(The Blaze) PIERS MORGAN: I have an interview coming up with two young women who wrote a piece in which they said they wanted the rights of the AR-15 weapon at home because they feared they would be attacked and they wanted a gun that would guarantee they would murder or would kill their attacker. How do you respond to that particular argument, which is they believe under their second amendment right they should be allowed an AR-15?
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.
Um, wait, what? Is she saying that assault rifles are less accurate than the non-scary looking versions? And easier? And not really a rifle rifle? Actually, many “assault rifles” are a whole lot easier to use for women, since they are often lighter than many standard rifles, and it is easier to hold while reloading. Plus, with collapsible stocks they are easily customized for the size of the user. That’s are some of the reasons hunters like them. And people who like shooting. And people who want to protect their homes.
Let’s not forget that McCarthy is a proponent of women serving in combat roles. As Jon writes
I’d like to hear her explanation of the mechanics of her contention. So, since she opposes scary-looking rifles, does she think that the military should be teaching women to fight with bolt-action or lever action rifles in their new roles as combat soldiers? Or maybe she’s just unaware of what women are capable of – or doesn’t really care when she’s making idiot political statements.
Personally, I prefer my handguns for home defense, and, if I lived in a bigger place, probably a shotgun. With a pistol grip and no stock. Others prefer a scary looking rifle, because the first thing you want to do is scare the crap out of an intruder so you don’t have to fire. But, if you do, you want control and power.