Disclaimer: The photo is file photo of a Los Angeles SWAT team member, and does not depict a so-called assault weapon.
In 2012, Cleveland, Ohio police officers fired 137 rounds into a car full of unarmed African Americans suspects who they had been pursuing. Not one person in the vehicle had threatened officers, or made any move that would indicate they were reaching for a firearm…
But Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, who recently proposed a sweeping ban on gun magazines that hold over 10 rounds, has made it clear that he is not concerned about arming people like Sgt. Michael Donegan of the Cleveland Police Department, who was involved in the aforementioned shooting. Sgt. Donegan fired so many rounds from his high capacity magazines, that he actually had to stop shooting to reload and continue firing at the unarmed citizens in the car.
Senator Murphy had nothing to say about Officer Michael Brelo, who was also involved in the same shooting, who stood on the hood of the vehicle, firing at least 15 rounds into his unarmed victims, including some of the fatal shots.
The increasing militarization of police departments across the nation does not concern the Connecticut senator. He made that perfectly clear. Police officers, he asserts, can “legitimately” carry approximately 40 to 50 rounds on their person, per officer, just as they do all across the United States. Normal citizens, however, are essentially only interested in criminal activity and “overthrowing the government” if they want a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.
Murphy recently made this bold statement, in pushing a proposed ban on magazines that hold more than this magic number of 10 rounds. He added that any and all who want guns that hold more than 10 rounds are only interested in “armed insurrection” and have essentially committed an act of treason.
The penalty for treason, is of course, death. The senator’s statements then would, whether he understands it or not, imply that wanting a standard or “high” capacity magazine for a gun should be considered an act of war against the federal government, and should be prosecuted accordingly.
Murphy explained that there is “no legitimate reason” for citizens to have a magazine such as the 11-round standard magazine for a Glock 27 pistol. A magazine with 10 round is perfectly fine (for now). But add so much as one more round and this is tantamount to “arming against the government.”
The bizarre statement was made in support of a bill recently proposed in Congress that would ban such magazines.
As with all of such policies, a special exception was given for police officers. Whether in a large metropolis, or a small village, police officers could carry magazines with no limits. Assault weapons in squad cars could continue to be a normal sight on our streets.
Police officers decked out like they are on a SWAT team, armed with machine guns, standing on New York City subways would continue to be an unregulated phenomenon. Murphy is unconcerned with the increasing militarization of police departments across the country. For him, the real problem is anyone who would want one round over ten in their magazines.
Representative Elizabeth Esty, who represents Newtown, where the Sandy Hook tragedy happened, said the number of co-sponsors for the bill has doubled in the last year alone.
“The support is growing,” she said to local media. “The momentum has not stopped.”
She joined Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) in addition to Connecticut’s Democratic Senate duo, Murphy and Senator Richard Blumenthal, in announcing the legislation.
Murphy leaned on the claim that he does not know “a single hunter or a single person who hunts for sport” who needs more than 10 rounds in a magazine. In leaning on this point, he demonstrated that he is unaware of the numerous Supreme Court rulings that the Second Amendment is about personal self-defense, and nowhere mentions anything whatsoever about hunting.