We just discussed rabidly anti-gun New York Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy's histrionics over the appointment of Kirsten Gillibrand to fill Hillary Clinton's vacated senate seat.
Aren't I being a bit unfair? Isn't that a little harsh?
Well what would you call someone who wants to ban something--who wants to make criminals out of people who possess something she doesn't approve of--and she doesn't even know what it is? Gun activists will be familiar with this video. Some of you newer to the debate need to know about it too.
And here, Carolyn introduces special guest star, Assemblywoman Patricia Eddington, who wants to ban .50 BMG rifles because, according to her, they shoot an "incendiary...heat seeking device"!
You couldn't make this stuff up. These are the people who would use the power of the state to disarm you and me. They insist on imposing their ignorance on the rest of us-- under force of law.
It's simply unconscionable.
------------
Activist Alert: Nordyke on C-SPAN
Today
This weekend, C-SPAN presents oral arguments in the case of Nordyke vs. King. The Court decides if Alameda County, California's ban on gun shows at the annual county fair is unconstitutional. Gun show promoters Russell & Sallie Nordyke argue that the ban violates their First Amendment right of free speech and their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
C-SPAN at 7pm (ET)
Court Hears Challenge To Ban On Gun Shows Check out the latest from other Gun Rights Examiners:
Comments
The depth of ignorance on display here by McCarthy and her ilk cannot be explained by their just "not knowing". One must factor in malevolence to truly understand them.
As to McCarthy, I have never before known a widow so happy to be a widow that she would dedicate her life to ensuring that others die helplessly at the hands of the monsters among us. That sounds harsh and just nasty mean to say it out loud, but what is really nasty mean is that McCarthy would do her best to ensure that uncountable others share her husband's fate under laws the woman approves and legislates for.
To you wives who read this, ask yourself why McCarthy wants to put your husband at the same disadvantage (a fatal one)her husband was at, on that train. Why would she want you or your child at that disadvantage?
This woman is death's disciple. Is this who should use the force of law to punish you if you do not remain a helpless and defenseless victim-to-be?
Helplessness is not a security measure. If it were law enforcement would be unarmed, the Secret Service would not exist, Capitol security would not be needed. Yet the McCarthys of the world insist on the best and most complete armed security forces to protect them, while demanding that you and I practice "security through helplessness". Don't any of you people who vote for swine like this find that passing odd?
Ignorance is the bread and butter of than anti-gun crusade. The ones who do know what they're talking about intentionally misrepresent the fact to those who don't and the ones who don't talk anyway.
heh, a local news station here reported recently that .50 rifles shoot rounds that can "destroy concrete bunkers".
I'm still trying to figure that one out.
nevermind the subject of firearms. they can't even articulate or remember what they're actually talking about.
who would trust them with a grocery list, let alone the bill of rights?
From the first video, "Do you know what a barrel shroud is?"
"Um, it's the thing that goes up..." (?)
"No, it's not."
Who do these idiots think they are? They don't even know what they're trying to ban. It'd be even funnier if it wasn't a serious issue.
Uuumm, hate to be cold about this but if you backdated ANY law that this woman proposed to ,say, two years before her husbands death, would they have helped him?
she wasn't in the legislature then. She won her seat on the sympathy vote after her husband was killed and her son wounded by promising that she would do her best to see that other husbands and sons suffered the same fate.
It sounded good to NYC residents. They voted for her. I don't understand their approval of murder, but there you have it. They do approve of it. Even to the point of voting for someone who enables more of it.
McCarthy's behavior is consistent with that of someone who suffers from PTSD. She needs medication and therapy, not an a soapbox.
And i'm serious here. Her reaction to Kirsten Gillibrand bordered on psychopathic.
If I recall correctly, the sh**** that killed her hubby paused to reload. I wasn't there of course. Why didn't some/anyone rush him? Probably herd mentality. Sheesh
As disturbing as her anti-gun hysteria is in any legislator, what is even more disturbing is her willingness to push a bill when she doesn't understand the words that are in it. What's absolutely frightening is the fact that she is the one who wrote it, and she doesn't know the meaning of the words in the bill. The only thing that can explain that is <i>deliberate</i> ignorance.
The fact that she's willing to pass a law while <i>refusing</i> to try to know what it actually does should be absolutely morally repugnant to everyone, whether you agree with her stance on guns or not.
It should, in fact, be grounds for her impeachment.
straightarrow: That doesn't answer the question. Would ANY of her laws have helped? That is the question.
I'll offer a response to vinnie's question:
Does anyone really believe that the same guy who would ignore laws against murder would somehow find his pious side for a gun law? Any gun law? (Evidence: the entire data set of NYC gun murders under the Sullivan Act, which should not have happened if it were anywise effectual)
Does anyone really believe that laws (of any kind) will stop people from trying to kill other people? Really? You willing to bet your own life on it, personally? (Evidence: tens of thousands of restrictive gun laws in metropolitan areas just in this country alone, which no rational person can say have stopped the problem.)
Seems to me that the only sustainable way to prevent yourself being murdered, in the wake of all this abject failure to protect, is to be prepared to put your intended killer on the deck, yourself. (Is this really that hard to understand?) And here, we come to it: the victim was REQUIRED BY LAW to be defenseless. (Evidence: disarmed law abiding citizen, dead. How about those "gun-free zones"?)
I'm gonna have to go with "no" on this question.
Vinnie, the answer is, no.
Nothing McCarthy and her Democrat friends have proposed, short of banning pistols altogether (and what do you do about the millions already out there) would have stopped Ferguson.
Ferguson's gun, a Ruger P-89 semiauto pistol, would not have been banned by any of the legislation McCarthy has proposed. And Ferguson picked up the gun in California seven months before the crime, after a background check and a 15-day waiting period. Remember, Furguson's goal was to kill as many people as he could. To argue that a ban on "high-capacity" magazines would have made a difference for the better you must assume that Ferguson would not have compensated for that by bringing multiple guns, by attaching magazines together heel to heel so they could be changed more quickly, or by choosing a higher-caliber weapon - in which case he might have killed MORE people, even if he fired fewer shots.
But hey, if we're to be driven by the "but if it saves just ONE life" mentality, I am waiting for the ban on 5-gallon plastic buckets. Do you know how many small children have drowned in those? Or how about cigarettes? Alcohol? Oh wait, we already tried banning alcohol. Refresh my memory, how'd that work out?
What more likely would have saved some lives is if someone else on that train besides the madman had been legally allowed to carry a pistol. Concealed carry- remember, if it saves ONE LIFE... ;)
Yes, vinnie. I did answer your question. Or did you think when I said everything she has done guarantees more victims like her husband, was an endorsement?
Let's start with presumption that murder is a bad thing. Then let's progress to the concept that enabling murder is therefore a bad thing and does not help save even one vicitm.
Then we can also assume those actions that enable murder would not help anyone but the murderer in the completion of his murder spree. I would have thought the above simple and logical statements would have made a "NO" answer to your question so obvious as to need no more iteration.
Guess I was wrong. The answer to your question is "No".
This woman is a moron and thats being nice by giving her some credit. A moron can think a little to do stupid stuff to prove themselves to be a moron.
Her husband was disarmed as were all the other folks and they were butchered because they were disarmed by law. Had someone been armed her husband might very well be alive today. So her answer is to create an environment that will make the dangerous world we live in even more dangerous by disarming even more people.
This woman needs her picture next to the word, "crackpot" in the dictionary.
I posted after reading what David had to say. After reading the post from the other readers, there's something thats huge thats been left out. This moron was giving elevated status by the NRA for having written H. R. 2640. The NRA made her out to be a congresswoman who knows guns. We all know thats not the truth but its hard to knock her to folks that don't know much about guns and see the NRA backed her bill.
If the NRA was going to support a bill after VA Tech and the freak who whacked out on mind controlling drugs his doctor gave him. The NRA should have got anyone or how about some republican to write a bill like that. Don't allow some mental whack job to do it because she's going to use having done it once again and again and again. Or maybe this insured the NRA lots of coming gun bills to go after its members for more money.
To again take up the cause of disarmament would certainly be deploying a politically incendiary, heat-producing device. Although McCarthy never stopped--and she can't call 911 on all her critics.
Some folks are predicting a second Great Depression. We still have some people who believe (as in faith) in Prohibition in this country. (That's what we used to call a "ban".) There's no reason to continue accepting this social engineering hokum. We've learned too much since.
Garry, they are talking about a Barret Automatic Rifle. McCarthy saw one in a video & now she says it is the weapon of choice for criminals. She couldn't even lift one let alone shoot it. It will go through two or more concrete block walls or a vehicle & still kill you. It will do more than that if Armor Piercing bullets are used. At $10 to $15 thousand not many could afford one. They are also controlled by the ATF, so try to get a permit to buy one - fat chance!
OldFirefighter you incorrectly stated that the .50 caliber semi automatic rifle was an "automatic" rifle, and that....."They are also controlled by the ATF, so try to get a permit to buy one - fat chance!".
That is simply not true. The semi automatic .50 caliber Barrett rifle does not exceed .50 caliber and is not "automatic" but is SEMI automatic and is NOT required by the federal government nor ATF to have to have a permit to own. Owning a .50 caliber semi automatic rifle is no different under federal law than owning a .22 caliber semi automatic rifle. Neither one requires a federal permit nor do most states laws require you to secure a permit to purchase one.
Wow, maybe they could heat seek some weapons knowledge. Possibly "Weapons for Dummies? All you will ever need to know about heat seeking incendiary bullets, in 10 easy to read chapters."
Lying scum traitors, stupid as dead cockroaches!!
Mckarthy won't let up on gun control even if her life depends on it. Lets face some facts. The liberal democrats have there stronghold in places like NY, MA, CA, CT where they thrive like the plague. The assault on firearm ownership from these liberal people isn't about crime control, it's about eroding the second amendment. They suggest not only a ban on certain firearms but now are trying to push for a national gun registration. This isn't the idea of common citizens, it's the idea of liberal
What's really disgusting about all this is people VOTED for these "individuals." So the blame for this kind of stupidity is laid on those who are brain-dead enough to "pull the lever" for know-nothings like these. I think an example needs to be made of those who voted for these idiots. Maybe a 4 x 4 up along side the head will make those voters THINK the next time the elections roll around. Then again, if the voters are as brain-dead as these 2 idiots, we're in deep kimchi.
It should be obvious at this stage of the game that no amount of logic can change these fools mentality. Gun Control has nothing to do with citizen safety, and everything to do with "Control". The government does not trust the citizen with guns because they are fearful of our ability to fight back if it gets to much further out of alignment with our Constitutional rights. If you were lying to, and stealing from your fellow citizens, would you want them armed?
what a retard...
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!