Murphy: Speed, Capacity of Semi-Automatic Weapons 'Unbelievable' [Video]

Sen. Chris Murphy watches a state police demonstration of the power of military-style assault rifles in Simsbury.

U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D—Conn.) paid a visit to the Conn. State Police Gun Range in Simsbury Friday for a demonstration on military-style assault rifles.

State police Sergeant Shawn Corey demonstrated the differences between two military-style assault rifles for Murphy as he asked questions specifically about two versions of a similar weapon—one that is banned in the state of Conn. and one that is currently legal.

Brian B. February 02, 2013 at 03:20 PM
This is amazing.... the truth is that you want to ban guns all guns because you are scared of the guns! Guns are a tool just like a hammer, a screw driver, etc..... Did you know that the most utilized tool used in the work force is your hand and that more violent crimes and deathsI are commited by someone beating someone else with their hands/fists. It seems to me that the people that are calling for this ban believe that it will actually cause reduction of crime or make it harder for criminals to get guns which is completely false because the criminals do not go through background checks they do not care about gun laws, gun bans, or gun free zones. I do not disagree on some regulation but over regulation and taking away my rights an American is wrong and against the Constitution of the United States of America which I swore to uphold and protect when I served in the military. If you want to punish innocent people for crimes done by criminals then take away our cars because drunk drivers kill more people then gun violence has in any given year but you wont go that because you are not scared of cars!!! This is a move being persued by hypocrites!!!
Joe February 02, 2013 at 03:26 PM
Question? I would think we would all agree that law enforcement are really the true experts about criminal trends and what kinds of guns that criminals may use. They know alot more than the average person. Since I think we all agree about that, they have decided that AR15's are necessary to protect me and my family based on these criminal trends, why is not OK for me to own the same weapons to protect me and my family until they arrive? They raced to Sandy Hook as fast as they probably ever have but it just wasnt fast enough, so I just dont get why I shouldnt have the same protection for the same amount of time that my family is under seige. Two other points. Although it is contrary to the 2nd amendment I would be willing to go through more training for the right to have an AR15 as opposed to not having it. The second point is that the FBI has shown that the average home invasion has three criminal invaders. When these people look at magazine size numbers like 7 or 10 they are not nearly enough which if thats the route they go in CT would be an affront to law abiding citizens that have a fear of home invasion.
Jared McGregor February 02, 2013 at 05:18 PM
@Jeffrey Mullins, man if you were any dumber you would be walking on four legs. I said I could find just as many resources saying the rifle was not used as there are saying it was used. Do I need to start flooding this thread with links? Regardless whether it was or wasn't wtf does it even matter! The 10mm glock has more potential to do a whole lot more damage in close quarters like inside the school anyway and can except magazines to hold just as many rounds as the bushmaster. You idiots don't know a thing about guns. And what do you call "regulated" to me a background check before each purchase, a class and permit to conceal, no carry zones and full auto being illegal alone is regulated enough. No need to mention any of the many many other guns restrictions and laws. Lol and the fact that you say you will get my guns one way or another is hilarious. What are you going to force me to give them up with Jeffrey? Men with guns! You hypocritical pathetic excuse for a man. It's obvious you left wing uneducated waste of space liberals are losing the battle anyway. More and more guns rights laws exist now than ever. Go listen to something other than CNN and stop being so closed minded.
Bill February 02, 2013 at 07:53 PM
Where did they find the heat seeking bullets? where they still in the gun or at the car?
Bill February 02, 2013 at 07:58 PM
Rob there is a whole department devoted to regulating guns. I don't think you know what your talking about. But we are in CT so not to many people know about guns or the ATF. Try going to the store and buying a gun, its definitely not as easy as going to Toys R Us.
Cliff Williams February 02, 2013 at 08:01 PM
Rob, you may want to do a little reading about a thing called the Bureua of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. You sound a little unhinged.
Bill February 02, 2013 at 08:02 PM
It's funny how the people without guns here are scared and threatening to take guns away. I would like to see anyone take a gun away from someone who has them. Your going to get yourself shot. Gun owners out number any police department or military by 100 to 1.
Joe February 02, 2013 at 08:58 PM
I'm waiting for Chrissy to talk to us about guns in the UK. Actually I should say I am ready. 1. Knife murders are such an epidemic in the UK now that the parliament is trying to find a way to ban knives. I guess it wasn't the guns but the people. 2. I take back what I just said. In the UK these people are "subjects" not people. I am not a subject Senator. I am a free citizen. 3. Drop our worst inner cities into the UK so we can have apples and apples comparisons. Finally this is an invitation to the antigun people. Please search on "3d printers gun magazines" After you do that please come back here to tell us how that will be regulated. Seriously. Most people aren't yet aware of this home technology that will revolutionize manufacturing supposedly. I just want you to read about this and come back and tell me how you EVER regulate and control the size of magazines.
Brian C. Duffy February 02, 2013 at 09:15 PM
My money's on the SWAT team.
Rob February 03, 2013 at 12:36 AM
Get your facts straight. You are confusing regulation and enforcement. The ATF only enforces commerce of guns. They have no power to regulate them. Gun manufacturers and sellers are exempt from federal consumer product safety regulation. The gun lobby made sure that the gun industry was exempted from regulation when the Consumer Product Safety Commission was established in the 1970s. The only other product that enjoyed this exemption was tobacco, and that ended in 2009 when the FDA was granted regulatory power. Firearms and ammunition are subject to no federal safety oversight. Let me repeat. Guns are now the only consumer product manufactured in America not regulated by a federal agency for health and safety. Household consumer products (except for guns and ammunition) are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Airplanes? The Federal Aviation Adminstration (FAA). Motor vehicles? The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Pesticides and toxic chemicals? The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Food, drugs -- and now tobacco? The Food and Drug Administration. Health and safety regulatory powers commonly include the authority to set design standards, recall dangerous or defective products, and require reporting from manufacturers. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the default "regulator" of guns in our nation, has no such powers. ATF is currently empowered only to oversee commerce in guns.
Rob February 03, 2013 at 12:36 AM
he bottom line is that under federal law, if you make a gun that is 50 caliber or less, is not fully automatic, and (in the case of long guns) meets specific barrel length requirements, manufacturers are free to make what sells -- even if the market is U.S. street gangs or Mexican drug trafficking organizations. If the gun happens to blow up in a consumer's hand or go off when you drop it (e.g., the Ruger Blackhawk) because of a manufacturing defect, don't count on ATF recalling it. They can't. If a manufacturer develops a handgun for the civilian market that can pierce the bullet-resistent vests worn by law enforcement or down an aircraft on take-off or landing there's nothing ATF can do about it.
Brian C. Duffy February 03, 2013 at 01:00 AM
We can debate the merits of any existing or proposed gun laws, but regardless of one's interpretation of the 2nd amendment - from the left or right - the Supreme Court decision in D.C vs Heller has pretty much clarified the issue for now. In short, the (conservative) majority decision, issued by Justice Scalia, states that a private citizen has a right to possess, for home defense, a gun, but not any gun. Local officials can restrict the type of gun, require its registration, and prohibit the carrying of any loaded gun in public; concealed or open. Please read Scalia's comments where he specifically states that, at a minimum, a revolver and/or shotgun must be allowed in a home. But anything other than a "basic" firearm may be banned. As a result of the D.C decision, you may not possess any semi-automatic weapon, any bottom loaded pistol, or any other firearm on the District list. All firearms must be registered and none are allowed to be carried in public. None of these regulations violate the 2nd Amendment according to the Supreme Court. Again, we can debate the merits and practicality of these gun laws, but not their constitutionality.
Cliff Williams February 03, 2013 at 01:40 AM
Well Rob, you are right and wrong. The ATF generally assumes they have the power to regulate them and they do so when they shouldn't be allowed. Two examples are the 922r requirement and their recent edict where they made border states report the sale of 2 or more .22 caliber rifles or higher sold in the same month to the same person. There's also this thing called the National Firearms Act along with lots of other measures.
Cliff Williams February 03, 2013 at 01:43 AM
LMAO, they old "it can bring down a plane" assertion. Who's a conspiracy theorist now Rob. How many planes have been brought down with small arms? BTW, it's not the gun that can pierce ballistics vests it is the ammunition. Oh and Rob, last year the ATF told manufacturers to stop selling to the public solid brass bullets. Keep trying buddy, you'll hit the target eventually.
Cliff Williams February 03, 2013 at 02:24 AM
Not sure about that semi/bottom thing Brian. His opinion clearly stated that firearms in common use could not be barred and that means semi-auto hand guns.
Brian C. Duffy February 03, 2013 at 02:37 AM
Correct. Scalia stated handguns, but not specifically semi autos. As a result, Haller attempted, post decision, to register his semi auto and he was denied a permit by D.C. His appeal was denied. But he can have a .44 Magnum, Eastwood style, if he likes. Check out the D.C. banned list.
Cliff Williams February 03, 2013 at 02:47 AM
But since then the DC council has taken a whole litany of measures to try and come in compliance. Check out Emily Miller's columns in the Washington Times on these very issues.
Brian C. Duffy February 03, 2013 at 03:42 AM
I have seen Emily's columns (as well as her picture) and I gotta admit, I would rather talk her in person about anything than talk to Scalia about anything. That being said, until Haller is overturned, all the current proposed gun legislation, whether wise or not, is constitutional. I do think that anything that is ultimately passed, will be too weak, unfortunately. So I don't think the NRA folks, or professional bass players, have much too worry about. But deep down, Haller does make them nervous. Say hi to Angus for me.
Cliff Williams February 03, 2013 at 03:28 PM
LOL Brian. I agree about it making them nervous. What is interesting is to watch them cherry-pick from Heller re: limitations but totally ignore the common use statement.
Rob February 03, 2013 at 07:44 PM
Cliff it is funny that you pretend to be well versed, but know absolutely so little. A .50 cal sniper rifle can take down a hovering helicopter, a small plane on take off or landing or even a commercial jet on approach. The NYPD trains their officers on how to use them to take down small planes. Barrett Firearms even included in a sales brochure that it could take down a plane when they advertise it to the military. The FN-five seven is designed to shoot ammo that can go through a ballistic vest. I love it when the gun nuts want to argue semantics (its the ammo not the gun, blah blah). There have been law enforcement alerts about the Five Seven. http://www.sunjournal.com/node/637251 The manufacture, import and sale of handgun bullets made of hardened brass, steel or any other alloy has been prohibited since 1986.
Cliff Williams February 03, 2013 at 08:48 PM
Rob, if I know so little, then why are you trying so badly to impeach everything I say. A hovering helicopter is vulnerable to small arms, much less a .50 with specialty ammunition. It's hard enough to hit someone who is 15 feet in front of you and moving with a handgun. The notion of taking down a moving plane with a Barrett is fantasyland bull spouted by Feinstein and regurgitated by those who claims they know so much while claiming others know nothing.
Cliff Williams February 03, 2013 at 08:51 PM
Oh and sorry to argue semantics. I stated the fact and you look foolish for either mispeaking or not being the all-knowing person you think you are. I'm glad you finally figured out it is the ammunition and not the gun per se. BTW, depending on the vest, typical handgun calibers can penetrate it. Oops, hope that fact doesn't send you spiraling.
Barack D Fraud February 05, 2013 at 02:31 AM
Chris Murphy demonstrates his complete ignorance of guns. he went to look at Nascar type weapons to solve the problem of mentally ill people using Chevy type weapons in crime. The state police have weapons we could not buy ever in the US, unless you have $20000 to burn you could get a 1986 or earlier equivalent rifle in other state, registered with BATFE after 6 month background check, not allowed in CT. In CT you can not buy the same type as the M4 select fire weapon, due to CT assault weapon ban in place. A bag of revolvers could have the done the same damage as what was purported to have happened at sandy hook
stew pidaso February 05, 2013 at 04:27 AM
Senator Murphy, How about looking into the issue of mental illness and possession of firearms. I know you are set in your ways and have no interest in what your constituants think, just as you were as a state rep but that is the real issue. I think you should have public forums but then again you will probably run way again like you did hwne some housewives in sismbury asked you questions you didnt want to hear. You can think on your own now, Nancy Pelosi isnt your boss anymore
Rob February 05, 2013 at 03:43 PM
To all the deniers. Glad the state police had to take time out of the investigation to have respond to all the idiot spreading this garbage out there. Lt. J. Paul Vance, the face of an ongoing Connecticut State Police investigation into worst grade-school shooting in U.S. history, Thursday debunked media and Internet reports that Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza killed his victims with handguns and not the Bushmaster XM-15 E2S rifle that is now the focus of a proposed federal assault-weapons ban. All 26 of Lanza's victims were shot with the .223-caliber semi-automatic rifle, said Vance, who bristled at claims to the contrary during an interview with Hearst Connecticut Newspapers. "It's all these conspiracy theorists that are trying to mucky up the waters," said Vance, the longtime state police spokesman. Read more: http://www.greenwichtime.com/newtownshooting/article/State-Police-All-26-Newtown-victims-shot-with-4220548.php#ixzz2K2Wxfh5O
Barack D Fraud February 05, 2013 at 05:54 PM
dont deny history, our own govt experimented on US citizens with radiation venerial diseases and various other nasty things, we assassinate US citizens now without trial by executive order. Gitmo is still open for business (I dont complain) german SS soldiers took orders and slaughtered women and children. You probably believe in trusting your govt, unicorns and obama's birth certificate, in which particular order, I dont know.
Cliff Williams February 05, 2013 at 08:50 PM
Yes Rob, shame on NBC and the police for mucking them up.
Barack D Fraud February 06, 2013 at 02:28 AM
I find it quite a statistical anomaly that each and every person that was shot died, not one survivor. Looks more like the work of a black ops team than one deranged shooter with rudimentary weapons training. I would bet money that Lanza was already room temperature when the shooting began.
Bill February 06, 2013 at 04:02 PM
I agree there was another shooter and the government is not giving us the video surveillance so we can't prove it. All I want to see is Lanza walking down the hallway not the shooting part. This should be a problem since they released the Columbine shootings uncensored 5 days after it happened.
Bill February 06, 2013 at 04:04 PM
There was one unidentified lone survive of the 1st grade class.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something