Saturday, January 24, 2009

Hillary's Replacement Challenged

Yahoo News reports on the controversy surrounding the choice to replace Hillary Clinton in the New York Senate.
"I don't think someone with a 100 percent NRA rating should be the next senator from New York," said Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, who ran for Congress after her husband was killed and son wounded in the 1993 Long Island Rail Road shooting massacre. "The majority of New Yorkers believe in trying to reduce gun violence."

Even I find this kind of rhetoric difficult to take. When Gov. David Paterson announced the appointment of little-known upstate Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand to replace Hillary, I don't believe for a second he wanted someone who does not "believe in trying to reduce gun violence." I find McCarthy's comments quite exaggerated, I suppose to make the point that I'm always trying to make: pro gun people are unintentionally part of the problem not part of the solution.

According to the Yahoo article, Mayor Bloomberg, who is a very strong proponent of gun control, agreed with McCarthy. They say that Gillibrand co-sponsored legislation to deny information to the police that would enable them to track illegal gun criminals. The legislation passed in the House but was never considered by the Senate. I suppose they're talking about blocking some kind of registration laws, but I get the feeling these anti-gun folks are twisting and spinning a good bit. Denying information to the police sounds crazy to me.
A group called New Yorkers Against Gun Violence also criticized Gillibrand. "In fact some of her gun control stances are detrimental to law enforcement and their efforts to prevent crime by going after illegal guns," the group said in a statement.

I suppose my only problem with this is the attempt to paint Gillibrand as someone who is not interested in the same things as everyone else. We all want safer streets, less crime, increased security. What's wrong with simply arguing about the differing ways of achieving these goals? To me, personal attacks aimed at the new pro-gun Senator seem useless. It would be better to question her policies regarding gun control.

What's your opinion? Do you think Ms. Gillibrand would agree with Bob S. when he says that more guns in the hands of the good guys would result in less crime on the streets? Is that what the controversy is all about? Or could it be something else, maybe some gun registration laws? What's a 100% NRA rating, anyway?

What do you think? Please let us know.


  1. about the "legislation to deny information to the police", that might perhaps be a more than usually distorted view of the Tiahrt Amendment, which in actuality does no such thing but has often been smeared by anti-gunners as doing just that.

    i don't support her nomination, because her seat in the house of representatives is not secure enough. no point handing that over to the republicans when there are so many safe dem seats in NY; pick one of them instead.

  2. i love in ny, and from what ive seen, she looks like a sarah palin wanna-be

  3. A Sarah Palin wanna-be!



    Carolyn McCarthy isn't just an idiot, she's a fucking idiot.

    and in case you don't get the depths of her stupidity, she's being quizzed on the most restrictive point of a bill she WROTE!!!

    Her word is worthless!

    And of course she wants the streets to be safer...she just chooses methods that actually work and are proven as such, rather than unproven or failed methods that require ignoring key facts for them to make sense.

    BTW 100% NRA rating is based on legislation, and voluntary questionnaires. 100% means as far as the NRA is concerned she's aligned with their ideals of common sense gun control.

  5. And of course she wants the streets to be safer

    i once heard somebody propose a test for political campaign points, went something like this: take what a politician says s/he wants to do, and imagine anybody campaigning on doing the exact opposite. if that's flatly ludicrous, the politician you're analyzing isn't saying anything useful; they should be going into more detail on how they're proposing to do what clearly everybody wants.

    nobody wants to make the streets more dangerous, that's not the problem with Carolyn McCarthy. her problem is that her chosen method of making the streets safer is bunk.

  6. Rep. McCarthy certainly looked stupid in that interview. But, not knowing the technical definition of something that appears in a bill she sponsored, although embarrassing, doesn't necessarily make her an idiot. I think what makes her an idiot for you, Weer'd, is the fact that she disagrees with you. She's a passionate anti-gun politician, not an idiot by any means. I objected to her use of what I take to be an unfair characterization of her nemesis. It's unfair, in my opinion to say Kirsten Gillibrand doesn't want to reduce gun violence.

  7. Mike,

    A little knowledge can be dangerous, but ignorance is worse.

    McCarthy typifies that statement quite well, she sponsored the bill, shouldn't she know about what she is wanting the law to change?

    Here is a similar subject

    Facts about Dihydrogen Monoxide

    Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the highly reactive hydroxyl radical, a species shown to mutate DNA, denature proteins, disrupt cell membranes, and chemically alter critical neurotransmitters. The atomic components of DHMO are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.

    Should I be concerned about Dihydrogen Monoxide?
    Yes, you should be concerned about DHMO! Although the U.S. Government and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) do not classify Dihydrogen Monoxide as a toxic or carcinogenic substance (as it does with better known chemicals such as hydrochloric acid and benzene), DHMO is a constituent of many known toxic substances, diseases and disease-causing agents, environmental hazards and can even be lethal to humans in quantities as small as a thimbleful.

    Before clicking over on the link, based on this information, should this dangerous substance be banned?

    I will also tell you that it is a factor in the more accidental deaths then firearms?

  8. Bob- I followed your caution and did NOT click the link. Here's what I know about what I refer to as 'dihydrous oxide.'

    It was the main near-toxic agent used at Gitmo and other clandestine CIA prisons throughout the world on the prisoners held there.

    This agent mimic's a prisoner's 'death' thereby inducing the subject to hand over 'valuable' classified information lest the actual death occur from dihydrous oxide.

    [BS chemistry, 1964]

  9. "But, not knowing the technical definition of something that appears in a bill she sponsored, although embarrassing, doesn't necessarily make her an idiot."

    Mike, you kinda look like an idiot there. Re-read what I wrote.

    McCarthy didn't SPONSOR HR1022 she WROTE THE BILL!!! (or at least somebody on her staff did)

    Also the definition of "Barrel Shroud" by how the law is written would essentially ban ALL semi-auto log-guns in the country, as ALL long-guns have a forend that keeps the shooter's hands off the hot barrel and action. ALL of them! From Matchlock Muskets, to the FNH SCAR infantry rifle. With the addition of a semi-auto action the gun would become illegal under her bill.

    I'd say that would be important enough to know. I'm willing to let her ignorant statement of "High Capacity Clips" go off as jargon, but not knowing how her own bill works shows something even deeper.

  10. Mud,

    You get 2 points for knowledge.

  11. Weer'd said, "Mike, you kinda look like an idiot there. Re-read what I wrote.

    McCarthy didn't SPONSOR HR1022 she WROTE THE BILL!!! (or at least somebody on her staff did)"

    I was using "sponsor" to be synonymous with "wrote." I think you throw out labels like "idiot" too easily. You're too quick to call people who oppose your ideas names like that. I appreciate that you've exercized some restraint as far as I'm concerned, but you're a hard man to argue with. When I quote someone, they're an idiot. When I produce stats, they're lies. And then you keep calling me biased.

  12. Mike,

    What do you call someone who doesn't learn about something, doesn't change his/her mind despite the facts, logic, commonsense, Constitution, et al, being against that person?

  13. +1 Bob.

    This Woman not only wrote a bill to ban certain types of guns, but has written SCORES of anti-gun bills, and runs on a platform of gun control.

    But then on a national news show where she is attempting to sell her bill she can't even discribe the guns that her bill would ban, and further uses improper terminology.

    If I can't call her an idiot for that, you just want the word banned.

    If I take my truck into the shop for a break-job and the mechanic can't answer me what the difference between drum and disc breaks.

    #1, what would you call that mechanic.

    #2. Would you allow him to work on your car and/or take any of his mechanical advice?

  14. If we want to just bring name calling into this, then not only is McCarthy an idiot, she is ugly too. Butt ugly. When ugly saw her it said, "that's ugly!"

    Seriously. McCarthy is on a campaign against the U.S. Constitution. She hates it and hates all that love America. She is a very unhappy person.

  15. FWM said, When ugly saw her it said, "that's ugly!" That's the best laugh I've had all day.

    And I must admit, If I were an anti-gun politician, I would surely do my homework a little better than she does. Heck, without even trying, even I know what a barrel shroud is now.

  16. Mike,

    Would you ban "Dihyhdrogen Monoxide"?

  17. Mike wouldn't you think that writting a bill to ban an item would require the author to both KNOW what the hell they were banning, and be able to give a few competent reasons why.

    Oh as a further companion to that McCarthy video, I'd like to point out a fun little tid-bit that has gotten ZERO play in the media.

    Sueng Cho used a Glock 19, and a Walther P22. The P22 only accepts a 10 round magazine, so there is no "High Capacity Clip" (as dumbass calls it) for that model. The Glock was bought with the factory-standard pair of 15 round magazines....the remainder of the magazines Cho bought on Ebay. Ebay, to simplify compliance with various state laws that have magazine restrictions allows ONLY for 10-round or less magazines to be sold on their site.

    So Cho had two 15 round magazines and several 10 round with the equivilance of needing one less magazine change cho committed this massacre in full compliance with Congresswoman McCarthy's ban in mind.

    Again if this doesn't make her non compos mentis I don't know what would.