Contradictions

[ZeSpectre]

I'm assembling a chart of contradictions and I'd love some help.

The Rules

1. The contradictions MUST be something said by an anti-rights type and I need citations or links to the actual quotes.
2. BONUS points for anyone who can help me dig up a contradiction spoken by the same person!

For example:

“However, law enforcement officials agree that there’s no reason for civilians to have weapons of war which end up on our streets and in our neighborhoods.” - Rep. Scott Peters

vs

DHS is asking for the 7,000 “select-fire” AR platform firearms because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” - General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal

 

[gunsandreligion]

“There should be universal background checks, universal background checks, It in no way impacts upon someone’s ability under the Constitution to own a gun. Zero, zero. It’s enforcing a law – some folks say, ‘Look, just enforce the laws that are on the books.’ Well, the first step to do that is put a law on the books that says all those folks that have adjudicated incapable of owning a gun under the law, make sure we have access to their names. That’s why there is a need for universal background checks."- Joe Biden
Joe Biden: ‘We Don’t Have Time To Prosecute Everybody Who Lies’ On Background Checks

 

[CmdrSlander]

Cops and soldiers need assault weapons because their enemies have them...

...of course no one has ever attacked civilians with an "assault weapon"...

oh wait...

 

[FitGunner]

Anything Biden says.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Thanks guys, but please remember, I need specific quotes attributable to named persons and able to be searched/found by anyone (so I can prove I'm not making this stuff up).

 

[BogBabe]

Carolyn McCarthy (she of the "shoulder thing that goes up" ban) said that AR15s are "too hard for women to use" and that we should stick with rifles.

What does she think an AR15 is, if not a rifle?

Biden said that assault weapons are hardly ever used in crimes, but they should be banned because the police are outgunned because of the proliferation of assault weapons.

Not sure who said it, but at least one gun-grabber said that low-capacity mags will limit mass killers because it'll slow them down enough for someone to stop them, but that innocent civilians experiencing a home invasion by multiple intruders won't be slowed down by low-capacity mags because we can "just reload."

 

[Skribs]

Some of these contradictions are even worse than just that. BogBabe's contradiction re: magazine capacity is one of my favorites. The anti-rights group suggest that a hi-cap ban would slow down a criminal but not a home owner. The fact is that the opposite is true, and this is not a contradiction. It's the simple fact that most shooters go in with a bag full of magazines and most defenders have one, maybe two magazines full of ammunition.

Any time a politician says it is okay for police to have an AR-15 or high cap mag, but then regarding civilian ownership says those features are only designed to inflict maximum number of casualties.

How about any time gun laws are ignored for the sake of the government or the anti-gun crowd? The talk show host in DC, the New York laws that "won't be enforced until they can be amended", F&F, etc.

If a shooting occurs and the weapon isn't already banned, we need to ban that type of weapon. If a shooting occurs and the weapon is already banned, we need to make it more illegal so it won't be used next time.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Bogbabe... that's what I'm looking for , thanks