Quote of the day—Carolyn McCarthy

I don’t understand why people can’t have common sense. Large magazines do not need to be part of it. The large manufacturers, they should even take a moral point of view in not selling them to ordinary citizens through the gun stores. The police and military can still use them. But I just morally think they should not look to sell them to the average citizen.

Carolyn McCarthy
July 28, 2011
Norway shooter: Ammo clips were from U.S.
[Yes, it’s “the shoulder thing that goes up” Carolyn McCarthy demonstrating her ignorance and bigotry again.

“Common sense” is a big issue with these folks isn’t it? It must be because arithmetic is beyond them and/or they know the numbers don’t support their conclusions.

And how does one “morally think”? I’m pretty sure that is one of the same argument used by those opposed to mixed race and homosexual marriages. That’s sure some good company you keep there McCarthy. I’ll bet you and Fred Phelps would get along just fine as long as you both consistently and appropriately swapped the words “gays” and “guns” during the conversation.

The entire article could be a case study in “layers of editorial oversight”. There are things like, “The Norwegian press has written extensively about how Breivik legally acquired his weapons and ammunition, but the mail-order purchase of his ammo from the United States has received little attention in the English-language press.” Apparently the author, Reid J. Epstein, doesn’t know the difference between ammo and “clips”. Although I was surprised that there were two instance where he appropriately used “magazine”.

And McCarthy must be reading the gun blogs because she wasn’t quoted as saying “clips” even once and she is quoted as saying “magazine” twice. Perhaps she is capable of learning. I wonder if someone were to introduce her to the “in common use” part of the Heller decision if she could grok that as well. But probably not. I pretty sure Dorothy Parker had people like her in mind when she explained about horticulture.—Joe]


11 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Carolyn McCarthy

  1. I’m still trying to figure out how he got his magazines/clips shipped from the US to Norway. You have to list the contents of an out-of-country package regardless of the shipping agency. So unless the shipper lied on the FEDERAL customs form, something ain’t kocher here.
    Side bar – When I was working for the .gov at Embassies, I had to fill out the custom forms for anything outgoing, and anything coming to me at the Embassy had to likewise have the proper documents attached.

  2. emdfl: Simple. The meathead who shipped the magazines had the words “sporting goods” or somesuch on the declaration.

    He violated ITAR, and can be jailed for each magazine, and could serve more time than the killer who ordered them.

  3. Could just as easily read:

    I don’t understand why people can’t have common sense. Large “Gas Tanks” do not need to be part of it. The car manufacturers, they should even take a moral point of view in not selling “Large Gas Tanks” to ordinary citizens through the car dealers. The police and military can still use them. But I just morally think they should not look to sell them to the average citizen.

  4. To “morally think” is to agree with Carolyn McCarthy’s police state utopia model as the proper arrangement of society. Anything moral, balanced, compassionate, fair, just, reasonable, sensible or intelligent is, by its nature, Fascist, socialist or communist, don’t you know. In short; coercion is the very definition of good, and therefore liberty is the definition of evil.

    If there were three rules for dealing with leftists, understanding the above would probably be Rule One. Obviously the Republicans this week, for example, have utterly failed Rule One.

  5. I’ve always had a problem with “common sense” being tossed around by politicritters and the putrid fungi who work in the press…

    Think about the connotation.
    If something is “common sense” then EVERYONE with any sense should know, and agree with it.
    If you don’t agree with “common sense” then you obviously just don’t know as well as I do.
    Since commonality is more important than truth (hell, it’s so important that you’re considered to be justified when you have to lie about having it just to make your weak argument!), if you lack “common sense” you are not only “wrong” but stupid, evil, racist, a zombie…and you HATE BACON! *GaSp*

    Any politician who utters those words automatically brings himself right to the edge of my “never EVER going to vote for” cliff.

    After all, shouldn’t “common sense” dictate that you not say things which are inherently insulting to the people you’re lying to for votes?

  6. Regarding the possible ITAR violation by the US exporter:

    I have regular dealings with US firearm & accessory retailers, and the last time I placed an order with a firm that I had not previously dealt with, they advised me that “All orders in excess of USD$100 value or which contain items on the restricted list must have a US Export Permit. This permit can only be acquired with a valid IMPORT permit (with six months or more remaining validity) or End-User Certificate from authorities in the destination country.”

    At the time, magazines were NOT on the restricted list, and were definitely not more than $100 – that’s why I was buying them ex-US. The restricted list may have been expanded since then.

  7. That’s not the result of ignorance and bias, not at all. In fact she’s absolutely right. The only problem I see with it is the magazine capacity limit is way down the line of things we should be fighting for.

    1. Background checks on all gun transfers (you call it the private sale ban, I suppose)
    2. Licensing of all gun owners requiring criminal and mental health background checks
    3. Registraion of every gun sold to a licensed individual
    4. Safe storage requirements for the home.

    After those we can talk about college campuses and suppressors and magazine size and whatever else comes up.

  8. Mikeb wants to radically inhibit access to firearms for honest, peaceable citizens who only mind their own business. Criminals of course will have no such restrictions at all, and will get guns as easily as they now get certain drugs (except that guns are durable goods whereas drugs need to be resupplied constantly).

    That is of course the whole point– there is no other and never has been. There will always be guns (or other deadly force) so we’re talking only about who will control them– the peaceable citizens who only want to be left alone, on one hand, and the government and criminals who only want to plunder, on the other.

    This exact point was made back in the 1700s, in support of the 2A and mikeb knows that very well– it’s a matter of which direction you want the balance of power to fall.

    That being the case– that reality favors an armed populace as opposed to a monopoly on arms for criminals and tyrants, the mikebs of the world have a serious problem. They’ve set themselves up against reality. In order to hold on to their position, the craziness must by necessity be poured on more and more heavily, until it takes over their whole thought process.

    You can point out all sorts of proof that they’re wrong in this assertion, and they’re forced to deny it and redirect. You take their redirection and prove that wrong, and it’s deny and redirect again, ’round and ’round. One way or the other, because the left is simply incapable of leaving anyone alone, eventually it comes to blows.

    Many leftists actually understand all this on some level, and they’re not only counting on it, they’re actively pushing for it.


    I wonder if Michael Bonomo is aware of the small problem that two of his four demands are blatantly illegal under multiple current federal laws? I wonder if he even knows which laws I am referring to? Granted, American law is mutable, but one would think that he would first concern himself with changing the existing law before passing new ones. Of course, I am completely overlooking how his demands (and, really, why should we deal with a deranged individual who only offers baseless demands with no concession for any other point of view?) specifically infringe on the rights to keep and bear arms, to freely associate, to engage in commerce, to privacy, and so forth; how his demands have not stopped mass shootings elsewhere (or even significantly impacted crime rates); or how firearm ownership appears to have a negative correlation against both firearm-related deaths and firearm-related crime. But, hey, one thing at a time, right?

    Moving, “common sense”, in this kind of application to gun control, is a blatant “appeal to popularity” logical fallacy – just because multiple people believe that normal-capacity magazines have no “moral” use (what the hell does that even mean?) in private hands does not necessarily mean that is actually the case. Even worse, banning normal-capacity magazines is not a popular position to begin with, as evinced by Joe’s example, the failure of the AWB to be renewed, and the failure of new attempts in the wake of the Tucson shooting. A logical fallacy backed up by a lie is a sad thing indeed.

    A magazine has no moral weight one way or the other – the user has one, and one has to wonder why McCarthy continues to put all of her emphasis on the tools rather than the users? As someone far wiser than her once said, “A vote is like a rifle – its usefulness depends on the character of the user.”

  10. I wish I could remember where I read this…but it’s stuck with me.
    “If you still believe that gun control has anything to do with reducing crime then you are, with all offense intended, an idiot.”

    …or something like that.

Comments are closed.