Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Bridget Johnson

Bio

May 7, 2013 - 6:27 am

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), stinging over the defeat of gun-control legislation, called new NRA president Jim Porter “really kind of the wing nuts’ wing nut.”

“And he exposes what the NRA has really become. I mean, the NRA kind of announced this weekend they’re morphing into a paramilitary group, that essentially they’re going to be advocating for armed resistance to the U.S. government,” Murphy said last night on MSNBC.

“A new citizen paramilitary force is a pretty nice business model for the gun industry. So, when you got an NRA president going out there and saying we need to arm Americans in order to fight our government, well, that sells a lot more guns and that means more dues into the NRA and that means a little bit bigger budget to play with,” Murphy continued

“So, I think this is just what the NRA has become. It’s not a gun safety organization. It’s not an instructional organization. It is now a voice for the gun industry and the gun industry needs a handful of citizens to buy a whole mess of guns in order to stay solvent. I think that their choice of this radical new leader is kind of a signal that’s a direction that they’re permanently headed in.”

The junior senator from Connecticut called the efforts of states such as Alabama and Kansas to nullify laws seen as in violation of the Second Amendment “laughable.”

“It’s laughable also because it’s a total bastardization of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is not an absolute right. It’s not a God-given right. It has always had conditions upon it, just like the First Amendment has,” Murphy said. “And this idea that the Second Amendment was put in there in order to allow citizens to fight their government is insane. If that was the case, we wouldn’t have also included treason in the United States Constitution. We basically said if you take arms up against the government, we’re going to knock your block off. And that’s what the early presidents ended up doing in the Shay’s Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion.”

“So, the Second Amendment is not designed to allow the citizenry to arm itself against the government and nullification is just another example of states not understanding the true nature of that amendment.”

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said his background check compromise with Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) can pass if they “make some adjustments to it and find out where the comfort zone is.”

The failure of the compromise on the Senate floor as the first amendment to Harry Reid’s broader gun-control package prompted Reid to yank his bill from the floor.

“But what we need to do, really, is be out and educate the law-abiding gun owners like myself, people that might belong to the NRA or other gun organizations but don’t believe this is a threat to their Second Amendment,” Manchin said this morning on CBS.

“We have some people that were concerned it might infringe on any family transfers, and it doesn’t at all. But we’re going to clarify that language. So anytime that you transfer to family, whether it’s directly or online, it would be basically not subjected to the background check, because that’s a personal transaction with a family member. What we’ve done, is we’ve separated it. You have private, and you have, basically, personal, private, and you have commercial. If you’re going to go to a commercial, whether it be background — to a gun show, gun store or online, it should have background check,” the senator continued.

Manchin called slams against his bill at the past weekend’s NRA convention “just not true.”

“If they just look at the face value of this bill, this bill does things they tried to do for 20 years. And, basically, it treats a law-abiding gun owner like myself and a lot of my friends in the NRA, treats them the way they should be treated, as a law-abiding gun owner,” he said, noting that he “did” have an A rating from the NRA.

“I’m frustrated with any organization that basically is saying things — and what they’re doing, is they’re rattling the cage, if you will, saying, ‘Well, if they do this, they’re going to do this. It’s a first step.’”

Bridget Johnson is a career journalist whose news articles and opinion columns have run in dozens of news outlets across the globe. Bridget first came to Washington to be online editor at The Hill, where she wrote The World from The Hill column on foreign policy. Previously she was an opinion writer and editorial board member at the Rocky Mountain News and nation/world news columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News. She has contributed to USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, Politico and more, and has myriad television and radio credits as a commentator. Bridget is Washington Editor for PJ Media.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (10)
All Comments   (10)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
The brazen lies being told are not accidental. Its a regular theme of the gun control activists - themselves funded by liberal advocacy foundations, not grass roots - that the NRA is a gun manufacturer lobbying group.

Its a lie. The NRA reflects the desires of its five million individual members.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
“But what we need to do, really, is be out and educate the law-abiding gun owners like myself, people that might belong to the NRA or other gun organizations but don’t believe this is a threat to their Second Amendment,” Manchin said this morning on CBS."

Manchin is an idiot if he really believes that statement. The real problem with the bill was that everyone who actually read it, realized that the government would use the background check data to set up a national registry of gun owners, likely leading to wholesale confiscation of firearms in the future. Even Obama's DOJ said the bill would be ineffective without such a registry. There was a provision in the bill prohibiting government officials from "misusing" background check data, but we are supposed to believe that Eric Holder's DOJ would actually prosecute such violators?

Sorry, but not when Holder has a history of refusing to enforce laws he doesn't like.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Come to think of it, the founders would probably have thought it a pretty good deal for citizens to have military quality firearms at home.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Another word of Wisdom from the Marxist Homeland of Obama's Social Security Number. Thanks donkey fluffer, but we got this.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Yea, demonizing the NRA is the new anti-Americans' top agenda item. Last night, Lawrence O'Donnell delivered a fascinating psychotic rant against Wayne LaPiere (the NRA guy). His hatred was visceral and totally uncalled for. That rant, if presented as evidence before an objective secret gun authorization tribunal would guarantee that O'Donnell would never be authorized to own a gun. OTOH, it might not have been so dramatic if Larry was simply drunk on air.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"...a law-abiding gun owner like myself ..."

This is the new "some of my best friends are black!"

Just one more data point showing how the anti-2A people are either ignorant, lying or both every single time they open their mouths.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"If that was the case, we wouldn’t have also included treason in the United States Constitution. We basically said if you take arms up against the government, we’re going to knock your block off."

He's confusing treason with insurrection. The punishment for insurrection is, at most, ten years. Treason is selling your country out to enemies.

Furthermore, it is not unreasonable to include BOTH a law against insurrection to prevent it from being used in every small grievance AND to allow the use of arms on the off chance that the government becomes tyrannical and insurrection becomes necessary.

Besides, is he saying that, since insurrection is illegal, tyranny should be tolerated?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
To the proglodytes, dissent is patriotism when they do it -- but treason when it's done to them.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Furthermore, the arming of the populace is not so much so we can rebel against our nation as it is to let the government know we have that power. In other words, it's not to promote revolution so much as to demotivate the creep of tyranny. The government WON'T become tyrannical as long as its people can fight back.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"If you’re going to go to a commercial, whether it be background — to a gun show, gun store or online, it should have background check,” the senator continued."

Why is this person in Congress, when he has no clue that this is already required?

“And this idea that the Second Amendment was put in there in order to allow citizens to fight their government is insane."

Why is this person in Congress, when he has no clue why the Constitution was written and by whom?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All