What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Private Online Shopping Clubs Work view!
howlifeworks.com - How to become a member and get discounts of up to 80% on must-have luxury goods
23 Comments
- Viper6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Its just one more in a long line of idiots who are in control of this nation, who have absolutely no clue of that to which they speak and attempt to assert their ill informed points of view upon the rest of us. Who puts these morons in office.
- podwich, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19T.C.: "Do you know what a barrel shroud is?"
C.M.: "I actually don't know what a barrel shroud is..."
T.C.: "Oh, because it's in your legislation."
C.M.: "I think it's that thing that goes up."
T.C.: "No."
Wow. One would think the least we could expect from our representatives is to at least understand the things they are attempting to make laws about. - psyops2000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16That dumb bitch doesn't even know what she's banning, yet she's still idiotically ferverent about continuing this emotional crusade against guns.
- desertdweller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12The real question, since she doesn't understand her own legislation, is -- WHO IS BEHIND THE CURTAIN pulling the strings?
- Tzetzes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Ha! Love his delivery!
- nokla, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10JigoroKano said "A barrel shroud is only necessary..."
What's a barrel shroud, Jigoro?
JigoroKano said "I don't see why McCarthy should be expected to understand..."
Because she introduced the bill. At the very least, a person who introduces a bill should understand it. Look at the Patriot Act for example. Nobody fully understood it - it just sounded nice so they voted for it.
JigoroKano said "There are already artificial restrictions upon the 2nd amendment..."
Ok, so you must either agree then that the laws restricting which arms I can own are patently unconstitutional.
Even in the Miller case that gun-grabbers love to cite as justification for restrictions of arms *by type*, the ruling only stated that arms that are not presently used in military service (such as the sawed-off shotgun involved in the case) may be restricted. That was their test. Does the military find it useful? If so, then it should not be restricted.
Ironic that the primary interpretation of leftists on the matter is to ban "military style" firearms.
McCarthy, understanding that the guns used in the VT shooting were not restricted by any gun control, claimed that magazine capacity limits would have reduced the magnitude of the tragedy. This is absurd. Eyewitness testimony described his proficiency in reloading - something that even with revolvers can be reloaded and fired rapidly with practice (watch Jerry Miculik - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsLx5ISBXw4).
The main lesson learned from shooting rampages is that the sooner a "good guy" arrives with a gun, the sooner the "bad guy" can be neutralized and further injury and death can be stopped. If any one of the victims broke the law that day, brought a gun on campus, and used it to kill the attacker - would you be complaining?
I know Rep. McCarthy would, because she cares more about her crusade than threat elimination.
Bear in mind that terrorists around the world have seen this coverage. They've seen that Universities have no control over who enters or leaves campus and what sort of weaponry they bring onto campus (from spitballs on up to nukes). The only way to secure such large, spread-out groups of people is by planting protectors at random among them - much as we do with Sky Marshals. Rather than creating a new class of government funded protectors, we should use the highly trained and skilled individuals that states like Virginia already have through their legally carried concealed handgun systems. - nokla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9You should probably support the "Read the Bills Act". You do raise a good point though, it's impossible to force them to understand the bills.
- Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Tucker was referring to HR1022, which was authored and introduced by Rep. McCarthy earlier this year. It does indeed define barrel shrouds as prohibited features.
The full text of HR1022 is at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022
Note that this is not an old bill. This was introduced in Feburary of this year.
McCarthy has no idea what she's supporting it; she supports it only because her true agenda is the banning of all firearms. - nokla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8It comes from a variety of sources. One group that funds such efforts is the Joyce Foundation: http://www.joycefdn.org/Programs/GunViolence/
- nokla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The majority who sat at home on election day and at every opportunity proclaimed that reform was a lost cause.
- DesertFish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Amazing!!!!! One of the loudest voices in Congress for Gun Control.........AND SHE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT TSHE'S TRYING TO CONTROL!!!!!!! (Or maybe she does, just not guns. Hmmmmmmmmm....) This just further goes to show that many of the people calling for gun control have NO. IDEA. WHAT. THEY. ARE. DOING.
- metronil, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Can a democRat please answer me this:
Does it SUCK to be so STUPID? - sh007r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Maybe we should send her to the hardware store to pick up a gallon of prop wash, or some air hooks....
- desertdweller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yes, but who -authored- the words? Probably not even someone on her staff, since she's never been briefed.
Which means she's a puppet. - jake7457, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4transcript
CARLSON: Right. But even before we knew anything about the gunman in this case, at Virginia Tech, before we knew his name, before we knew how many people were killed, much less their names, you said the following thing, quote: “The unfortunate situation in Virginia could have been avoided if congressional leaders stood up to the gun lobby.”
This was the kind of sentiment that the governor of Virginia, a Democrat, attacked. He said, I‘ve got nothing but loathing for people who say things like that. Isn‘t it premature to make sweeping judgments about public policy from an incident we barely understand, that is just a couple of days old?
MCCARTHY: No. Because I get up on the floor in Congress every single week and talk about the gun violence that is happening in this country on a daily basis. But with that being said, you know, when we found out that the killer actually had been adjudicated by a judge that he was mentally incompetent, that would have put him right there on the NICS bill that I had gotten passed a few years ago that unfortunately did not go through the Senate, could have been prevented him from buying a gun. And I think that is what we‘re looking for.
CARLSON: Well, wait a second, as far as I know, it is illegal now, it was illegal three months ago for someone who has been adjudicated mentally ill to buy a weapon. Isn‘t it? I mean, it was illegal when he did it, wasn‘t it?
MCCARTHY: It was, but unfortunately, the information that Virginia had did not go into the national instant background check system. And that‘s what basically my bill would do. It would get a mandate for the states, take the information that they have and put it into a computer system so that the instant—listen, we know that a computer is only as good as the data that it has.
The states need to give that information so that when a gun store is selling a gun, he knows that the information he has selling to someone like that murderer, that he shouldn‘t have been able to buy a gun.
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, a forward grip and something called a barrel shroud. Weapons with a barrel shroud would be regulated. What is a barrel shroud and why should we regulate it?
MCCARTHY: 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. But we are talking about.
CARLSON: OK. But I read the legislation.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: I‘m sorry. I read the legislation and it said that it would regulate barrel shrouds. What is a barrel shroud? And why should we regulate that?
MCCARTHY: The guns that were chosen back in those days were basically the gun that most gangs and criminal were using to kill our police officers. I‘m not saying it was the best bill. But that was the best bill they could get out...
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Do you know what a barrel shroud is?
MCCARTHY: I actually don‘t know what a barrel shroud is.
CARLSON: Oh, OK. Because it is in your legislation.
MCCARTHY: I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up.
CARLSON: No, it‘s not. I just—here‘s my question. Shouldn‘t we spend more time trying to understand why people commit these crimes, how a person with this profound mental illness like Colin Ferguson or Cho Seung-Hui can exist in our society unnoticed. That seems a more pressing question than whether has a barrel shroud to me, don‘t you think?
MCCARTHY: Well, to be very honest with you, I have been working on that for years, also. That is called having mental parity. When we lost two police officers here—down here in the Capitol, it was done by a deranged person that unfortunately had fallen through the cracks because he went off his medication.
I certainly believe in mental health and it is something that we need to even start looking back, even starting through high school. You know, looking at these young people that might need help and get them help they have. But right now we don‘t have a system that is taking care of that. Hopefully, that will be—get done by Patrick Kennedy and Mr. Ramstad from Minnesota.
CARLSON: I hope something is done. Thanks very much, Congresswoman.
We appreciate it very much.
MCCARTHY: Thank you.
CARLSON: That is it for us. Thanks for watching. Up next is “HARDBALL.” One of Chris‘ guests will be NBC News President Steve Capus. We will see you tomorrow. - anastrophe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Even in the Miller case that gun-grabbers love to cite as justification for restrictions of arms *by type*, the ruling only stated that arms that are not presently used in military service (such as the sawed-off shotgun involved in the case) may be restricted."
actually, it didn't even say that, technically. Miller, the defendant, had fled by the time of trial. since the defendent wasn't there, no evidence was presented, and the court used that lack of evidence to state - in just about the squirreliest language imaginable - that they couldn't make a finding. so it was remanded to the lower court. it's a pretty pathetic ruling that *sounds* quite impressive, but the formal legal language is horrendous. they wrote, and i'll put in all caps the keywords:
"IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TENDING TO SHOW that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, WE CANNOT SAY that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly IT IS NOT WITHIN JUDICIAL NOTICE that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
it's weasel wording from asses to elbows. if this were an honest ruling, where they weren't hiding the lack of judicial authority, it would have said:
"possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' has NO reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. THEREFORE the Second Amendment DOES NOT guarantee the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly this weapon is NOT any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
basically, they pulled a fast one. they faked a ruling. and the anti-gun-nuts have latched onto this non-ruling ever since. - FatHed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Well, I stand corrected. Thank you.
- InfidelAl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2A can of Flightline maybe?
- FatHed, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Now it all makes sense, Carlson has read an older version of the bill.
old - http://www.theorator.com/bills109/hr1312.html
new - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1859: - trekkie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yeah, and just think, these folks want to legislate our porn, internet, and video games.
- FatHed, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Perhaps you should read my post. I will say that she should know what they are, since she did propose the 109th's HR1312, but the current law that is proposed does not contain anything concerning barrel shrouds.
- FatHed, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Look, perhaps people should start reading.
T. Carlson is simply lying. There is nothing in that legislation that mentions barrel shrouds.
A barrel shroud can be anything that covers a barrel, it's normally defined to be a little bit narrower than that definition, but that's essentially what it is.
Here is the text of the proposed bill,
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1859:
Here is the section in the US Code that it would alter,
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=922
You'll need to scroll down to (w).
There is no mention of barrel shrouds in either the proposed bill, or the section of the US Code that it will change.
Now, don't get me wrong, imo this is unconstitutional anyway, but don't believe some jackass on tv just cause he made someone else look stupid. - JigoroKano, on 10/12/2007, -16/+2A barrel shroud is only necessary if you are firing many rounds/shells over a short period for time. Definitely not something you need for hunting or home defense... useful for overturning the fascist government though.
I don't see why McCarthy should be expected to understand all the technical details of what constitutes an assault weapon. As long as the bill distinguishes this correctly, what should be debated is the principle of the matter... should assault weapons be banned?
There are already artificial restrictions upon the 2nd amendment, like the fact that I cannot legally own a nuclear weapon or really anything sufficient enough to overthrow a fascist government. It is not legal to amass a militia powerful enough to much of anything. So I don't think the answer to this question is clear at all from a legal standpoint, or if it is it certainly isn't being adhered to.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is