Carolyn McCarthy is all of a sudden concerned about state rights.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

My question to her: Where was the concern for states rights during the 2004 Assault Weapons Ban that you campaigned so hard for? If a state has the "right" to determine who can and can't legally carry a concealed firearm, then don't they also have the right to determine who can and can't own an "assault weapon" or a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition?

Garry McCarthy.

He's a New Jersey transplant (and before that transplanted from New York), who moved to Chicago, is a friend and appointee of Rahm Emmanuel, preaching in Snuffy Pfleger's church, and his last name is McCarthy. Basically, there is nothing right with this man.



Am I the only one who sees the irony of him lambasting all sorts of racist institutions while he spends his career enforcing the modern day slave codes that essentially keep the law-abiding, majority black citizens of Chicago unarmed?

Intended Consequences.

Apparently, McCarthy's magazine ban has two-fold benefits for the gun-banners: Not only does it ban standard capacity magazines for many guns, it will also result in more people inelgible to legally own guns by making one a felon for simply inheriting a dead relatives magazines or firearms that have standard capacity magazines:



Am I still supposed to believe people like Brady Campaign member Joan Peterson when she says, "We have, as you now know by my writings, no intention to bother you guys who are law abiding."?

That's a rhetorical question by the way. Of course they're not going to bother the law-abiding. It's long been gun-banner strategy to create entirely new classes of criminals out of law-abiding gun owners. McCarthy's magazine ban is just the latest example.

The smell of freshly laid Astroturf.

It seems that the newest strategy of the gun ban lobby is to create fake gun owners who agree with or propose the most asinine legislation.

Eh. Just judge for yourself. Some choice excerpts:

The basics on magazines: they are attached into a particular type of gun to provide an individual with a certain number of bullets without having to reload. A pistol, like the one I own, only has 5 in the chamber and does not use a magazine.

...

Just as we're not able to have certain type of bullets or silencers for safety reasons, high capacity magazines need to fall into this same category. One possible consensus - maybe we can propose that high capacity magazines are treated the same way as silencers/suppressors - if your state allows them (only 38 of the 50 do), you have to go through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to register for silencer ownership and have it registered. It doesn't mean that you can't have one in your gun collection - it's just registered through the ATF.

Clearly the opinion of someone who knows nothing about the NFA process or someone who knows about and simply has nefarious intent.

Just one more small sacrifice is all she wants.

Rep. "Shoulder Thing That Goes Up":

“I know what it’s like to have tragedy brought to your life in a split second by a madman with high-capacity ammunition magazines,” said Rep. McCarthy, whose husband was killed and son seriously wounded by a gunman on the Long Island Railroad in 1993. “I’m working to stop it from happening again. We need comprehensive reform to reduce the number of people hurt or killed by gunfire in America, but one simple way we can do that is by keeping the worst tools of mass murder away from the general public. This nation has come together before to support this simple, commonsense measure, and it is the law in several states right now. It is a small sacrifice that law-abiding gun owners can make once again in order to increase everyone’s safety.”

Well, Carolyn McCarthy isn't completely ignorant. While she may not know what a barrel shroud is, she does seem to know that guns owners have made at least one small sacrifice in the past. In fact, gun owners have made several small sacrifices in the past. We made a small sacrifice in 1934, in 1968, in 1986, and in 1994. And that's just at the federal level. That's not even getting into the various state level sacrifices like one-gun-a-month, registries, licenses, etc.

How many more small sacrifices must we make before she stops asking for them? You can only give so many small sacrifices before you have sacrificed everything. And don't think for a moment that that is not her goal. Death by a Thousand Cuts is her plan. McCarthy will not be satisfied by any sacrifice short of the full surrender of all of your Second Amendment rights.

The McCarthy Magazine Ban. (updated with draft of bill)

via Politico:

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy’s (D-N.Y.) bill also goes further than than the assault weapon ban that expired in 2004, outlawing the sale or transfer of clips that hold more than ten rounds, even those obtained before the law takes effect, according to a copy of the bill obtained by POLITICO.

The bill closes a loophole in the expired assault weapon ban that let gun owners buy high-capacity magazines made before the ban took effect in 1994.

The bill carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.

Luckily this bill is DOA. John Boehner has said "No" to any new gun control laws.

But just because the bill is DOA, it doesn't mean you should ignore it. If you've ever doubted how extreme the gun banners of congress could get, this is the perfect example. They want to throw you in prison for selling a plastic and metal box. Think about that for a moment.

This is why you can't compromise with the gun controllers. At least not when it comes to guns. Compromising can literally cost you your freedom and your rights. Don't believe me? Ask Brian Aitken.

UPDATE: Click the "read more" to see a draft of the bill. It's essentially the magazine ban portion of the '94 AWB, with the usual exemptions for Only Ones®, and the addition of outlawing the transfer of magazines made before the bill's enactment.

In the "no duh" category: Glock sales are up.

Who didn't see this coming?

One-day sales of handguns in Arizona jumped 60 percent to 263 on Jan. 10 compared with 164 the corresponding Monday a year ago, the second-biggest increase of any state in the country, according to Federal Bureau of Investigation data.

When you talk about banning magazines that can hold over 10 rounds, everyone and their mother is going to go out and buy a magazine that holds over 10 rounds... And a Glock to put it in. I'm tempted to buy one along with a few 33 round magazines myself and I hate Glocks.

Ignorance vs dishonesty.

On one hand, the average journalism intern who puts together these types of ads aren't among the sharpest knives in the drawer. Being ignorant of firearms and firearms law, they likely aren't going to know that fully automatic weapons are already heavily regulated at the federal level and banned at the state level in Illinois. Ignorance, while dangerous, is forgivable and fixable.

On the other hand, a member of the gun control movement has admitted to using dishonesty to further their goals ("The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." - Josh Sugarmann). Dishonesty is most definitely dangerous, unforgivable, and unfixable.

Then there is that grey area between ignorance and dishonesty: Malevolent ignorance. What is malevolent ignorance? Malevolent ignorance is being uninformed about an issue and being uninterested or actively opposed to becoming informed due to ones own bias and/or bigotry. For an example:



Not only does she not know what a barrel shroud is, it is extremely unlikely that she even cares. Her goal is to simply ban guns. The rhyme or reasoning is completely irrelevant to her. I bet if you were to ask Carolyn McCarthy right this moment what a barrel shroud is, you'd get roughly that same answer, "I don't know and I don't think it really matters."

Being that the only thing more dangerous than intentional ignorance is well-intentioned ignorance, Carolyn McCarthy definitely qualifies as malevolent to me.