“We can’t just throw our hands up and say, ‘Criminals will always get guns.’ That’s absurd — we don’t give up in the war on terror because ‘terrorists will always get bombs.’” – Rep. Carolyn McCarthy says more must be done to keep guns out of the hands of convicted criminals [via nydailynews.com]
When she says criminals, she means subjects. And to the ruling elites we are all just subjects.
That’s bullshit, Peter. She means just what she says. And it’s in response to the stupid repeating of that thing by you guys like a mantra.
You guys love to denigrate her, but this is exactly right.
I agree with MikeB – more must be done to get guns out of the hands of criminals. I recommend shooting them. Making laws doesn’t seem to be working very well.
Unfortunately Carolyn McCarthy and the other nutjobs in power up in NY dont feel the same way.
I agree, we need to do something about all the criminals with guns. I also agree that the best way to deal with it is to also be armed and take care of the threat. Of course that is only something that happens in a free state. New Yorkers dont have that option.
An alternative solution for those who are squimish about blood, keep violent people locked up. If someone has been proven to be a danger to others, then until they are able to show that they are in fact reformed, they should be kept locked up. If they reach a certain point where rehabilitation is impossible, then execute them.
The whole idea of releasing dangerous people on the streets so that they can harm more innocent people is just plain idiotic.
Why do you guys agree with every solution to criminals with guns EXCEPT preventing them from getting guns in the first place?
@Mikey (mikeb#’s)
BECAUSE the laws these people want to use to disarm criminals does NOTHING to stop them from getting any illegal gun SHE can deny that nugget of truth all she wants, SHE can downplay it all she wants… The criminal WILL obtain a gun no matter what if they want one bad enough without regard to ANY law that is supposed to stop them. It does more to stop if not just annoy and hinder those who can LEGALLY possess them. Their idea is to punish ALL because of those who have decided they illegally want a gun and bypass nearly all legal means to get them, do so…. through channels that don’t give a crap about the law any way.
It’s a convenient argument that criminals will always get guns but it just ain’t so. Most criminals are like everybody else and they go for the path of least resistance. If guns were hard to get SOME criminals would not make the extra effort required to get them if, say, we prohibited private sales without background checks and enforced safe storage laws thereby diminishing theft.
But what you guys do is keep repeating bullshit like CRIMINALS WILL ALWAYS GET GUNS.” It sounds good and it’s convenient for your argument but it’s total bullshit.
Wow! You made the jump from “partial bullshit” to “total bullshit” without even trying! Color me impressed.
BTW: How did criminals get ahold of guns in cities with total handgun bans, before the Supreme Court’s Heller and McDonald ruling struck them (the bans) down?
Jeez, that’s a hard one. How did criminals used to get guns in the good old days? Same as now. http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2012/06/four-major-ways-criminals-get-guns.html
mikal u relly shud stop citing urself. meks u luk unprefershnul.
Ah, Say there MB#s. And what about the guns already in criminal hands? Organized gangs have guns that haven’t seen day lite in 10 years, not to mention their work guns. Ya buyin’ them back ,or what?
MikeB, Criminals don’t NEED guns to overpower and victimize people. Do you really think you could go toe to toe with anyone who has just finished a six month sentence of weightlifting? WE need guns because many people don’t have time to keep visiting a gym regularly, not just to stay fit, but to ensure upper body strength that is securely above average.
So any solution that inadvertently makes it more difficult for citizens to own firearms, or reduces the capability of firearms accessible to them, gives criminals the advantage.
Just watch an episode of Scared Straight sometime. It’s a show that takes young delinquents and shows them prison life in order to scare them away from criminal activity. Just look at the thugs that are presented on that show and ask yourself this question: “If I found this fine gentleman in my living room at 2 am, could I fend him off without a firearm? Or ensure that he could not harm me before police arrive? Or ensure he could not prevent me from dialing emergency services?” I promise that you could not.
Now also consider that over 90% of all NCIS background check denials are false positives. That’s quite a few people who the system agrees can be trusted with a firearm that are arbitrarily denied a firearms purchase due to incompetence.
Also consider that the shooter at the navy yard in Washington DC recently passed his background check due to a police failure to arrest him for his prior criminal violence. Or the recent school shooter, thankfully thwarted by another gun already on campus, who had never before committed a criminal act that would have flagged him in a background check. The same goes for the Auroroa, CO shooter.
Very few mentally ill people are a threat to others and any denial of firearms to “mentally ill” people without filtering for actual present suicidal thoughts or tendencies, or more importantly, danger to others, will do more harm than good. There are many people with some degree of depression who firmly believe that suicide will not release them from anguish but damn them to endure it eternally.
Making it harder to get guns far and away helps criminals more than it keeps us safer.
CRIMINALS DO NOT NEED A GUN TO HARM YOU, BUT YOU WILL MOST LIKELY NEED A GUN TO AVOID HARM BY A CRIMINAL.
You really need to understand that violence is not caused by guns. Removing guns form the equation will not cause violent urges to subside or violent acts to decrease in number.
Don’t for get that this is the same Carolyn McCarthy who thought that a barrel shroud was the :”shoulder thingy that goes up” .
No idea of what it was, she just thinks you should go to prison for having one.
So, yeah, I really do think that her views do not matter.
wow, I just watched that video. and to think that these people are allowed to introduce legislation that they’re clueless about…just wow
Tucker: Do you know what a barrel shroud is?
Rep Mc: No, I actually don’t….
Tucker: Because it’s in your legislation…
Re Pete:
Sounds like a phallic recollection.
People suffering from PTSS should not be making laws.
Ms.McCarthy suffered a loss because of a man who was filled with hate for White people,and it’s always easier for a criminal to get a gun in NY than a law abiding person.I am tired of hearing about her husband getting shot;
Ms. McCarthy’s biennial reelection makes as much sense to me as my own rep’s reelection. People just love crazy, I guess.
more must be done to keep stupid people out of office. there, much better.
I would modify the statement to say that much more must be done to keep progressives and collectivists out of the government and maybe the country as well
Yesterday, recidivist puke Darrell Fuller shot and killed Nassau County ESU Officer Arthur Lopez and innocent motorist Raymond Facey.
Fuller did time in state prison after a conviction for an attempted murder in October 2004 in Queens. In that case, he was also charged with criminal possession of a weapon and assault. He pleaded guilty in December 2005 in that case and got 5 years in state prison. He had already been in custody since his arrest on Oct. 20, 2004. Fuller was paroled in 2010, state records show. He violated his parole in Nassau County following felony drug sale and possession charges in March 2010 and was reincarcerated that August. He was released in May 2011.
Well, at least he’s in jail now.
These loons find a safe seat, lubricate it with tax dollars, prey on emotions and fears, and end up as Speaker of the House.
To ensure that guns are kept out of thee hands of convicted criminals two things can be done:
1) Keep the criminal locked up for life though some prisoners have been known to get a hold of guns that were somehow smuggled into their prison or even make crude guns while in prison.
2) Amputate the hands of convicted criminals so they cannot pickup a gun.
“Imagine if every “routine” day at your workplace could end in your death”
— I sometimes do (especially when I sold high-end jewelry many years ago) just as as I imagine it can happen now when I walk the streets of my city, go to an office, shop in a retail store, and take the local public transportation (TriMet) that does not allow CC permit holder to carry a gun or even pepper spray. I am just a commoner, a subject of the elites, and I can’t afford body guards or get government to assign them to me free of charge.
My sister lives in NYC with her family and thinks Carolyn is a good rep.
Beautiful. Just effing beautiful. This poor woman’s logic reduces to this: We can stop terrorists from having weapons by taking weapons away from our armed forces, which is exactly equivalent to the logic of saying we can keep guns out of the hands of criminals by keeping them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Sheesh!
I have not had the opportunity to check out her voting record. BUT, if she sticks to what she said. STOP PUTTING WORDS IN HER MOUTH. She said nothing of the kind.
She has a right, and should get our attention and at least a small amount of respect. Considering losing her husband, she deserves at least that!!
What she said. The background check comments are dead on. I live in Texas. I have no problem with background check at my gun shows. I get it at my local gun store anyway.
If I have to put up with 15 minutes of aggravation purchasing a firearm, from a check that will keep some firearms out of the hands of criminals?? Damn right.
15 minutes that might down the road save a life??
Now, if we will just keep the criminals, when convicted, where they belong. IN PRISON, or the BOTTOM OF THE OCEAN.
That combination might help.
See Aharon’s comments above. Totally agree.
Shall not be infringed.
If you’re willing to trade freedom for the illusion of security, then you deserve neither.
He’s not putting words in her mouth, he’s just giving an analogy of what her thinking would be equivalent to. When she says that she wants to keep guns from criminals, what she’s really saying is that she wants more gun restrictions. That means, we, the law abiding citizens, will be punished for what the criminals do. More restrictions equal less chance for you and me to buy a gun legally (this won’t affect the criminals of course, they don’t care what the laws are after all). Read between the lines.
She is asking for a better NICS check system and no more private sales. If after the NICS check and/or paper work for a private sale you get your gun, you have not been infringed.
In CT we have to fill out paper work for private sales and call the state PD. Takes all of 15min to do.
Does not stop anyone in CT from getting any gun they want. Make this national with zero fee and I am Ok with that because I have not given up anything and we all know criminals will just find another way anyway so the law does nothing they think it does.
However, I do not believe in one sided laws.
I will happily take a beefed up NICS check provided it is adminstered by the FBI and not the ATF.
I will happily do paper work for private sales provided the following
1) You now have a national NICS system, so now I can carry in any state with my home state license just like I can drive anywhere with my home state drivers license
2) I can make a private sale anywhere in the US since I am subject to 4733 for any private sale. No need to transfer to an FFL.
3) FOPA must be honored so if I fly into NYC I do not get busted because bad weather forced me to go to that hell hole when I did not want to go.
I say those are even trades. Its called compromise.
Pascal, I think those are fair compromises. Antis dont compromise though. They just want us to give up/infringe on our rights without giving anything in return. For example: I would gladly turn in all of my “scary” guns, if in return the govt promised me a 24/7 armed security detail of no less than 2 agents per member of my family. Its only fair.
@Pascal: CT only requires paperwork when handguns are transferred, which can only be done between permit holders. There is no requirement for long arms, though the Dept. of Public Services ‘recommends’ you do so.
Being a victim is not an accomplishment.
+1k. Being a victim gives no insight for governing. Loosing a loved one is a terrible thing, but gives neither education nor insight to the myriad of knowledge needed to govern properly. A one issue voter is one thing. A one issue legislator is quite another. With all respect to his service and sacrifice, McCain learned nothing about political science while he was held in Hanoi. Cruelty, yes, governing no. He was a terrible candidate who, it might seem, was nominated as a repayment for the brutality he suffered while in service of the nation, not for any type of political prowess. What we need are STATESMEN dedicated to the well being of the citizens, and thereby the country.
‘terrorists will always get bombs.’
So presumably we need more bomb control laws too.
She has a right, and should get our attention and at least a small amount of respect. Considering losing her husband, she deserves at least that!!
Sorry, but the loss of her husband makes her deserve exactly jack, except maaaybe my sympathy for her loss. Beyond that, nothing.
Why do you somehow think that losing her husband to gun violence somehow makes her an expert on guns, gun violence, or the efficacy of gun restrictions?
Don’t let her pass stupid laws that will affect you out of some misguided sense of sympathy.
“I have not had the opportunity to check out her voting record.”
That explains a lot.
Hmmmm… Maybe tougher laws for convicted felons, especially those caught with illegally owned firearms.
Maybe instead of prison you put their life term serving asses out in the desert in a big ass fenced and electrified compound and make them live in tents and work instead of sitting in the yard or gym and playing Donkey Kong all day on our tax dollar.
Convicted felon uses a firearm to kill or seriously wound someone guess what…head of the line for public execution once convicted.
One appeal only, firing squad at the ready, and there would be a smaller need for prisons, there would be a hell of a lot less repeat offenders and rapists, child molesters and kidnappers..once convicted then it is straight to the gallows.
Yea it might sound cruel but no worse than the thug who kills a 6 or 7 yr old boy or girl in a drive by because they don’t like someone at that house, or the vermin that would sexually violate a child or adult because they can’t get satisfaction any other way.
Stricter gun control laws will not stop these or any other weapons related crimes, tougher laws and punishments will.
Most thugs and deviants would think twice if they knew without a doubt that they would be hung till dead or put on front of a firing squad.
Most, maybe not all, but most.
No we aren’t playing God but we are insuring that they pay for there crimes in a manner that fits the crime they were convicted of.
100% agree to that!!
“Most thugs and deviants would think twice if they knew without a doubt that they would be hung till dead or put on front of a firing squad.”
Actually, there is no evidence whatsoever that criminals consider the potential punishment for their crimes; rather it would appear that they only think about getting away with it, if they are thinking at all. Capitol punishment does deter ther individual who is executed, but it doesn’t deter anyone else. Think about it. Throughout history we have had horrible punishments for crimes, including hanging, burining at the stake, drawing and quartering, beheading, firing squad, and so on and so forth. If the punishments detered others from committing crime, crime would be a thing of the past. But its not and never will be. Proof is in the pudding; just look at the recidivism rate; felons reoffend when released on an amazingly consistent basis. Yes, there are many who deserve death for their crimes; but don’t fool yourself in thinking that that will have any effect on the next guy down the road.
Considering most condemned spend 20 years or more while they run appeals it’s no wonder they are not deterred. The SCOTUS waived off capital punishment for a few years, saving such wonders as Charles Manson , and now 17 and under get to kill without fear of the gas chamber.
How about we kill a few hundred a year off and reevaluate in 10 years?
This government should give up, give in and kill itself now.
Now there’s a quote of the day.
Possibly of the year!
How about the most asinine quote ever!
The criminals, liars and morons are in charge everywhere. Can anyone say why we should pay respect to a country that must resort to comparisons with socialists to maintain the esteem of its citizens. I hate this country and the only reason I stay is because there’s nowhere to go.
The last bastion of lies and criminality, the US federal government.
She missed the point: Criminals will always be criminals, no matter what asinine laws you pass. The only people following the laws making it difficult to impossible to own a gun are the people who werent the problem in the first place.
Violent people will always be violent. Lets just say, for the sake of argument, that you somehow accomplish to get every last gun in America turned in. No guns anymore, so no more gun violence. But the number of stabbings are through the roof. Because knives are now the best technology for violent people to do their violent things. Take away all the knives and people will resort to pointed sticks and rocks. Violent people will do violent things no matter what inane laws you enact.
Why then would you continue on your quest to disarm the populace of a tool which can level the playing field between the good guys and the bad guys?
Those generalizations are about as useful as “gun enthusiasts are all gun crazy redneck bigots”.
So are you arguing that criminals follow the laws, or that people have a tendency to be violent regardless of the tool you allow them to use?
Excellent riposte from the gentleman from GA.
I totally agree with everything that you say about violent people. However, just by going by what she said, There was nothing about taking away our guns. I am giving her a break here, She has paid her dues. So, taking her at her WORD for now.
Face it, there MUST be some ways to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Also, as gun owners, we bear part of the responsibility. Where do a lot of these firearms come from?Home burglaries. As responsible gun owners, we should secure our firearms. Any decent gun safe will keep 90% of our firearms safe. Most thieves do not have the tools, nor the brains to get in a safe. Also, how about home security system??
While we are at it. It is wise to check the voting records of your local Representatives and Senators.
I did. I was amazed at the number of Democrats voting for gun rights. Also surprised by the number of Republicans voting for gun control measures.
That was a real wake up call for me. Especially when my representative (Republican), voted or supported every gun control measure presented during his term.Yet during his election campaign, he SAID he supported gun rights.
IF THEIR MOUTH IS MOVING, THEY ARE LYING.
You’re falling into the “necessary is possible” fallacy here. There’s nothing that requires there exist a way to prevent criminals from obtaining guns, and the evidence suggests that there in fact isn’t. Even if honest gun owners do everything right, guns are simple 19th century technology which don’t require hugely advanced manufacturing techniques to produce. Crude, improvised versions can be produced with hardware store parts and more sophisticated designs can be turned out by those who can recruit a gunsmith. As many have already stated, laws are only a restraint on the law abiding.
Laws don’t prevent anything. They’re simply there to be used by the state to punish people for behavior that either society disapproves of or they disapprove of. If laws prevented crime there would be no need for prisons.
Also, punishment is only a deterrent when it is immediate and brutal. I don’t want to live in a society where the state can swiftly and brutally punish people, because then the government becomes the criminals.
Is Representative McCarthy suggesting that the ‘hands’ of criminals be amputated? That’s barbaric!
They like blaming the tools don’t they. It’s not the bombs that we are at war with, it’s the terrorists. Until “smart” bombs become conscious and start plotting against us then I don’t see how you can fight them.
Skynet, man. Skynet.
If Skynet is like our work computers, it will do most of its damage by claiming it saves documents, while it actually sh!tcans them into cyberspace. It’s frustrating, but hasn’t killed anyone yet.
“To err is human….To really fvck up you need a computer”
“We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”
-Ronald Reagan
We should shut down McDonalds for making us all fat. Shut down Sony and Samsung for making us lazy sitting on a couch and watching tv.
People all have one thing in common and that is the ability to make their own choices. To punish the many for the choices of the few leads us down a path to destruction.
I like the parallel to the War on Terror. Send Predators armed with Hellfire missiles over high-crime areas, and when a gun-involved crime is committed, erase the perp(s).
It seems that executing American citizens involved in terror summarily is embraced in this Administration, so let’s redefine gun crimes as terror, and in a very short time, no more gun crime. I’m certain that will Rep. McCarthy happy. It certainly would make my day.
I think McCarthy is a liberal fascist, an ignoramus, and an elitist. To clarify, I (sarcastically) commented above that my sister in NYC thinks she is a good rep. My sister is naive and has been brainwashed by the liberal gun-grabbers. I was not intending to seem neutral or supportive of Rep McWitch.
from Wikipedia:
(McCarthy) “introduced the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 to reauthorize it in February 2007. McCarthy’s proposed act would ban 65 “scary” models of firearms, as opposed to the 19 models banned under the earlier law. In addition, McCarthy’s law would ban any semiautomatic rifle, shotgun, or handgun that was “originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General, who also has no experience in this field.”
“she finally admitted that she did not know what a barrel shroud was, and said (incorrectly): “I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up.”
In 1997, she sponsored a bill requiring trigger locks on guns.
she introduced legislation to ban the sale of guns to tourists visiting the United States
McCarthy proposed a bill that would require firearms to be child-resistant, would make it more difficult for young adults to purchase guns, and would regulate gun shows”
OK, so she said:
“Rep. Carolyn McCarthy says more must be done to keep guns out of the hands of convicted criminals ”
The problem is that, while we enthusiasts can certainly agree with the sentiment, we take far different views on how that goal is achieved. Politicians, backed by the Brady bunch and their ilk, tend to go the route of creating more legislation, with little to no analysis of whether similar legislation already exists, or if it will actually fix the problem. So in the end, not only is there no discernable impact on crime, legal gun owners usually get left with yet one more hurdle to cross on the path of legal ownership.
Here’s my analogy: The parking spaces at my office building are all clearly marked for each suite. A guy from another suite was consistently parking in our spaces, despite posted signs. We tagged his car with a “don’t park here stupid” notice. No change. I actually talked to him in the parking lot and he blew me off. So I had his car towed. Guess what the guy never did again? The point is that enforcement is far more effective at achieveing the goal than new laws.
“we don’t give up on the war on terror because terrorists will always get bombs”. No, what we get is the NDAA, (detainee provisions) no knock warrants, drones over america, and get groped while getting on a plane. None of which really do anything except infringe on civil rights.
She’s right.
We need to ban prescription drugs because of those who abuse them.
We need to ban automobiles because of intoxicated drivers.
We need to ban free exercise of religion because of Muslim extremists.
See, Rep. McCarthy, false equivalence is fun!
Her comment compares apples to oranges. The war on terror is theoretically about bringing genuinely evil people to justice; the endgame being that politically motivated murderers of innocent people be imprisoned or ventilated. The instigators of the problem are targeted from day one. In practice we’ve obviously seen a bastardization of this notion for years, but the basic principle of taking out the evil doers remains in theory.
Gun control focuses only on the law abiding citizens, not career criminals who cause gun violence in the first place. It is entirely based on the suspicion that somewhere, somehow, someone might commit a crime with those scary evil guns. Every gun owner who obeys the law is still a “potential threat” who needs to be controlled, while the degenerate thugs have a field day flipping off the system and assaulting innocent people.
Gun control advocates tend to believe the death penalty or life in solitary is morally “unfair” or “wrong” as a solution to crime. I’m sorry, but people who abduct, rape, and torture 12 year old girls in their basement and get pleasure out of it do not deserve to live let alone walk the public streets again. Many liberals somehow think that letting career criminals just walk back into society after they’ve “done their time” and been “rehabilitated” will fix everything. Gimme a break.
that’s a false equivalency. a false dichotomy is something else.
Well I did mean a false choice, but I think equivalency is the better choice. Headline amended. Thanks.
It’s time to start shooting the gangbangers. We are 100,000,00 strong. We can eliminate the criminals in less than a week!
They catch the ones wh they can catch, right or wrong.
1429CT;12/15/’12*One of 99% firewall against anyone hoarding their money in offshore accounts where that money is dead for our countries welfare in our ability to continue to maintain our infrastructure.
Overloading our President???? Almost everybody is calling on our president to do something. I just wish that those people will take a second or two before they blame the President. That sort of action must start with each individual, community and progress to a city, county, district, precinct, state and move on up to the national level. Always starting from city enforcement officials, mayor, city councilmen, county sheriff, county elected officials, Judges, district courts, state troopers, rangers, FBI, home land security, the state legislatures, governors, moved on to congress, the senate and then on to the president.
Our problem in our country as I see it that total lack of cooperation and the spirit of rebellion displayed by the Republican members of our congress and senate. Take for example any member of our congress or our senate who is blaming the president for not doing as they wish, and that the president will not come to do their work for them. They must remember that they were elected to represent a small district of the state they are resident of. The President was overwhelmingly elected by the whole country, period. I will now identify by name the big cry babies who always yell for the president to come down to get their job done. All Tea Party members, Mr. Cantor, Mr. Boehner, O’Connel, McCain, Ms. Ayote, and especially Norquist the originator of the pledge that the Republicans all had to sign under duress. We must remember that these people all want is for the top 2 or 3% richest in our country to pay no taxes. Why???? Therefore don’t expect any help from anyone, because the above named individuals have vowed that they will not work with our President. Why, is it just because he is black as I personally suspect is the cause in this case A shameful act of treason on those individuals heads and it is high time we all get our act together and bring our Pledge of Allegiance back to the pledge we owe allegiance to. The next time you have the urge to say the President should do something, you, yourself must get that ball rolling or better yet see if can get any action from the Tea Party and Mr. Boehner or Mr. O’Connel. If you can get those individuals of their duff the president I’m 100% sure will act. But bear in mind, is there anyone who will take on the NRA??? Surely not the Tea Party or the Republican Party so we most probably have to get it done ourselves if we just knew how, so we then blame the president but how wrong we are to do so. Let us get rid of that un-cooperative Tea Party and the Republican and show the world we Yellow, Brown, Black and White are all Americans one and all together. What say you slackers in congress and senate what color are you????? If you slackers continue on that path of obstruction, your babies will probably be born with the word slacker on their foreheads and butts and we won’t have to classify you as a legitimate color. Now let’s take on the NRA, and get those gun magazines down to no more than three rounds.
Regards
Adolph Krchnak
“We can’t just throw our hands up and say, ‘Criminals will always get guns.’ That’s absurd — we don’t give up in the war on terror because ‘terrorists will always get bombs.’”
Wait a minute. Aren’t we going after the terrorists themselves and not their weapons? Like we keep saying should be done about mentally ill individuals who become apparent dangers to themselves and others and end up commiting mass murder? Like we keep saying we should do by keeping criminals incarcerated if they cannot be trusted to be good citizens or trusted to own firearms?
By comparing criminals to terrorists isn’t she admitting to the inanity of gun control laws?