A super PAC supporting Ted Cruz is running a new ad that has people fuming, and rightfully so. It uses Sandy Hook to push Ted Cruz’s pro-gun voting pattern in the Senate, claiming that he stopped Obama from using the tragedy to push gun control. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) blasted the ad, and couldn’t phrase how sickening it is any better.
The ad, put out by Courageous Conservatives, is aimed at Sen. Marco Rubio, and focuses on how Cruz gets things done while Rubio twiddles his thumbs. The narrator says that Ted Cruz “walks tall for what we believe,” and then says:
After Sandy Hook, Ted Cruz stopped Obama’s push for new gun control laws.
Because that’s totally something to be proud of. It wasn’t people who were pushing for stronger gun laws that politicized the tragedy. It was people like Ted Cruz who politicized it. 20 children died, and people like Ted Cruz blocked any attempts to stop that kind of thing from ever happening again. Listen to the full ad below:
Senator Murphy’s response to that insensitivity was spot on:
The new Ted Cruz ad makes me want to throw up, and I’m pretty sure that’s a feeling shared by many who lived through the horror of Sandy Hook.
[Ted Cruz is] showing off how callous he was in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting may win him some right-wing votes that get swept up from Donald Trump or Ben Carson, but it disqualifies him in a general election.Middle-of-the-road, common sense voters support measures like expanded background check. But more importantly, they won’t be impressed by a campaign whose opening pitch to voters is portraying the candidate as the one senator who took on the parents of Sandy Hook in the wake of the most horrific mass shooting in our lifetime.
Courageous Conservatives released the ad in part because they think ads from other Ted Cruz super PACs are “boring,” according to the Washington Post. A consultant for Courageous Conservatives said, “People are concerned that there’s gonna be wimpy ads in defense of Ted Cruz.”
If this is strong, we prefer wimpy, because this is really horrible to all the victims of mass shootings, and their suffering families, many of whom have overwhelmingly called on the government to do something, and who’ve been hurt and disappointed when people like Cruz block efforts. It’s no wonder Sen. Murphy is sick to his stomach over this. We’re sick over this, too.
Featured image by Gage Skidmore. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 via Flickr
Cruz didn’t do it, the super pac did, and it is courageous to stand up to those exploiting a tragedy to infringe constitutional rights.
Being able to easily slaughter children is not a Constitutional right. If you don’t understand this you should not be allowed to own a gun.
deeeeeeeeeeerp, get a grip you ignoramus
It wasn’t people who were pushing for stronger gun laws that politicized the tragedy. It was people like Ted Cruz who politicized it. 20 children died, and people like Ted Cruz blocked any attempts to stop that kind of thing from ever happening again.
Gawd you libturds just keep getting dumber and dumber, don’t you? Can any of you tell me, how would ANY of the stronger gun laws proposed after Sandy Hook actually have prevented the tragedy, were they in place beforehand? How would the passage of a “universal” background check bill (i.e. registration scheme) have stopped this, or any other, mass shooter? here’s a hint: Nearly ALL these guys passed background checks, and NONE of them got their guns through the type of private transaction that this bill sought to criminalize. Sorry libturds, but when you use a tragedy to push for unrelated gun laws, you’re politicizing it, sorry. The American people are sick to death of Obama using these shootings to call for more gun laws, gun laws that any fair-minded person realizes will not stop these mass shootings.
Libturd. Typical Republicunt name calling.
And yet you can’t even come close to answering my question, now can you? You don’t care about the truth at all. You libturds make me violently ill
No, that’s the NRA bullshit you’ve swallowed.
Yet you can’t refute my assertions with anything other than hateful name-calling. Yawn, I think I’ll stick with my original assertions until someone can actually refute them with more than just a bad temper.
You love to claim that there’s nothing we can do to reduce gun violence. Tell me how well that same argument works when it comes to reducing deaths due to automobile accidents, or by smoking cigarettes, or by almost any other cause of death.
We are motivated to do SOMETHING.
In the case of automobiles: seat belts, anti-lock brakes, more collision resistant cars, and DUI laws, to mention a few.
In the case of cigarettes: warning labels, higher prices, and a limit on the age of the person purchasing cigarettes.
We ALWAYS seek to reduce the death rate, no matter the cause. Except for guns, where people like you wring your hands and claim there is nothing to be done.
I respectfully beg to differ.
There are several steps we could take, none of which would ABSOLUTELY bring the gun death count to zero, but many of which would help REDUCE the appalling rate (when compared to every other modern, industrialized, western-style democracy) of gun deaths in this country.
We are motivated to do SOMETHING.
That’s quite the straw man argument you’ve got there. Where did I say “there’s nothing we can do to reduce gun violence“??
What I DID say is that the gun control measures currently being proposed by the Obama admin and their allies will do NOTHING (not even help reduce at all) to reduce our “appalling” crime rates in this country. There are plenty of things we can do, plenty of proposals brought up by NRA-backed politicians over the years (the Grassley-Cruz amendment in 2013, for example). Just because you ignore what we bring to the table doesn’t mean we’re not bringing anything to the table.
Oh, I know full well that you’re “motivated to do SOMETHING.” The problem is that your “something” will have no effect, and worse, targets law-abiding gun owners in ways that do not affect criminals at all.
Another idiot regurgitating the ol’ “Gun laws won’t work because criminals don’t obey them” BS!
Hey R&G, why don’t you tell us all which laws criminals do obey?
How about you get a grip and try actually reading what I wrote. As soon as you explain WHY we should pass laws like these that will have ZERO effect on crime, then I’ll answer your question. However, since you don’t care about the truth at all, I’m not holding my breath.
Would Lanza’s mother have been able to buy all the guns in the house if a background check had revealed that she had a seriously mentally ill child at home.
It’s the gun nuts that are getting dumber and dumber, so dumb they shouldn’t be allowed to own guns.
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to detect and diagnose mental illness? But YES, this is one area in which our laws can be improved, one area of improvement which the NRA has actively supported for YEARS, but which is continually shot down by the dems. In fairness, mental illness is so difficult to diagnose that even the experts themselves admit that their “diagnoses” have still no better than random chance of being correct.
Disgusting display of misplaced loyalty. The gun slaughter of Americans goes unabated because Republicans don’t truly understand the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is regarding a “well regulated militia” which in today’s world is the National Guard Does not refer to self appointed gun nuts.
deeeeeeeeerp, such an old, tired, thoroughly debunked argument. Why do you grabbers continue to parrot this boldfaced lie??
tell me exactly what the second amendment does say then…in the terms of when it was written, not how you fantasize it to be.
It uses the words “the people” to describe the group whose right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed upon. Taking this in the context of a time when the word “militia” referred to ALL citizens, it becomes quite clear what the 2A says. It’s your silly libs that are trying to twist it to mean something entirely different.
We’re talking the 18rh century when a skilled rifleman got off 3 shots a minute. Also note the words WELL REGULATED MILITIA.
Deeerp, nice deflection and subject change. Too bad my initial assertion still holds true, the 2A has always applied to individual citizens, just like almost every other element of the Bill of Rights and other amendments to the constitution..
Again, the 2nd Amendment says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed because of the necessity of well-regulated militias. Well, there are no more militias these days except for the National Guard. When you join the NG you receive your M-16, and when you leave you have to give it back. There is no individual right except as tied to organized and authorized defense.
No individual right, eh? Funny how not only multiple Supreme Court decisions ranging from 1876 to 2010 have affirmed that the 2A is an individual right, but also that other preparatory documents from the 1700s clearly reveal that the language of the amendment was meant to refer to individuals. Funny how your ilk will never admit that the word “militia” at that time referred to ALL citizens. I wonder why that is?
There are no “grabbers’ you moron!
Oh really? What would you call the gun confiscation currently happening in New York? How about the proposed gun confiscation in Wisconsin?? Sorry, but these legally-owned weapons are currently being “grabbed” by these state governments. You can’t make up for your shocking level of ignorance with name-calling.
http://legis.wisconsin.Gov/assembly/78/subeck/media/1149/15-3635_1-002.pdf
http://www.foxnews.Com/us/2013/12/05/nypd-targets-owners-multi-clip-shotguns-rifles/
No one wants to take my guns away? Are you SURE about that? I’m curious to know what you then think of the gun confiscations currently happening in New York? How about the proposed gun confiscation in Wisconsin??
http://legis.wisconsin.Gov/assembly/78/subeck/media/1149/15-3635_1-002.pdf
http://www.foxnews.Com/us/2013/12/05/nypd-targets-owners-multi-clip-shotguns-rifles/
He can’t coordinate with them, that’s illegal.