April 19, 2007
They don't understand the laws; they just write them
This is simply the most perfect demonstration of the idiocy of the anti-gun Democrats, who know nothing about the scary, eeeeevil, ugly, vewy, vewy scawy weapons they want to ban.
Proving that he's not the worst dancer in the world -- despite his performance on last season's "Dancing With the Stars" -- journalist Tucker Carlson nails Democratic New York Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy on the details of an assault-weapon bill she recently authored.
Check out how the pathetic politician tries to tapdance around the fact that she has no idea what her proposed law means.
Carlson: In February you introduced the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007; it would regulate semi-automatic assault weapons including weapons that have pistol-grips or forward grip and something called a "barrel shroud." Weapons with a "barrel shroud" would be regulated. What’s a "barrel shroud" and why should we regulate it?McCarthy: I think – I think the more important thing is that it also would have banned the large capacity clips that Colin Ferguson had used, and also the killer.
Carlson: I’m sorry – I read the legislation, and it said that it would regulate "barrel shrouds." What’s a "barrel shroud" and why should we regulate them?
McCarthy: The guns that were chosen back in the – in those days were basically the guns that most gangs and criminals were using to kill our police officers. I’m not saying it was the best bill but that was the best bill we could get out at that particular time –
Carlson: Do you know what a "barrel shroud" is?
McCarthy: I actually don’t know what a "barrel shroud" is –
Carlson: Oh, okay, because it’s in your legislation.
McCarthy: I believe it’s the shoulder thing that goes up.
Carlson: No, it’s not.
For the record, a barrel shroud is a piece of metal with holes in it, designed to protect the person firing the firearm from burning his hand on the hot barrel concealed beneath the shield. It has nothing to do with how the weapon operates, but it can make a gun look scary, in an "ooga-booga!" sorta way, if you wear Birkenstocks and wear pleather.
Why did it need regulating? Well, don't expect an answer from the congresswoman; she just writes the laws.
She doesn't claim to understand what they mean.
You can watch the video here. I particularly like the diffident way Carlson tells her, "No, it isn't."
You can almost hear him mutter, "Idiot" under his breath.
Posted by Mike Lief at April 19, 2007 09:17 PM
| TrackBack
Comments
I'm pretty middle of the road about most things. The extreme ends of the gun control debate - from Carolyn McCarthy to this blog are the crazies in my mind. McCarthy would take guns from law abiding citizens. This blog would have guns practically handed out to school children so that they could defend themselves from a mass murderer should their elementary school come under attack.
This blog fails to realize this -> Guns are incredibly dangerous and lethal objects of destruction in the wrong hands. I just don't understand this almost sexual lust for guns that pro-gun advocates seem to have. Why is it unreasonable to require that all firearms are registered and that all gun owners are strictly licensed to make sure that they know how to use their guns and have no criminal records?
The paranoia of a potential government coupe and the romantic notion of gun fanatics that they will fight off the U.S. Army in the event of a take over are something on the order of a paranoid schizophrenic hallucinating in the corner of his padded room.
With this "Cho" lunatic getting his hands on a Glock firearm that carries huge 30 round clips, a reasonable thinking person should be expected to think that maybe - just maybe our current gun laws are lacking.
This Virginia Tech situation shows us that we need to take care of the mentally ill, be better prepared to identify dangerous people, and tighten up our gun laws so that only licensed individuals may own them.
Posted by: James R. at April 20, 2007 07:35 AM
If we are going to re-write the Bill of Rights, there are a lot of areas we can work on - I personally think "reasonable" restrictions and background checks should be required to register to vote.
Posted by: andrewdb at April 20, 2007 12:16 PM
Cho committed a federal felony by answering "no" to question 9.f. on BATF Form 4473.
He committed a misdemeanor violation of 18.2 VSA section 308.1:2 by possessing a firearm after being adjudged mentally incapacitated.
He committed a misdemeanor violation of 18.2 VSA section 311.1, and a federal felony by removing the serial numbers from his pistols.
He committed a felony by carrying those weapons concealed without a license. The number of felonies he committed, including chaining the doors at Norris Hall and going from discharging a firearm in a building all the way up to murder, must exceed 10 in number.
That James R. believes some additional words in either the Virginia Statutes or the federal code would have stopped this loser indicates to me that James R. probably rode to school on the short bus and sleeps with a tinfoil hat.
Posted by: abe at April 20, 2007 04:35 PM