This week in stupid things that anti-gun advocates have said.
CAROLYN MCCARTHY: I will tell you, if you talk to professionals, hunters and certainly sportsmen, they’ll tell you that’s not the gun to use. A rifle is more accurate. It’s certainly easier for a woman to be able to do that.
There are several glaring issues with this statement. Not only are AR-15 used for hunting and sporting, as well as home defense, but she seems to be making the claiming that an AR-15 is not a rifle. This alone proves that she knows absolutely nothing about guns and has no place being part of the debate about gun control. AR-15’s are most certainly rifles.
I suppose McCarthy must have meant that non-“assault weapons” were less useful than a rifle and harder to fire. This is also inaccurate as the majority of the accessories that make a gun an “assault weapon”, such a pistol grip or barrel shroud, are put in place specifically to make the gun easier to aim and fire.
So that’s the first set of problems this statement faces.
Quite honestly pointing out the next one is just icing on the cake for me, simply humiliation, because I’ve already shown that McCarthy is an idiot (then again, she wouldn’t be on Piers Morgan talking about gun control if she was intelligent).
What can I say, I’m cruel, so here’s the other extremely troubling part of what she said.
We’ve already established that AR-15s are used for home defense. Now let’s move on to the extremely sexist little tidbit there at the end of her statement.
It’s certainly easier for a woman to be able to [fire a rifle, instead of an AR-15].
That’s preposterous! An AR-15 is a perfectly acceptable and easy to use weapon for women, for sporting, home defense, or any other reason. If you think otherwise, I’m sure Dana Loesch would give you a demonstration of how well a woman can use an AR-15. National Review already talked about this in an article about women want AR-15s.
AR-15s are the most popular rifle in the U.S.; more than 3 million Americans own one. And its popularity isn’t with criminals — assault rifles account for only 0.6 percent of murders every year. Rather, the semi-automatic AR-15 is the gun of choice for many hunters, target shooters, and home defenders.
The AR-15 is lightweight and practical. As light as five pounds, it produces low levels of recoil, and it’s easy to shoot. It also looks intimidating, which is what you want when facing an assailant or intruder. But don’t let its appearance intimidate you. Assault rifles such as the AR-15 aren’t more “dangerous,” as liberals claim. They don’t fire faster than other rifles, and don’t normally contain more powerful ammunition.
Accuracy? Check. Ease in handling? Check. Intimidation factor? Check. An AR-15 might be a woman’s best friend.
– Why Young Women Want AR-15s (National Review Online)
Some in this McCarthy woman’s brain just isn’t working right. (Then again, as I said, she’s on Piers Morgan…agreeing with him.)
Here’s the thing. Apparently we can have women on the front lines of battle (if they can meet the same training requirements as men, I support this idea) and fire automatic weapons and other artillery in defense of our country, but apparently women aren’t capable of firing a semi-automatic AR-15 in defense of their own home?
Something screwy is going on here.
My recommendation for McCarthy? Get thee to a shooting range and actually educate yourself on what you are trying to legislate, it’s not difficult to do and it might even change your mind on some of the batshit ideas you are spouting. At the very least it will give you something to do other than appearing on cable news shows to talk about things you know nothing about.
Oh well, at least your interview doesn’t include you saying that people get shot often by unloaded weapons.
Oh and let’s not forget that, like Obama’s healthcare reform which doesn’t effect his family or congress, Feinstein’s latest anti-gun legislation also does not apply to government officials.
I guess Feinstein still understands “the sense of helplessness that people feel” and she “know[s] the urge to arm yourself”, which she did. She was a concealed carry permit holder in the 1990s. In fact, she said that she “made the determination that if someone was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.”
So she understands that and wants to make sure she can still have that sense of security that comes from arming herself.
She just wants to make sure no one else gets that sense of security.
But don’t worry, it’s all for our own good. A democratic government would never do anything bad to it’s citizens or take away their rights.
Now that we understand that, I need to go back to reading a story about how the democratic government in Egypt has imprisoned a woman and her children for 15 years because they converted to Christianity.