Quote of the day—Carolyn McCarthy

No. that’s absolutely not true. I’ve been working on gun issues for the last 14 years, since I’ve been in Congress. This is something I’m passionate about, as much as they are passionate about say their Second Amendment rights.

We’re not dealing about guns here. We’re dealing about a piece of equipment that goes to the gun. I think when you think about just common sense here, large capacity clips that can basically, in my opinion, be weapons of mass destruction, should not be available to the average citizen. They will be available to our military. They will be available to our police officers.

Carolyn McCarthy
January 11, 2011
McCarthy To Propose Ban On High-Capacity Ammo
In response to the question, “What would you say to gun rights supporters who may be listening to you and feeling that you’re politicizing this rather extreme tragedy to push the bill that you’re describing?”
[Notice that she doesn’t answer the question other than, “No. That’s absolutely not true.” No evidence, no logic, just vigorous assertion.

Further notice that she apparently thinks “weapons of mass destruction” should be available to police officers. Or she is lying when she says, “large capacity clips that can basically, in my opinion, be weapons of mass destruction”. And/or she has crap for brains.

And of course the headline writer thinks there is such a thing as “High-Capacity Ammo”.—Joe]

5 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Carolyn McCarthy

  1. Can we please stop using the term “weapon of mass destruction” for things that clearly aren’t? I fail to see how a 30 round magazine is similar in nature to a nuclear warhead.

  2. C’mon JMD, use some imagination! Suppose, for example, that every other bullet is made of antimatter. I bet you didn’t think of that, did you? Or, perhaps the bullets are made out of depleted uranium–not only will it gradually get more radioactive over time (if I’m not mistaken), but, but, but, you could probably put it into a breeder reactor, and make it into active uranium, and from there into plutonium, which, if compressed, will cause a big city-destroying BOOM!

    Ok, ok, maybe you’re right: calling a spring-loaded aluminum box filled with lead-capped brass cylinders containing flammable powder a “weapon of mass destruction” is a tad over-the-top…

    …unless, perhaps, those bullets are Self-Aware Nazi Steampunk Zombie Piranha Bullets.

    But even then, mass destruction?

  3. You are writing about the same lady who wanted legislation against but does not know what a barrel shroud is.

    Yes, this is the famous “shoulder thing that goes up” woman.

    She is another example of using her relation to a crime victim to further her political agenda, without any expertise or even knowledge of her cause. In other words, she dances in the blood of the dead.

  4. You can buy all the presses you want, but no more than .01 oz of ink and five sheets of paper at a time.

    Is that freedom of the press?

  5. According to 18 USC §2332a, a document McCarthy, as a United States Representative, should be familiar with, “weapons of mass destruction” are limited to the following:

    “(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title (i.e. explosive device);
    (B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
    (C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title)
    (D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.”

    While I am sure the BATFE would love to categorize magazines as Destructive Devices, they are not, and thus fail the test.

    Of course, here I am, expecting our duly-elected representatives to not only be educated on the topics they are discussing, but also honest

Comments are closed.