously wouldn’t be everything they wanted, it would be better than nothing.. Was there some reason other than party politics that Democrats blocked the Republican versions?

    • Snakegirl Lyn

      Perhaps there was some unrelated poisonous legislation that the repubs were trying to sneak in with those bills? They’ve done it several times before.

    • moderatesunite

      I’m not sure that’s exactly the question I wanted answered, Frankly I preferred the republican terror watch list proposal based on the description of it I’ve seen in print and heard on the radio, but not sure about the specifics. Devil could well be in the details

    • LarryBurt

      From Huff Po

      a measure by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) —
      and supported by the National Rifle Association — that would delay a
      gun sale to someone on a watch list just three days, and require law
      enforcement to prove probable cause to a judge in order to stop the sale
      altogether.

      ,

      The other GOP measure, sponsored by Sen.
      Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), would have given more money to the agency that
      oversees gun background checks, but wouldn’t have expanded those
      checks. It also would have made it more difficult to deem people
      mentally deficient for the purposes of buying, and made it easier to
      appeal.

      They were both likely to do more harm than good, and at best were a disingenuous farce.

      • qwerty

        Thanks for the information, that definitely explains whh Democrats voted them down.

  • eve

    This is an excellent sound byte. And it is true. By demanding easy access to weapons of war, the Republicans helps ISIS.

  • David Golden

    There’s the logic and there’s the politics. We know that a number of terrorist organizations urge their supporters to buy high powered weapons at gun shows since there are essentially no barriers to this; logically we can conclude that anyone who allows such easy access to automatic weapons is at minimum complicit with selling arms to ISIS and other terror organizations. Politically, I don’t know if it will move some in the middle toward a more reasonable position, or will allow the Rs to engage in faux outrage over being called terrorists. My instinct is that now is the time to be as explicit as possible, so, go for it.

  • TexasLou

    Oops wrong thread!

    • silverbelle

      ‘Oops wrong thread!’

      haha! It’s ok. We can figure out where it was meant to go.

  • escalera

    If you see the federal government as less dangerous than radical Islam its a winning argument. Defines the crazies I love it.

  • ScienceWonk

    Slight problem: Omar Mateen was taken off the watch list, so even if the terror watch list gun-sale ban was in effect, he could have bought the guns he used in the attack anyway.

    Murphy is tossing red meat to liberal Democrats, but his statement is based on a misleading premise, and his suggestion that Republicans are complicit in or even actively abetting mass shootings is likely to stir controversy.

    • Dem2016

      Probably should focus group it

    • Larry McD

      So, you’re in with the NRA logic that if legislation doesn’t deal with 100% of the potential problems, it’s bad legislation? Red meat for liberals? And likely to “stir controversy” is a bad thing? The premise is not misleading, it’s right on the money.

      You’re clearly unfamiliar with the order Attorney General John Ashcroft instructed his staff that they were not to look into possible gun purchases by the 9/11 terrorists because they had a Constitutional right to buy whatever firearms they wanted.

      Strange post from someone who believe that science works.

      • ScienceWonk

        Nowhere in my comment did I make any mention of the merits of the legislation itself. A piece of legislation can be a good idea even if one particular argument being used in favor of it is a misleading one.

        In this case, from Taegan’s post, it seems that Murphy called the Republicans partially culpable specifically for the Orlando shooting because they have voted down legislation that blocked people on the terror watch list from buying guns. That argument doesn’t hold here, because, again, Mateen wasn’t on the watch list when he went to buy his guns.

        He could have easily argued that future Orlando-like attacks could be prevented with the legislation. Instead, he linked Republicans directly to the Orlando shooting. That doesn’t mean that the bill isn’t a good idea, it just means that this particular argument is a misleading one.

        UPDATE: I went to read Murphy’s remarks in more detail. It seems that the Washington Post inferred from Murphy’s remarks that he was talking specifically about Orlando. However, I don’t see any specific quote from Murphy where he actually says “Republicans are culpable for the Orlando attack” or something to that effect. So as long as Murphy wasn’t referring to Orlando specifically, he’s actually got a point.

        The question, then, is how strong he wants to word it and how effectively that wording will be with voters. I have no idea how voters will receive it.

    • Lumpenproletariat

      “Murphy is tossing red meat to liberal Democrats…”

      Not sure if too many liberal Democrats support arbitrarily taking rights away from citizens based on secret government lists.

      • certainly the purists would never see the advantage of squeezing them between two contradictory goals

        • Lumpenproletariat

          So this is just campaign optics and not about actually accomplishing anything?

          Terrorist fearmongering was BS when Bush did it, it’s BS when Dems do it.

          • nope – not what I said. you are missing the point in your eagerness to jump to a conclusion.

            put too bad ideas that contradict against each other and the harder one will break the softer one

    • LarryBurt

      The terrorist watch list would apply to anyone who hace been on it in the last five years.

  • jgrillo

    Chris Murphy is opening up a new way for Hillary to lose that I didn’t thought existed. If Kasich, Bush, or Rubio were the nominee, I would say….”keep it coming Chris Murphy.” But they are not, so I really don’t give a crap what Chris Murphy says.

    • Larry McD

      I normally respect your posts. This one is beyond my understanding.

      • jgrillo

        OK, sorry if I wasn’t clear…if Rubio or Kasich were the nominee (for example), these words by Murphy would be taken as a act of political desperation. Rubio or Kasich would be outpolling Hillary at this early stage. More of this rhetoric from the other side would only further embolden a strong candidate on the Republican side.

        My point is that it doesn’t matter what Murphy says and the Democratic Party can basically employ any strategy they want because Trump is going to lose. My opinion is that “giving weapons to ISIS” is beyond the pale and under normal circumstances would have hurt Hillary against a strong candidate…not so in this case.

    • growe

      Luckily neither Chris Murphy nor we give a crap about this post. It’s the kind of post that says “my side is far off on wrong side of this issue”.

  • Dem2016

    Brilliant! Let’s get attack ads rolling with this theme!

  • fgtayl01

    Mass shooting: 49 dead and 53 injured. Quick send out the fundraisers. Fire up the ads. Let’s have some fake votes that both sides can use in the Fall.

    Many developed countries face tragic incidences of terrorism and hate inspired mass murders.
    The U.S. is the only one determined to not do anything about them.

  • Buy More Guns

    Isis? Huh? Why is Isis in America? And Obama just told us this Orlando shooter wasn’t Isis. Just a lone wolf…..which one is it?

    • hipsteriac

      Why do you care more about killing machines than you do about the lives of children?

    • fgtayl01

      Huh? back at ya. He never mentions the Orlando shooter that Obama referred to. He says ‘attacks (plural) like’.

    • Lumpenproletariat

      Only 23 comments and you’re already so ashamed of your comment history that you feel the need to hide it. Very telling.

    • LarryBurt

      Deliberately obtuse much?

  • Rhysem

    “Republican’s are soft on terrorism.” I never thought I’d see the day that a Democrat said that, got away with it, and it actually have a chance of resonating.

  • Lee

    Maybe put a face on this thing, and photo shop a turban on Wayne LaPierre, and use a photo from Trumps speech at the NRA convention so they both can be seen shaking hands and hugging.

    • TheFreakinGorn

      Thats a great idea … T-lou?

  • Lumpenproletariat

    This is the same kind of rhetoric that got us the Patriot Act and the Iraq war. Being on a secret government watchlist doesn’t make you a member of Daesh. Terror war fearmongering at its absolute ugliest.

  • PhillyFaker

    Arming America’s enemies is a time-honored Republican tradition: al-Qaeda, Saddam, Iranians, and now ISIS and domestic terrorists in our schools, churches, town squares, and clubs. Why do we pretend to be surprised by this?

  • frankelee

    Yeah, that’s nice and all, but it’s selling about as well as “Obama should resign”.

  • LarryBurt

    Republicans need to be made to answer for this at every opportunity from now until election day.

  • growe

    You know what? Good for Murphy. Republiclowns use this type of rhetoric against Democrats all the time; sharpen the point and dumb it down, especially when you’re right.

    Subtle and nuanced did not pay off great for Kerry or Gore or Dukakis, right?

  • macheath327

    Sorry, but it is the easy supply of weapons, not individual characteristics, that explains our huge numbers of gun deaths (I’m an economist, you make stuff free or charge almost nothing, people will take more of it). See this comparison of the US death rate versus other countries.

    “Gun homicides are a common cause of death in the United States, killing about as many people as car crashes (not counting van, truck, motorcycle or bus accidents)…In Germany, being murdered with a gun is as uncommon as being killed by a falling object in the United States. About two people out of every million are killed in a gun homicide. Gun homicides are just as rare in several other European countries, including the Netherlands and Austria. In the United States, two per million is roughly the death rate for hypothermia or plane crashes.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/upshot/compare-these-gun-death-rates-the-us-is-in-a-different-world.html?_r=0

    • TimWolfe

      Just use the drop-down menu on the right hand side of a comment to ‘block user’ on insane trolls. It’s a wonderful improvement in one’s quality of life.

      • macheath327

        thanks for the advice, I blocked it

    • spiff

      That guest was clearly off his meds. Those erratic, incomprehensible rantings they all seem to have, I just cannot fathom how someone like that can believe what they say. And if our not-to-bright guest checks this, my MOS was 97B, Counterintelligence, specifically against the Soviet Bloc (and I was trained to kill Russians). And for the record, I believe guns should NEVER be in the hands of civilians, ever. First time I ever picked up a M-16A1 (or any weapon for that matter), I put 3 bullets in a pen cap head from 25 yards. At 200 yards a full clip within a basketball radius, the Drill Sergeant’s started calling me a “mafia hit-man”. After my one tour I never even thought of using a weapon, ever again. Most of us who have been in combat NEVER want to be reminded of it, ever. And you obviously have no clue about what I’m talking about, nor will you ever. Hell, the closest thing you have to compare to what I’ve experienced is Black OPS 2 on your PlayStation. So next time you question this Combat Vet’s patriotism, try serving your country first.