search
top

Carrie McCarthy Set to Exploit Tragedy

From Politico:

“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.

And while Carrie McCarthy is busy making sure the Second Amendment gets shredded, fellow Democrat and Philadelphia Congressman Bob Brady is busy making sure the First gets sent to the slaughterhouse too:

Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress.

Our political leadership is hopelessly vacuous. We have to keep giving them the boot until they get the message. The sad and unfortunate thing is, Bob Brady could strangle a puppy and his people will keep sending him back. The same would seem to be true for people like McCarthy and Quigley in Illinois.

I don’t understand city people. I really don’t. Are you really willing to keep re-electing these morons no matter what they say or do?

21 Responses to “Carrie McCarthy Set to Exploit Tragedy”

  1. I like the *stockpiles of ammunition* bit.

  2. mobo says:

    Like some guy said over at arfcom of Carolyn McCarthy, One has to wonder after looking at that beast of a woman if her husband even tried to duck.

  3. Mike From Philly says:

    The solution to government failure is more government.

    When are we going to say …”hey, your Brady law failed again, time to sH*t can it.”.

  4. Wes says:

    “He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official,”

    But it’s ok to use those things against non-federal people? Alrighty then. …isn’t threatening someone already illegal?

  5. Brad says:

    Can you spot the false statements from the Politico story?

    “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.”

    Count on the MSM, particularly a Journolist outfit like Politico.com to do a horrible job when reporting on gun laws.

    First off it’s not possible yet to determine whether Loughner legally purchased his weapon. In fact he violated the law if he was a user of illegal drugs, making him ineligible under the GCA of 1968 to purchase any firearm from an FFL holder.

    Secondly the Clinton “assault weapon” ban did not make extended magazines illegal. The legal effect of the ban was a “freeze” not a ban. It was still legal to buy, sell and possess so-called “extended magazines.” The only illegal magazines were those manufactured AFTER the date of passage of the law. Commerce in magazines manufactured before the law passed was perfectly legal.

    So whether or not the 1994 ban was still in effect would have made no practical difference in Loughner purchasing the “extended magazine”.

    God I hate the MSM. They have been playing this game with guns for over twenty years and they just won’t stop. Unethical SOBs.

  6. Eck! says:

    Shred the second.. Whoa there, it’s already suffered a heapin helpin of abuses. She may know the process but doesn’t know a gun but from her own arse. But I’m sure they have yet another law in mind that criminals could care less about.

    Personally they should all be publicly humiliated every time they open the their noise ports.

    Eck!

  7. Shawn says:

    If she pulls through and becomes anti-gun it is a good chance the 2nd ammendment will cease to exist as we know it. The house and senate are to shellshocked to NOT to support this BS. If she wakes up understands and says this is the actions of a single crazy person and/or ridicules the anti’s on there blatant blood dancing the opposite will happen.

    Expect a hi-capacity ban and gun show loophole bill to be at least intoduced if not passed in at least one of the houses. If not to just make handguns totally illegal without grandfathering.

    Most people on the outside don’t understand the wordplay.

  8. Sebastian, try to think more positively. Maybe she is just trying to boost sales of single-stack 1911 pattern pistols to help celebrate the centennial! And maybe she’s trying to help out Ruger with the LC9 launch! Both would probably benefit from an AWB-style mag ban. The next thing we should ask for is an amendment to the bill that gives you a refundable tax credit for buying a 1911 or pocket pistol in 2011.

  9. Ginn says:

    shawn…i expect and LCAFD ban to be proposed with a ban on carrying weapons to political events. I see them getting about 2 dozen co-sponsors and going nowhere.

    Do you really think there are enough votes in the senate or the house to get that thing even out of comittee?

  10. Shawn says:

    “shawn…i expect and LCAFD ban to be proposed with a ban on carrying weapons to political events. I see them getting about 2 dozen co-sponsors and going nowhere.

    Do you really think there are enough votes in the senate or the house to get that thing even out of comittee?”

    Noramally no. And there are probably a good chunk of people who understand the blood dancing for what it is and will be a disgusted by these people as much as we are. But right now considereing that they are not in a stable state of mind I’m not so certain.

    A grerat deal depends on whether she turns anti-gun, understands the situation and not blame the gun, or outright attacks the people willing to exploit the tragedy. Simply put there are too many unknowns and DC has become mushy.

  11. Ginn says:

    “Noramally no. And there are probably a good chunk of people who understand the blood dancing for what it is and will be a disgusted by these people as much as we are. But right now considereing that they are not in a stable state of mind I’m not so certain.

    A grerat deal depends on whether she turns anti-gun, understands the situation and not blame the gun, or outright attacks the people willing to exploit the tragedy. Simply put there are too many unknowns and DC has become mushy.”

    The thing you got to remember is that all politicians are stable enough to realize that they need to get reelected. They know gun control is a third rail. Tragedies like these don’t usually sway public opinion- remember VTech didn’t change the trend one bit. People are going to be wondering why there wasnt more security.

  12. Brad says:

    One powerful factor remains which can short circuit the typical tactics of the gun-banning blood dancers, the fact the murderer was captured alive. That is crucial.

    In past events the blood dancers have counted upon the frustration of justice, that someone must be punished! And in those past events the shooter was already dead. So the blood dancers turned that public anger against their chosen scapegoat, the gun culture. But this time they can’t do that.

    We have the killer in hand. And he will be eligible for the death penalty. Not only that but because he killed a Federal Judge, the Feds as well as the State have a claim against him. Loughner will get two bites of the death penalty apple. There will be two trials, two verdicts, and two penalties (if convicted!).

    The old blood dancing game just isn’t going to work this time.

  13. RG says:

    I really don’t see either piece of legislation getting anywhere. Co-sponsoring the bill(s) will only be a symbolic gesture, nothing more.

  14. Jujube says:

    If he pleads insanity, he won’t be eligible for the death penalty. Heck, he might end up like Hinkley, in a mental hospital for years.

  15. Sebastian said:
    “I don’t understand city people. I really don’t. Are you really willing to keep re-electing these morons no matter what they say or do?”

    I’ve never been one for conspiracy theories, but the constant and almost guaranteed re-election of some of these city politicians makes one wonder if there isn’t some real and large-scale election fraud taking place.

    Just one more reason why I think we need term limits in the Legislative at all levels of government.

  16. Thirdpower says:

    Take a look at Chicago. The entire city is Gerrymandered to the point that there really are no ‘elections’. It’s who the party bosses decide will be allowed to run.

    It’s the same in the entire state. When a Lt. Gov. candidate won the primary that the DNC didn’t like, they forced him off the ballot.

  17. Bram says:

    I don’t suppose the fact that Gifford is moderately pro-gun means anything to McCarthy. I pray Gifford makes a full recovery – then smacks this crap down.

    Before my last deployment (while the Cindy Sheehan was using her son’s death for political fame), I wrote something into my will that if I was killed, nobody under any circumstance was allowed to sue or protest in my name.

    The scum dancing in the blood of others makes me sick.

  18. Jake says:

    isn’t threatening someone already illegal?

    It is. I’m also pretty sure that threatening a government official is already something that carries a higher penalty than threatening an average citizen.

    It sounds to me like he wants to ban not just legitimate specific or actual threats (which current law is limited to due to the First Amendment), but any language that could be considered even vaguely threatening – something which probably wouldn’t stand up to a 1A challenge in the courts, but who wants to be a test case and spend 10-20 years in Federal prison? I’m pretty sure his real goal is to stifle dissenting speech, not “threatening” speech.

    And he will be eligible for the death penalty.

    After looking at his Youtube ramblings, I’ve got a pretty strong feeling that he’s going to be diagnosed with schizophrenia and found not competent to stand trial. That’s going to leave that “frustration of justice” intact and unfocused. The gun-banners are going to do everything they can to focus that on the gun.

    At a minimum, I think they’ll try to do something to require Federal licensing (with a psych evaluation as the key component) for anyone to be able to legally buy a gun. Once that federal licensing is in place, tacking on more and more restrictions on ownership becomes far easier, because it can all be done administratively rather than requiring Congress to act.

    Imagine BATFE getting to decide via regulation what hoops citizens are required to jump through to own any firearm, and being the agency responsible for issuing the license.

  19. Sterling Archer says:

    “Expect a hi-capacity ban and gun show loophole bill to be at least intoduced if not passed in at least one of the houses. If not to just make handguns totally illegal without grandfathering.”

    OK. Everyone Relax and take a deep breath. This McCarthy bill is going nowhere. She knows it is DOA. This legislation was written long before the incident on Saturday. This bill would have been impossible even with the 111th Congress let alone the 112th.

  20. Harold says:

    Jujube: In reaction to the Hinkley verdict the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 was passed, so the legal regime for this at the Federal level (and in many states as well) has changed since then.

  21. someothername says:

    Democrat Dictionary:
    Loophole [loop-hohl] or (ˈluːpˌhəʊl)
    –noun
    1) freedom

    They want to eliminate that “loophole” or this “loophole”

    Householders are set to defy a law banning “old fashioned” light bulbs by exploiting a “loophole” in new legislation. Legislators want to eliminate that “loophole”

    “Loopholes” can be dangerous to a totalitarian government.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » Ridiculous reactions from legislators - [...] And, of course, McCarthy clamors for relevance and wants to pass gun control laws. [...]
  2. The coming War on Violent Rhetoric « Pithy Title Goes Here - [...] some disinformation (H/T Snowflakes in Hell): Loughner legally purchased his weapon – a Glock 19 with an extended magazine…
  3. Weer'd World » What Will the Aftermath Be? - [...] Sebastian also reports that one of his local Pols is pushing legislation that attacks the 1st Amendment. Authoritarians hate…
top