Lets dissect some key points, and for the slower, not-so-bright out there, who think that guns are the problem, and not the people, I'll try and keep it simple, maybe use some smaller words, etc... well, maybe not. Please try to keep up though.
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,”Emphasis on the madman... so far so good, but then she goes and ruins it by giving life and personality to an inanimate object, the "high-capacity ammunition magazine" (at least she didn't call it a "clip"). It's a piece of metal. These madmen could just as easily have been hatchet wielding felons, hacking and slicing their way through crowds of unarmed and thus, helpless victims. The problem is not the weapon, it's the wielder.
We need... 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.So now she contradicts herself, from where earlier the magazine was an accomplice essentially, and actually refers to the magazine as a tool, even if it's "the worst tool". But read what comes after that! Does she say "keeping the worst tools of mass murder away from MADMEN? MURDERERS? RAPISTS? KILLERS? TERRORISTS? ASSASSINS??? No... she wants to keep them away from the GENERAL PUBLIC!!! That is you and me, not the killers, not the criminals... but WE THE PEOPLE!
This nation has come together before to support this simple, commonsense measure, and it is the law in several states right now."This nation" has done no such thing. Several notorious, if not infamous states, for violating the Second Amendment and the rights of their citizens, like California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland and Massachuesetts... basically all that is evil on the blue versus red maps of America, have shoved this legislation down the throats of their citizens, in the name of knowing what's best for them, doing it for good causes ("what about the children") and to (not for) the masses that are dependant on the state for support (those who dare not bite the hand that feeds them). Worse, these are the most bankrupt, corrupt, STILL having the highest crime rates among states, and their dumbed down population, the indoctrinated product of their failing public schools, don't have the mental capacity to even realize what tyranny is being perpetrated upon them. They have their food stamps, their cell phones, their "American Idol" and multi-million dollar athletes, and eccentric celebrities... why argue about evil guns? The government gives them everything they need.
Like Loughner’s rampage in Tucson earlier this month, the gunman that killed McCarthy’s husband was not stopped until bystanders tackled him as he stopped shooting in order to reload – strengthening the case for smaller magazines with fewer bullets, according to McCarthy.How about, instead of smaller magazines with fewer bullets, so brave citizens can tackle an armed madman when he's reloading (hoping, god forbid, that he doesn't have several loaded guns or <gasp> an armed accomplice) and maybe give their life in an attempt to save others, how about, and this is so crazy it just might work... we ARM the population with their own guns, their own larger magazines. They won't have to wait for the assailant to empty his magazine, but rather, could DEFEND THEMSELVES FROM THE BEGINNING by drawing down and dropping him.
I wonder what would have happened, had this been a Republican or Tea Party event instead. How many in the crowd would have been carrying, as opposed to the liberals that were at the mercy of a crazed lunatic, and how many fewer, if any, deaths might have occurred?
“All I’m saying is we need to stop the terror,” McCarthy said, noting that shootings involving high-capacity clips seem to occur more frequently now than in the past. “How many people have to die because of these clips?”Oh fiddlesticks... she went and called the magazine a "clip" after starting off so seemingly informed. But that's peanuts next to this Representative, a person with the Library of Congress and all the research power of an ARMY of Post-graduate researchers at her and her party's disposal, making an ambiguous statement like "seem to occur more frequently now than in the past". Really??? She couldn't give numbers? No credible stats so lets make a vague "seems" statement to support your cause??? I thought you were a professional?
It is a small sacrifice that law-abiding gun owners can make once again in order to increase everyone’s safety.”
Yup, the pinnacle, the crown jewel in the argument of the liberal (now called "progressives")... Tell others what THEY can afford to pay, or what someone else can "sacrifice" for someone else's cause. Lady, you sure as hell do not know me, speak for me, or are in ANY way qualified to tell me what you think I can sacrifice... Safety comes second, or third... First come our rights, Constitutionally guaranteed! You are a member of government, you of all people, should know this.