Carolyn McCarthy Readies Gun Control Bill

Discussion in 'In the News' started by Robbyb03, Jan 9, 2011.

  1. Robbyb03

    Robbyb03 New Member

    511
    0
    0
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html

    "My staff is working on looking at the different legislation fixes that we might be able to do and we might be able to introduce as early as tomorrow,†McCarthy told POLITICO in a Sunday afternoon phone interview."


    "Loughner legally purchased his weapon – a Glock 19 with an extended magazine – from an Arizona store. The same kind of extended magazine was illegal under the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. The ability to buy a weapon that fires hundreds of bullets in less than a minute,†said Quigley. “He had an additional magazine capability. That’s not what a hunter needs. That’s not what someone needs to defend their home. That’s what you use to hunt people.â
     
  2. RedDawnTheMusical

    RedDawnTheMusical Well-Known Member

    10,784
    315
    83
    Yeah, we knew that was coming....
     

  3. jmathis84

    jmathis84 New Member

    1,256
    0
    0
    Yeah some nutcase shot someone and now everyone gonna suffer. Samel ole same ole.
     
  4. mountainpass

    mountainpass Under Scrutiny

    19,367
    29
    48
    Wow 200+......
     
  5. jmathis84

    jmathis84 New Member

    1,256
    0
    0
    That is a badd :cantsay: Glock HUH?
     
  6. Match10

    Match10 Active Member

    6,922
    4
    38
    It's her claim to fame.... She does it at any time there is a gun-related headline tragedy.
     
  7. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,379
    555
    113
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/01 ... Page2.html

    "Another vocal supporter for gun control, Illinois Rep. Mike Quigley, told POLITICO that he hopes 'something good' can come from the Arizona tragedy – perhaps discussion on a new assault weapon ban, sales at gun shows and tracing measures."

    Just like the Dems to not let a tragedy go to waste. Another false excuse to erode our liberty. But they can pipe up or voice up all they want right now. Whatever they propose won't even get a sneeze from Boehner's House.
     
  8. niadhf

    niadhf New Member

    840
    0
    0
    Because we can't have a set of laws that coverse EVERYONE. we need seperate services and laws and health care and retirement plans for "THE CHOSEN FEDERALIS"
     
  9. LordSephiroth

    LordSephiroth New Member

    149
    0
    0
    I wonder how Boehner is going to handle this. I fear with something this high profile, it's gonna be hard to just ignore her like most people have.
     
  10. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,343
    612
    113
    Three points:

    1--- High capacity magazines are fun for plinking. Maybe not so relevant from a compact 9mm pistol, but from a long gun they sure are popular at the range.

    2-- High capacity magazines ARE helpful for self-defense. Ever hear of criminals gathering in groups? Consider the Florida couple known for adopting a dozen children, who were killed in a home invasion armed robbery by EIGHT (that's 8 ) ninja-gear-wearing assassins. That was in the summer of 2009. How about gangs? Do you think you can shoot one gang member without having to shoot all the fellow gang members with him on the scene? Nope. Gang members are like Pringle's potato crisps. You can't stop with just one.

    3-- Yeah, high capacity magazines ARE more dangerous if nutcases and criminals get their hands on them and use them. You're either stupid or lying if you deny this. A bad guy with a 6 shot revolver is not in a position to do a mass-shooting and kill a dozen people the way a guy with a semi-auto and a couple of 30 round mags is. If you want to sound like a moron, be sure to tell people that a gun is a gun is a gun and there's no difference between an "assault weapon" and any other weapon. As if you have no preference whether you defend your home with bolt-action rifle with a 5 round internal mag or an M4gery with a 90-round drum.
     
  11. Hunley

    Hunley Active Member

    1,704
    0
    36
    Isn't defending yourself in your home basically hunting the person/people that broke in it to do God knows what to you and/or your family? I'll take my FNP 45 USG loaded with 16 rounds of 230gr. hollow points and my 200 lumen Surefire and declare open season on their behinds, and nothing less! I've had to shoot in a home defense situation before, and I'll be damned if a law maker will tell me what I can and cannot use to stop a CRIMINAL!

    Based on this moron's logic, we should make it impossible for cars to go over 80 mph since you shouldn't need to go any faster. Nor should they hold more than 15 gallons of fuel since there is bound to be a gas station along the way in this day and age. :roll:

    And as for the hundreds of rounds a minute... I would pay good money to see somebody shoot 200+ rounds a minute out of a stock Glock 17 with 15 round magazines. It would be pushing it for a Glock 18 when you factor in reloads and fumbling with the at least 14 magazines you would need to carry for those 200+ rounds.

    Ladies and gentleman, if you ever needed proof that democracy will eventually tear this country apart, look at the people voted into office by the uninformed masses.
     
  12. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,379
    555
    113
    Gunsmoker, the elite ruling class will despise you for making points 1 and 2. To add insult to injury, they will not even thaw their hearts toward you for making point 3, but will merely try to use this kind of thinking in our ranks to their advantage to further their gun grabbing agenda. We still love you though. :)

    ANY tool is dangerous in the hands of nutcases (evil people who don't attempt to restrain their wickedness). Fortunately, the vast majority of people are not nutcases. If any government fixes are implemented to address the tool/nutcase problem that impacts the majority of us to any negative degree, it would be a fix not worthy of having. The liberals are fond of saying with breathlessness, "but if even ONE life is saved, it would be worth it".

    Let's poinder this. Suppose "fix" ABC is implemented, that beyond a shadow of a doubt would save not one, but ten lives per year from now on, that would have otherwise died. But let's say that the same fix increased the cost of ammo via taxes, regulations, and identity stamping by 50%. It also increased the cost of the averaged priced pistol by 35%, outlawed pistol and rifle magazines over 10 rounds, imposed a waiting period of 30 days to purchase any firearm, required firearm registration, limited firearm purchases to two per year, and banned firearms at public gatherings.

    Worth it? Nope, for liberty is too precious. Let's not punish the whole class because one or two students act up.

    Let freedom ring!
     
  13. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,379
    555
    113
    I don't think he'll even blink. He remembers how bad the Dems lost in '94 because of their assault on the 2nd Amendment, and wouldn't want to put the brakes on Republican momentum by giving their proposals even passing consideration. At least I hope not!
     
  14. pml

    pml Active Member

    1,978
    0
    36
    All of these high profile cases are going to take a toll somewhere. I'd be in favor of tighter background checks, not a problem.

    You might be surprised but actually coming out and saying that 10 dead people aren't worth the inconvenience, doesn't help our side. Yes we know that the guy could have just as easily decided to pile into the crowd with a car like the crazy student in NC.

    How do you stop people like that? I don't have the answer, but I am open to suggestion if someone comes up with a good one.
     
  15. AtlantaJames

    AtlantaJames New Member

    285
    0
    0
    From what I have heard and seen so far he is a total outlier, a square peg in a world of round holes. He never popped up far enough on the radar to wind up with a restriction that would have kept him from legally purchasing a firearm (which wouldn't stop him from getting a gun or using a car as someone stated above) or from being committed or jailed. He's an exception on all fronts. He doesn't fit any tidy advocacy group, much to the chagrin of extreme ideologues on both ends of the political spectrum.

    From what has been reported so far, reasonable people should recognize that this guy is frankly the price we pay for an open society with rightful freedoms. Trying limit this guy's freedoms (again based solely on what I've seen so far) would unjustly limit the freedom's of the rest of us.

    He did this, not the gun, not the magazine, not Acorn, Sarah Palin, President Obama, the dictionary, Glenn Beck or some racist wingnut website. He did this because he was loose on the street and there was nothing he did (apparently) up until the event that warranted taking away his free movement, the only thing that truly would have deterred him from committing the crime.
     
  16. jmorriss

    jmorriss Active Member

    1,835
    9
    38
    They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

    Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.

    He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.

    He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.

    People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.

    If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.

    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.

    Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.

    Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.




    I think that covers most of the possible variations.
     
  17. AtlantaJames

    AtlantaJames New Member

    285
    0
    0
    There are those who's liberty should be restricted and that says nothing about what the rest of us deserve. The questions is, do any of this clown's actions prior to the crime warrant hsi or someone else's liberty to be restricted? From what I've seen so far, it's doubtful.
     
  18. jmorriss

    jmorriss Active Member

    1,835
    9
    38
    Good luck explaining that to the sheeple herders.
     
  19. pml

    pml Active Member

    1,978
    0
    36
    There are indications from former college classmates that the answer would be yes.
     
  20. AtlantaJames

    AtlantaJames New Member

    285
    0
    0
    Yea I'm re-thinking that one, based on the fact that it was apparently disturbing enough to get him removed from campus. That's pretty extreme.