The Tragedy of Carolyn McCarthy

by Bill O'Connell on May 21, 2011

Share and Recommend:

Carolyn McCarthy is a victim. Her husband was tragically killed and her son paralyzed by a madman, Colin Ferguson, who opened fire on a crowded Long Island Railroad train killing six and injuring nineteen. McCarthy, who was a Republican, switched parties and ran for Congress on the gun control issue after her Congressman Dan Frisa voted against an assault weapons ban that she supported and she won the seat. She has been on a mission ever since to impose tighter and tighter restrictions on guns, believing that will make the world safer. She wants you to feel her pain, literally.

The assault weapon ban was part of a campaign to ban all guns. It was a starting point; the thin end of the wedge. Put that ban in place and work to expand it. But when you come right down to it, no one has really been able to define what an assault weapon is other than it looks more menacing than other guns.  There was no legal definition of an assault weapon prior to the ban. Think about it. There was great urgency to enact a law to prevent something we can’t define but, don’t worry, we’ll come up with something. Isn’t that ass-backwards? Congress, in the most blatent political pandering, rushed to pass a law to ban something that they couldn’t even define. How did they know it was a bad thing if they couldn’t define it? It didn’t matter. What they were banning was something that included the term “assault weapon” and applied to guns. As long as one gun was affected, they considered it a success. Here are some of the critical components that differentiate an assault weapon from non-assault weapons:

  • For rifles:
    • Folding or telescoping stock
    • Pistol grip
    • Bayonet mount
    • Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one

Can anyone seriously call this thoughtful legislation? These features somehow make a weapon, unreasonably dangerous? A pistol grip? a bayonet mount? a folding stock? Yet, when this ban was debated you would think that Congress was trying to prevent hand grenades being packed in the kiddie’s lunch boxes.

McCarthy Slips?

“I think when you think about just common sense here, large capacity clips [sic] that can basically, in my opinion, be weapons of mass destruction, should not be available to the average citizen,” McCarthy said in an NPR interview.

Finish the thought. It should only be availabe to criminals? Although I don’t believe that is what she meant, probably meaning law enforcement and the military, but that is what it means in practice. All of these gun laws that pertain to what people own, rather than what they do, only constrain law abiding people. A criminal will get whatever they want or feel they need for their situation. A criminal who wants a gun, will get a gun.

Also, a criminal intent on causing mayhem will take the time to prepare for his attack. Colin Ferguson carried with him on that train 106 rounds of ammunition and he was re-loading for the third time when he was finally tackled. Consider the homeowner who hears glass breaking in the middle of the night and his child call out, because four armed men have broken in. The homeowner doesn’t have time to go rummaging for all the necessary equipment. Pants, check; gun, check, holster? extra magazines because Carolyn McCarthy says my magazine can only carry ten bullets… On the other hand if the homeowner could grab his gun that already had fifteen or twenty rounds or more, he could focus on protecting his family immediately.

The average gunfight between armed fighters lasts around three to five seconds. On the Long Island Railroad that fateful day, Colin Ferguson methodically shot his victims for three minutes or thirty-six to sixty times longer than an average gunfight. Why was he able to do that? Because he was armed with a gun and everyone else was not. The only hope for those passengers in New York was to have a plainclothes or off duty cop in that particular car on that particular train at that particular time. They had no such luck.

Carolyn McCarthy wants to make sure that you are similarly defenseless at home, at work, or on your way to work as her husband and son were. The tragedy is, that if New York didn’t have such strict gun laws, her husband might be alive today and her son not paralyzed. But Carolyn McCarthy wants you and your family, not just in New York, but everywhere in America to be as defenseless as her family was that infamous day. No thank you. When confronted with a deadly foe, it is not enough to dial 911 and wait. Dial 911 by all means if you can, but once you have done that, you need to protect yourself and your loved ones. That’s what the Second Amendment is really all about.

 

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Share and Recommend:
  • Kevin

    At the risk
    of boiling this down to a bumper sticker mentality, when you have only
    seconds to react, the cops are minutes away. We need to be as well
    armed as those invaders or criminals against whom we need to defend
    ourselves.  If citizens have the obligation to defend our borders when
    called upon to do so, how do we not have the right to protect our homes and families?
    And I would argue the same rights and responsibilities extend to the
    community.  

     Unfortunately,
    these arguments do not matter to dogmatic disciples of gun
    control. These lamebrain laws are intended to appeal to those whose own
    perception of the law makes it make sense. Umm, could you
    explain that again? Yes, in other words, gun control advocates are
    doing it for nobody but themselves. A quick reality check would remind
    them that criminals disobey the law for a living. 

     Only
    the basest hypocrisy explains the motivation for piling new useless
    legislation upon old. Gun control does not reduce crime. Washington DC
    should illustrate this. Before the Supreme Court ruled it was illegal to own a
    handgun. That law was passed in 1975.  Crime exploded through the 1990′s
    for a variety of reasons, but certainly unaffected by gun laws. My sister
    was murdered there in 1994 by a criminal acting illegally (obviously), using a
    gun obtained illegally, and modified illegally. The laws Mrs. McCarthy
    advocates would have done absolutely nothing to deter that crime. Mrs.
    McCarthy’s reaction to her husband’s death is twisted and without logic. 
    She is being used by the gun control lobby and is a convenient puppet for
    politicians like Bloomberg who want to portray themselves as “doing
    something”, the value of which is leveraged by the fact that such “action”
    is dogmatically correct.

     

  • Dilligras

     The 2nd is NOT about self defense or hunting.  It is about being able to hold our govt. lackeys accountable to an armed populace.  PERIOD.

    • http://libertyslifeline.com William O’Connell

      The former is impossible without the latter.

  • Pingback: Let’s Put Gun Control on an Equal Footing

  • Pingback: Let’s Put Gun Control on an Equal Footing « Sago

  • Kevin

    :  “A free, law abiding citizen has his own reasons for owning
    a firearm. I have mine, and I question nobody else’s reasons.”

     

    I would like to remind our friend that the “overthrow the
    government” argument will not get him very far, whereas, the overarching
    principle of the free, law abiding citizen, having both a sense of responsibility
    and a sense of restraint is what makes the case for a strong, armed populace,
    and that alone should make any government teetering on tyranny fear it. 
    While we reserve the right to overthrow the government, we do not have to
    express that right or defend it. It is inherent in our DNA as Americans. What
    needs to be defended are the regulations imposed by well meaning legislators to
    legislate the extent to which firearm use may be considered dangerous to
    society. There will be no success arguing that there should be NO regulation of
    firearm use.  I cannot own a tank or a rocket launcher, and those who say
    I should be able to, will not get very far in today’s world, although I can
    make several cogent arguments why I should be able to.  But we are dealing
    with where we are now, not where we should be.

     

    The unassailable argument in my opinion is my fundamental right to
    own a firearm of some kind, for reasons of my own, which right does NOT emanate
    from our Constitution. Our Constitution merely reflects in writing what is
    already understood to be my right and the Constitution restricts our government
    from infringing upon it.

  • Kevin

    :  “A free, law abiding citizen has his own reasons for owning
    a firearm. I have mine, and I question nobody else’s reasons.”

     

    I would like to remind our friend that the “overthrow the
    government” argument will not get him very far, whereas, the overarching
    principle of the free, law abiding citizen, having both a sense of responsibility
    and a sense of restraint is what makes the case for a strong, armed populace,
    and that alone should make any government teetering on tyranny fear it. 
    While we reserve the right to overthrow the government, we do not have to
    express that right or defend it. It is inherent in our DNA as Americans. What
    needs to be defended are the regulations imposed by well meaning legislators to
    legislate the extent to which firearm use may be considered dangerous to
    society. There will be no success arguing that there should be NO regulation of
    firearm use.  I cannot own a tank or a rocket launcher, and those who say
    I should be able to, will not get very far in today’s world, although I can
    make several cogent arguments why I should be able to.  But we are dealing
    with where we are now, not where we should be.

     

    The unassailable argument in my opinion is my fundamental right to
    own a firearm of some kind, for reasons of my own, which right does NOT emanate
    from our Constitution. Our Constitution merely reflects in writing what is
    already understood to be my right and the Constitution restricts our government
    from infringing upon it.

  • Pingback: Gun violence video mashup with Melissa Harris-Perry & more

  • Pingback: Gun violence video mashup with Melissa Harris-Perry & more

Previous post:

Next post:

© 2011 Liberty's Lifeline. All Rights Reserved.