DEM REP: WOMEN SHOULD SERVE IN COMBAT, BUT SHOULDN’T USE ASSAULT WEAPONS - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Rep. Carolyn McCarthy — a strong proponent for women serving in military combat roles — appeared on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight Thursday to make the case for Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapons ban. To that end, McCarthy argued that women should use traditional rifles rather than assault rifles because the former would would be “easier for a woman” to use.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]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.[B] A rifle is more accurate. It’s certainly easier for a woman to be able to do that.[/B][/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/01/25/dem-rep-women-should-serve-in-combat-but-shouldnt-use-assault-weapons/[/URL] Reminder that this is the "shoulder thing that goes up" lady. [video=youtube;ospNRk2uM3U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U[/video] [B]The article is 2 months old, WHOOPS. Still relevant I guess.[/B]

yes, women serving in the army we are counting on you with our lives so you better limit your ability to kill

Use what the enemy won't even use, that'll help you!

This is from 2007. You know that, right?

The middle-aged women who act like America's mom and try to take away our gun privileges are, by far, my least favorite part of the Democratic party.

I'm sure it would be easier to handle And when your wounded squaddie is in the line of fire and you can't lay down ANY suspression because your weapon fires single shots and your medic gets shot because you couldn't keep the enemy from poking out? Yeah.

[QUOTE=Durrsly;40053722]This is from 2007. You know that, right?[/QUOTE] Well shit. [B]The Blaze is experiencing a high load at the moment. Please be patient while we get things back up and running. EDIT: The video is late, not the actual article :|. [U][I][I]Jan. 25, 2013 10:24am 2 months late. WHOOPS.[/I][/I][/U][/B]

[QUOTE=Durrsly;40053722]This is from 2007. You know that, right?[/QUOTE] The video is there just because it's the same women. The video doesn't actually have anything to do with the article however. Which is not late.

"Do you know what that is?" "To be honest no I don't" "Well, it's in your legislation" Fuckin' genius holy shit

"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." Uhh, no, they're just as accurate as each other...

[QUOTE=download;40053771]"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." Uhh, no, they're just as accurate as each other...[/QUOTE] What she doesn't get is that the AR-15 IS A FUCKING RIFLE. She literally knows nothing about firearms.

Those who know nothing about subject x should shut the fuck up about subject x.

[QUOTE=Rastadogg5;40053831]What she doesn't get is that the AR-15 IS A FUCKING RIFLE. She literally knows nothing about firearms.[/QUOTE] Yep. It's like getting someone who's never driven a car to make road rules

I will tell you, if you talk to professionals, politicians and liberal mayors, they'll tell you that logic is not the debate strategy to use. Complete idiocy is more effective and it's certainly easier for the modern American to understand.

[QUOTE=Rastadogg5;40053831]What she doesn't get is that the AR-15 IS A FUCKING RIFLE. She literally knows nothing about firearms.[/QUOTE] What are you talking about? Everybody knows shoulder-mounted barrel shrouds are a real threat [QUOTE=BFG9000;40053868]I will tell you, if you talk to professionals, politicians and liberal mayors, they'll tell you that logic is not the debate strategy to use. Complete idiocy is more effective and it's certainly easier for the modern American to understand.[/QUOTE] I would never limit this type of thinking to just liberal politicians, but otherwise you are correct: ignorance is far more effective a strategy than fact... but only on topics the general public is mostly ignorant about. Guns don't strike me as a good topic for this, considering this is America we're talking about.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;40053868]I will tell you, if you talk to professionals, politicians and liberal mayors, they'll tell you that logic is not the debate strategy to use. Complete idiocy is more effective and it's certainly easier for the modern American to understand.[/QUOTE] So why is it that the Republican party is the one that wants to stifle critical thinking and emphasize creationism over actual science. [editline]27th March 2013[/editline] If you want to question a specific politician over their questionable logic or experience with things they are trying to legislate that's cool but it's far from an established liberal or even Democratic position.

screw this lady for trying to set her gender back to make a political statement [QUOTE=Raidyr;40053909]So why is it that the Republican party is the one that wants to stifle critical thinking and emphasize creationism over actual science.[/QUOTE] and basically rewrite [del]history[/del] text books to fit their way of thinking

Women should have to use their hands as guns and go "Pow!"

This is ridiculous bullshit. The Canadian Forces has women serving as front-line combat infantry and officers. In Afghanistan, several were KIA. What's the fuss about?

I don't even have a serious opinion on the gun control issue but whenever I see someone confuse "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" I get really angry: the manufactured deception works, works, works.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40053973]This is ridiculous bullshit. The Canadian Forces has women serving as front-line combat infantry and officers. In Afghanistan, several were KIA. What's the fuss about?[/QUOTE] Misogyny poorly disguised as chivalry

[QUOTE=16bit;40053747][B][i]The Blaze[/i] is experiencing a [i]high[/i] load at the moment.[/b][/QUOTE] Are you fucking kidding me

lmfao, its so fucking hilarious how she avoids answering what a barrel shroud is and then finally admits she doesn't know. it makes no sense to ban it anyways because it's intended to [i]increase the safety of the firearm[/i] rather than it be a tool used to cause more harm.

your getting your relevant news from MSNBC? i mean as far as budgets for pundits goes, they have like the lowest