Skip to comments.McCarthy magazine bill an affront to common sense as well as liberty
Posted on 01/17/2011 4:13:19 AM PST by marktwain
On Tuesday, January 18, I will introduce legislation to restore the prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices in the United States, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy writes to her Congressional colleagues.
Shall we examine the congresswomans reasoning?
The United States Constitution guarantees to our citizens the right to keep and bear arms. At the same time that we can all acknowledge this basic right, I believe that we should also be able to come together to develop reasonable laws designed to ensure that the right to bear arms is exercised safely and responsibly. Just as we all celebrate and defend the first amendment but also understand that practical limits must be in place, such as not shouting, Fire in a crowded theater, so too should we be able to respect the second amendment while at the same time supporting commonsense regulations.
No, the United States Constitution says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And you can yell fire in a crowded theater. Any damn time you please:
The government can impose no prior restraint on anything that you may say or write. To do so violates your unalienable rights under the Constitution; the only ones bound by prior restraints in such matters are the government.
I would, however, advise that there actually be a fire. Because if there's not, it's proper for your reckless action to meet with a penalizing response. And if someone is threatened or injured, it's just to expect punishment for your actions and restitution for your victims.
I believe there are many aspects of our nations gun laws that deserve close scrutiny and updating.
Note she said many. Shes just warming up here.
She also believes a barrel shroud is that shoulder thing that goes up. And her state-level partner in citizen disarmament believes .50 BMG ammo has heat-seeking incendiary devices that cook deer from the inside (seriouslysee sidebar video). Why should what these demonstrably incompetent, oath-breaking, malpracticing harridans believe be binding on anyone who isnt a subversive loon?
The only purpose for the existence of these devices is to be able to shoot as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
Thats why she carved out an Only Ones exemption? Is that what she wants the police to be able to do?
There is no reason that these devices should be available to the general public.
Sure there is. What if we have another LA riot? Or another Hurricane Katrina? You know, where government abdicates its primary function and cedes wide swaths of disaster area to rampaging, murderous mobs? And where the cops who havent gone AWOL or joined the looters are opening fire on unarmed citizens ?
These are the ones McCarthy thinks should be able to shoot as many people as possible as quickly as possible?
But there I go again, disparaging the proven, Liberty-enhancing benefits of a state monopoly of violence
What if the disaster is even larger, even more widespread, and of longer, even indefinite duration? Might just the sight of an adequate capacity magazine on a firearm be enough to persuade a savage mob that vastly outnumbers a defender to turn around? Might that even happen without a shot being fired? And might the outcome be different if an adequate deterrent has been denied to the innocent, giving the advantage to the aggressorsunder force of state arms?
McCarthy tells us her legislation will not ban the possession of currently-owned magazines (yet):
Instead, the bill will prohibit the transfer of those devices currently in existence. This allows individuals who currently own the devices to legally retain possession but works to prevent the spread of thedevices by making it illegal to transfer them to another individual.
And when I die? Will the government come to collect what I have lawfully and morally owned? Must my heirs turn them in, or face having their lives destroyed for being the recoipients of an "illegal transfer"? How would the government know? They wouldnt?
Sounds to me like another loophole to be hysterically decried once they get this piece swallowed.
And then theres this final bit of offensive nonsense, an admission that illustrates what an irrational zealot this evil little noisemaker truly is:
It is a sad fact of reality that we will never be able to prevent every instance of gun violence. We also will not be able to keep these large capacity magazines out of the hands of every criminal who would use them. This reality, however, does not make our efforts irrelevant.
In fact, thats exactly what it does.
As irrelevant as Rep. McCarthy, her legislative co-conspirators, her ignorant followers and her complicit media cheerleaders Because heres the thing: She and they can pass any damn law they want, and ultimately, theyll be faced with a core of Americans who simply will not be threatened or intimidated into obedience.
And we are everywhere.
Is this the new McCarthyism? (sorry, I couldn’t resist)
What’s with these emotional non-thinkers like mccarthy? The issue here has to do with mentally deranged roaming the streets after threatening many others. It has nothing to do with guns. He could have just as easily driven a speeding automobile into the crowd or blown up a suicide vest with explosives and shrapnel. Who elects these clowns? Other clowns...
That would be a waste of time because these people don't apply reasoning, they only apply emotion to any circumstance.
It looks like Tucson is infested with northeast liberals, while Phoenix seems to have retained its Arizona character. Phoenix elects Arpaio, while Tucson elects Dupnik.
Apparently so. The difference is that the first McCarthy was right, and this one is wrong.
What do you expect from a woman who rode her husband’s corpse and her son’s injury to a seat in the U.S. House?
If the republicans pass any of this crap... I will wash my hands of them forever and a day... and I am already “thisclose”.
Female dogs like these prove that far too many “Americans” have no concept of or respect for our Constitution.
Re: your tag line
You forgot Poseidon and Trident!
Lets see her pass a law against those.
Obama Administration’s New Proposed Gun Regulation for Border States Met With Bipartisan Dissent
By Stephen Clark
Published January 15, 2011
The electorate is definitely stupid to elect these IDIOTS that end up making laws that destroy individual freedoms.
Thank you for the link.
Yeah, you're absolutely correct Mac.
We need to REPEAL and NOT REPLACE the THOUSANDS of UNCONSTITUTIONAL GUN-CONTROL laws which do NOTHING but INFRINGE upon our 2nd Amendment RIGHTS.
These gun-CONTROL laws also DO NOT reduce crime (even if it DID, that is NO EXCUSE for the INFRINGEMENT).
This unwarranted CONTROL also inconveniences and takes away the freedom of choice (you CAN have THIS type of gun, but not THAT type, you can only have THIS length of barrel, but not THAT length of barrel - UNLESS you are police or military, etc.) of MILLIONS of citizens, the VAST majority of whom are LAW-ABIDING.
To HELL with the calls of the namby-pamby jack-wagons amongst us, from the left and the right (even MY NRA!) to merely "enforce the laws already on the books".
Instead, we need to call LOUDLY to "REPEAL and NOT REPLACE" all such centralized CONTROLS on the citizens of this FREE COUNTRY.
I have noticed that most of your rabid anti-gun people have serious emotional problems.
***On Tuesday, January 18, I will introduce legislation to restore the prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices***
It would not have stopped Patrick Henry Sherrill who murdered 14 people at the post office in Edmond, Oklahoma back in 1986.
His firearms were two National Guard issued 7 shot .45 auto pistols.
The Bill of Rights simply enumerates certain Rights that were given to us by our Creator.
Be Ever Vigilant!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.