“I think history is on our side. Whether it’s this session or next session or at some point in the future. We will prevail, no question in my mind . . . I hope that another tragedy isn’t necessary to provide additional momentum.” U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Blumenthal, Murphy: Gun Background Check Debate ‘Not Going Away’ [via ctnewsjunkiecom] [h/t RC]

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

67 COMMENTS

  1. “I hope that another tragedy isn’t necessary to provide additional momentum.” It sounds like he also wouldn’t mind seeing another tragedy so he can splash around in the victims’ blood, tears, and grief.

    But also take note of the statist mindset, he believe that a disarmed citizenry, controlled by the government/state is the best way for life to be lived. He doesn’t look at any of history and see how governments/states/authoritarian regimes abuse the citizenry, he sees the way to a new-feudal system with pols like him in the royalty class and his cronies as the nobility, and the rest of us as lowly peasants existing only to serve the nobility and royalty.

    • It’s called “dancing in the blood of the victims”, and it is the immediate reaction of the left to any prominent murder. However, it quickly goes away when they realize that the murderer was one of their protected classes.

    • I’d like to see his bodyguard go bananas and start ventilating things. THAT would be a reality check for him.

  2. I hope that another tragedy isn’t necessary to provide additional momentum.”

    Liar. You mean you hope there’s another tragedy to provide additional momentum.

    • He sounded like like a mafia Don saying, “I’d hate for anything bad to happen to you.”

      • Yep, in other words:

        “Someday another crazy person is going to do something crazy… ONE WAY OR THE OTHER… if you don’t submit to the knee-jerk political whims of the state and relinquish your arms now.”

        – The NeoRedcoats

    • I agree, it sounds like he’s got one lined up and he’d “hate” to be “forced” to use it by people trying to defend their rights.

    • Never let a crisis go to waste – it allows you to do things that would not otherwise be politically possible.

  3. I think history is on our side.

    I always found this statement creepy as all hell. Does the speaker mean history as it happened or history as it was/will be written? Does the speaker mean the statement to be positive or negative since history as it happened is on all sides all the time. History was on Hitlers side as well as Churchills. History as a record of events is simply that, a record of events and takes no sides. Those who write history do take sides though and that is creepy.

    • Well, you also have to know which history he means. Does he mean the 238+ year history of America? If so, then he’s flat out wrong or he’s lying. Had the British been able to disarm Americans prior to 1776, the United States would never have come to be. If he means countries where the people are/were kept disarmed, docile & under bureaucratic control, then perhaps he’s onto something. Government should only exist by consent of the governed.

        • It won’t be ‘history’ he & his ilk may write, it’ll be the narrative for keeping us disarmed, docile & under their control. History frightens him & his ilk – to them, truth is anathema.

    • This is what he means.

      “The definition of freedom,” as Progressive sociologist Charles H. Cooley wrote, “is perhaps this: that it is opportunity for right development, for development in accordance with the progressive ideal of life that we have in conscience.” For the Progressives, as with Hegel, then, Freedom is inextricably tied to an evolutionary, or, more precisely, progressive, conception of History in which each successive stage of civilization, like an acorn maturing into an oak tree, represents a fuller or more complete development of man’s moral or spiritual nature than the previous one. History, then, is ordered toward a specific end — the actualization of man’s spiritual nature — and has an identifiable path or content. As Richard Gamble concludes, “History possessed a distinct and discernable tendency, a teleology. It moved from the physical to the spiritual, from perdition to redemption.”

      • I have this book I’ve been reading called “The Killing of History” (which discusses how social scientists have corrupted the study of history with progressive ideology) that demonstrates Hegel was wrong.

    • This idea of the inevitable triumph of leftism has always been the false faith of the totalitarian. They seriously believe that it is a part of evolution itself, and as such, that it can’t be stopped. And it is such a fanatical belief, that no amount of failure can dissuade it. We see even now, right before our very eyes, the latest collapse of leftism, that occurring in Venezuela, but this doesn’t register in the mind of the true believer, the fanatic.

  4. *sigh* will no one rid us of this malignant individual. Surely that’s not too much to ask for, is it?

    Tom

  5. I believe that this seems to be the new tact of the democrats and civilian disarmament industry — that they claim victory even when there is obvious defeat because the morons who listen to them cannot distinguish between the two and only listen to what they are saying. It does not matter if its Obamacare or gun control this seems to be the new theme — Nancy Pelosi believes that Obamacare is just fine and that democrats should be using that in November as the best government rollout ever. I say this is denial and delusion.

  6. Let a thousand tragedies happen tomorrow and you still can’t take firearms away from law abiding Americans. Nice try senator.

    • Even when we gun owners are by the stroke of a pen, no longer law abiding. Hows that registration thing going for ya Blumenthal?
      They’ll only ever take one gun from me. And that one will be warm and empty.

  7. When every citizen is a criminal, how can the government be legitimate?

    And, make no mistake, every single person in the United States is a criminal. The people refusing to register arms in Connecticut are only one type. You, I, and everybody we know break dozens of laws every day, just by the act of living our lives.

  8. Deep down inside he is hoping for another tragidy to happen so it furthers his and every antis agenda.
    He’s a politician !
    Look its simple ask the criminals in jail or read the manifesto of the people like the ex La cop and do the opposite of what they want. Criminals want their victims unarmed and helpless just like Mrs BlumMENTAL.

  9. Yes, if the current CT law was only in place in 2012, Adam Lanza would have gone to his local FFL to fill out a 4473 before killing his mother to take possession of her CT AWB compliant AR-15 without those evil banned features.

    /Sarc

    Oh Senator, history is on your side. History has proven that power hungry politicians only want to disarm their populations for few reasons under the guise of public safety. Those are to protect the political class from armed revolt when they break the social contract and to also maintain the government’s monopoly on violence.

    Speaking of history being on your side Senator, do you know what historically happens in nations that pass “sweeping” and “reasonable” gun control? That is right… genocide, a rise in violent crime, governmental tyranny, and dictatorships. Or, all of the above.

    • The only “reasonable” thing they (YKWTA) really want is that they and no one else have guns or any other way do defend themselves against them.

    • Lanza may have passed a background check had he taken it. I have not heard that he had a felony conviction or had been adjudicated mentally defective. All the other recent shooters either passed checks or found very easy ways around them.

      • Columbine was straw purchases–which also would not have implicated a background check, universal or otherwise. Most of the school shootings involve teens too young to purchase firearms, as do a majority of gang slayings, again nothing background purchases will stop. We have to question whether Lanza would have passed a background check–he tried to buy a shotgun, but backed off because of the licensing and waiting times required.

  10. “I hope that another tragedy isn’t necessary to provide additional momentum. However, if there is another tragedy you can be sure we will wave as many bloody flags as we can to further our agenda.” Maybe I made up the last sentence, but it is what he was thinking.

  11. Since every gun used in recent high profile mass shootings was bought through the background check, I’m still wondering how they can dare to claim that a UBC would reduce those shootings. The blatant dishonesty would be shocking if it weren’t so commonplace among gun grabbers.

    One more time, it’s not about safety. It’s about control.

  13. History being on your side? Not if thousands are not gonna comply. Senator might want to keep that in mind. It took a certain population to not comply with the Brits,it took a certain population not to comply at Alamo, and just like the Brits and Santa
    Ana’s army, they thought the same way the Senator is thinking. Look how it turn out in history.

  14. Need to locate close with and identify “we” and then relentlessly hound them until they resign from office.

    • By the way, the Oklahoma version of this outlaw gang (Brooks/Baker Gang as I recall) is quite different.

  19. “God is on the side with the best artillery.” – Napoleon

    This bureaucrat only thinks he’s safe in these pursuits because he thinks the armed agents of the state can/will protect him. CT ain’t that big. There could be a rifle behind every blade of grass at a moment’s notice.

  20. The purpose of the NICS system is to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous felons and the mentally ill. Let’s see how well it’s worked with 2010 as our sample year.

    NICS data for 2010:

    6,037,394 NICS checks conducted.

    76,142 were denials referred for screening. That’s 1.26% of all applicants.

    93.8% (71,410) of those denials were overturned or cancelled.

    4,732 denials were referred to AFT branch offices for further investigation and possible prosecution. This is 0.078% of all 2010 applicants.

    Still, that’s nearly 4,732 “criminals” who have been denied a gun. If these 4,732 were truly dangerous criminals, then it follows that law enforcement would prosecute as many of them as possible.

    Yet of those 4,732 only 62 or 0.001% of all 2010 applicants were referred for prosecution.

    Of that 62 referred for prosecution, only 35 ever saw legal repercussions. 13 gave guilty pleas, 10 of the charges were dismissed as part of a plea deal, 12 cases were still pending at the time the data was assembled.

    That’s 35 actual criminals caught by the NICS system in 2010, a “criminal prosecution success rate” of .000583%.

    Using 35 as a rough yearly average and multiplying by 15 yields 525 actual criminals prosecuted for falsifying NICS checks information. There were 177 million checks giving us a successful prosecution rate of .0003%.

    This explains why there has never been any credible evidence produced to demonstrate that the background check system causes a reduction in crime. Since implementation of the NICS system, the crime and murder rate has gone up, down, up, down, showing absolutely no correlation to the enactment of the law.

    Does anyone not believe the massive resources expended on this system could be put to better use elsewhere?

    The source for the above data is the following paper which used Justice Dept statistics.

    https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf

    John Lott has also written about it.

    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/030314-691879-brady-law-is-no-answer-to-gun-crime.htm?p=full

    • I see your detailed and fact driven analysis on the inefficient and ineffective drain of resources that is NICS, and I raise you a ”But, but, but, if it only saves one life!!”
      This is like throwing a rain drop at a mountain. Facts do nothing against the hysterics of an anti.

      I will be borrowing all that info for my pro gun files though. Nice post.

      • Thanks. I originally posted that on an MDA page. Where it was instantly deleted and I was banned. No surprises there.

    • Does anybody know how much has been spent (by the gubt and by dealers both) to comply with this idiotic law? Mind you, I only say “idiotic” because the penalties are not enforced.

  23. It’s hard not to violate the TTAG terms when it comes to jackasses like this. To trample over everybody’s writes and then to come of as magnanimous. History won’t be kind to you, Senator. Hopefully, the present won’t, either.

    • I think you’re being a bit hard on a guy who, despite his charmed childhood, college, and law school years served, as he said twice on the campaign trail, in Vietnam…….

      You would think his late father Martin’s fight to New York from the financial center of Germany, Frankfurt, in the face of the Nazi gun grabbers …would have left a family legacy value, but that, sadly, is not the lesson such people seem to have learned. I find it puzzling. The lesson apparently absorbed seems to be that of the previous “lets assimilate!” in Germany. “That will save us!” Really?

      • No we are too light on this guy, he has seen the horror of disarmed citizenry first hand in Vam, but he choice not to understand and use common sense to see how armed people maintain their liberty, freedom, wealth and property.

        This man is a fool, a coward, and a oath breaker….

        FOAD!

  24. I think Mr. Blumenthal must have skipped history class. History tells us that the only way for a free people to remain free is retain their ability to defend those freedoms – whether by action (ie – War for Independence) or by deterrent. I think we all hope it always remains the latter, but once again, history is replete with evidence often the former is required. If we think just because we’re Americans we’re so impervious to tyranny, then we have most certainly forgot our own history – and in so doing, set the stage for tyranny once again.

    VF77

  25. Many years ago one could open up the newspaper to the classified section and find columns of firearms of every type for sale by private owners. An exchange of money and gun, a handshake and the deal was done. Some folks never let go of firearms purchased in a time when things were easier. The government cannot take all guns because they don’t know where many of them reside.

  26. So a LIAR about his military service, elected by the people of CT (good job there-of course stupid people here in VA elected an unindited co-conspirator/carpetbagging weasel to Governor), is prattling on about how effective background checks are…? Uh-huh. Let’s see, the Sandy Hook POS, passed a background check, but decided to kill his mom instead to get her guns. The Navy Yard shooter, passed a background check (shouldn’t have). The Aurora, CO movie shooter, passed a background check. Yep, background checks work? ? ?

    I wish he any many other POS politicians would just FOAD already.

  28. Statists need, and I believe, hope for people to die so they can use that as an excuse to exercise more control over the population. Ever ask yourself why with all 40,000 gun laws in this country we already have, why is it that criminals are oftentimes not adequately prosecuted and imprisoned when they are brought to trial for violent crimes? Statists need people to die, need for people to be dependent on them, and they set the proverbial stage for this to happen by disarming people and not addressing the real problems (the criminal class). All they need are non-thinking voters, a sycophantic media, and near complete control of the education system and their evil is complete. Check, check, and check. All those laws that were passed rapidly last time were just not invented overnight. The “paperwork” was already there, waiting to be pulled from the proverbial desk, as soon as something happened. And there is a lot more paperwork just sitting there, ready for next time.

  29. Blumenthal has an impressive bio.
    http://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/biography

    Sad for CT citizens that he is just not ‘getting’ it.
    Hope the wording on that quote-
    “another tragedy isn’t NECESSARY’ is a misquote,
    or a very bad slip of the tongue… its chilling otherwise.

    Is it ‘necessary’ for school kids to die to get your way, Senator?

  30. Would that background check have prevented the last tragedy? No? Then why the #@%^ are you talking about it in relation to the next that it won’t stop?

  32. “I hope that another tragedy isn’t necessary to provide additional momentum.”

    Nobody who goes out of their way to express such a hope, actually holds such a hope. It’s the usual horrific anti-hope which is these cynical liberals’ stock and trade.

    It’s like when the white-suited assassin character Frank Nitti in “The Untouchables” tells Kevin Costner’s character Elliot Ness that Ness has a nice family, and that a man should take care of his family to make sure nothing happens to them.

    This Senator’s remark is a backhanded hopefulness infused with that same sort of oily, nasally villainy, and I find it abhorrent.

  33. Amazing how these con men have no respect to our constitutional rights when the real problems at hand is not enforcing existing laws. Propaganda for political gain.

Comments are closed.