Video: Carolyn McCarthy doesn’t understand her own gun-control legislation
posted at 10:54 pm on April 18, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I wish I could show you the bill (H.R. 1859) but the text isn’t online at Thomas yet. It’s probably identical or nearly identical to this bill, which she introduced in February, to reinstate the assault-weapons ban. Tucker Carlson scrounged up a copy and put a simple question to her: since she’s so worried about weapons with barrel shrouds, could she at least explain to the viewers what a “barrel shroud” is?
This is why Eisner’s so hot for the “emotional, story-driven” approach.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
LOL! Good for Tucker – show her for the tool she is. Next, let’s pass legislation outlawing scopes too. Then we can outlaw metal ’cause you know, they make guns with metal.
thedecider on April 18, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Look, you guys have to give them a chance. You see if we can just:
A.Ban gun ownership
B.Legalize abortion on demand
C.Create a welfare state
D.Tax drivers on mileage driven
E.Ban large personal-use vehicles
F.Tax the successfull
G. ????
then
H. World Peace!
Vincenzo on April 18, 2007 at 11:00 PM
“Do you no what a barrel shroud is? … oh cause it’s in your legislation…”
Just the way he said it was awesome. How about when talking about banning or regulating things in the future, we know what we are banning and regulating?
Keljeck on April 18, 2007 at 11:00 PM
Allah’s right. This isn’t about logic or even common sense. It’s about being out front to drive the latest PC cause du jour because, darn it, they care.
thedecider on April 18, 2007 at 11:03 PM
How about banning murder? Oh, wait, that’s been done, but they’re still murdering! That just can’t be! So banning guns will eliminate murder?
stonemeister on April 18, 2007 at 11:06 PM
How many times has she done this? Here’s one from 2005.
forged rite on April 18, 2007 at 11:06 PM
It doesn’t look like there’s much to worry about. According to govtrack.us, she has sponsored 98 bills since Jan 6, 1999, of which 92 haven’t made it out of committee. Could it be because she’s a complete dolt?
thedecider on April 18, 2007 at 11:08 PM
Here’s the thing about McCarthy. Her husband was one of the victims of the Long Island Railroad shooting perpetrated by Colin Ferguson back in the 1990’s, and ascended to Congress in large part due to her gun control agenda. The fact that she doesn’t know what a barrel shroud is (although honestly I don’t know what it is either) just shows how ignorant she is on her signature issue.
Unfortunately, no one in the MSM will pick up on this, although I hope her 2008 opponent will club her over the head with this type of thing.
Shivv on April 18, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Did anybody here really expect the anti-gun crowd to know anything about guns, except that they are scary. :P
djohn669 on April 18, 2007 at 11:09 PM
OH man — this was….um words…PRICELESS, and do not miss that she was referring to the Columbine boys as if they were the shooter today.
When exactly does Michael Moore get his appropriate digs for his his memorializing the Columbine shootings? Publicity and money BABY!
Topsecretk9 on April 18, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Hilarious.
DPierre on April 18, 2007 at 11:10 PM
It’s not like it particularly matters in her case. All she needs to know is it’s a gun part. Since she wants to ban guns entirely, why should it matter to her which parts go first?
Blacklake on April 18, 2007 at 11:11 PM
But it feels right!
Keljeck on April 18, 2007 at 11:11 PM
The Democrats have a habit of recruiting ignorant spouses
Carnahan
Matsui
Topsecretk9 on April 18, 2007 at 11:12 PM
This tool even says the “large clips” are what the killer used… to my knowledge these relatively small caliber pistols had the standard 9 and 7 round magazines. Our so called lawmakers are so very clueless it is just pathetic.
NeverSubmit on April 18, 2007 at 11:18 PM
We gots Mary Bono
see-dubya on April 18, 2007 at 11:19 PM
LOL, I had to look it up.
It’s a safety component, correct? Lovely.
SouthernDem on April 18, 2007 at 11:21 PM
They can have my Red Ryder BB gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
EnochCain on April 18, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Mary Bono proposed a bill to compensate ER docs and trauma surgeons for all the uncompensated care we are compelled to provide by the EMTALA legislation. Don’t know much else about her, but I appreciate that.
mikeyboss on April 18, 2007 at 11:26 PM
Maybe she should ask Jim Webb.
Steve LLamabutcher on April 18, 2007 at 11:27 PM
It allows for circulation of air around the barrel while protecting your hand from the barrel’s heat. So, yeah – a safety device.
thedecider on April 18, 2007 at 11:28 PM
I’m amazed this saw the light of day on that channel.
oakpack on April 18, 2007 at 11:36 PM
Props to Tucker. That’s funny:)
wytammic on April 18, 2007 at 11:38 PM
Not to mention, “These were the types of guns used by gangs and criminals at the time…” Um, I doubt they pay attention to legislation being passed. They are freaking criminals and break laws.
I think the one poster had it right: we should outlaw murder. We might want to try enforcing some of the laws we have too.
wytammic on April 18, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Here is a link to the xml file of bill HR 1859.
186k on April 18, 2007 at 11:47 PM
You don’t have to be a ‘gun nut’ or have access to Google to figure out what a barrel shroud is.
Even a liberal politician should know what a barrel is in the sense of a firearm part, and what a shroud is in terms of a mechanical device component.
LegendHasIt on April 18, 2007 at 11:50 PM
They want to outlaw pistol grips on shot guns?
It’s called home defense, Rep. McCarthy.
They’re easier to wield in close quarters.
birkel on April 18, 2007 at 11:54 PM
I think we should start qualifying these people before they make any judgement, statement, or legislation:
Do you own a firearm? {I do}
Have you ever taken any training on how to properly use a firearm? {I have}
Do you understand the term “Safety First”? {I do}
Do you understand how to properly clean and maintain your firearm? {I do}
Have you ever held a permit to carry a firearm? {I have}
Have you ever held a firearm in the protection of others? {I have}
I would be interested in the honest answers from all these “ban the guns” people, because in my opinion, I have never seen a gun harm anyone, it is the person that picks it up, loads it, then pulls the trigger, that is responsible.
Experiment, in the Halls of Congress, place a Smith and Wesson 9mm semi-automatic firearm, an empty clip, and a box of ammo in a clear glass case. Put next to it a timer. Start the timer. The timer will stop when “the gun”, without human interaction, is fired. Clock starts……….. now…
PinkyBigglesworth on April 18, 2007 at 11:54 PM
If am I thinking of the right thing it is the barrel that appears to have a bunch of holes in it. It dosent, it just alows for airflow to keeps your hand off of a hot barrel. Also I think I remember something about it being used as a silencer, but the amount of noise reduction is so minimal that it really isnt an issue.
SnakeintheGrass on April 18, 2007 at 11:55 PM
I got my Concealed Carry permit this past February. I didn’t make a big deal out of it and only carried when I was on the road.
Tuesday morning I took my $100 Hi-Point .380 and put it in my truck. I’ll bring my Glock 21 when I know I’ll be taking it with me when I leave the truck. I did this for two reasons. First, you just never know when some nutball is gonna do something stupid and if it happens I want to have a chance. Second, to rub the noses of the anti-gun crowd in it. If they want more of these kinds of assaults, go ahead and repeal the 2nd Amendment. Then it’s open season on the law abiding folks.
Pilgrim on April 18, 2007 at 11:59 PM
I think what she’s trying to say is, as a liberal I doesn’t know what “it” is and therefore it should be banned.
KCtheKat on April 19, 2007 at 12:01 AM
No all we have to do is seal off the “weapon mine” where they dig up weapon parts… because, you know, Rosie says that fire can’t melt steel so the parts have to come from somewhere…
BadBrad on April 19, 2007 at 12:05 AM
Do yourself a favor and trade that Hi-Point .380 in
for a Makarov 9.18 MM . About $150 bucks and they
never fail. . .
Try makarov.com If your interested
Texyank on April 19, 2007 at 12:07 AM
I heard this one the other day, So I thought I’d throw out for you guys.”Of all the guns I own and bullets I’ve fired, Ted Kennedy’s car have killed more people than I have.”
KCtheKat on April 19, 2007 at 12:08 AM
Tuesday morning I took my $100 Hi-Point .380
Pilgrim on April 18, 2007 at 11:59 PM
Just checked the site and the price jumped . .
So let me revise. . They use to be $150 bucks
Texyank on April 19, 2007 at 12:10 AM
Yes! Go McCarthy! Please protect us all from the evils of pistol-grips and barrel shrouds! If I die in a shooting, I at least don’t want to be killed by a mean-looking semiautomatic rifle. Please make it a plain-looking, functionally-identical semiauto hunting rifle instead.
tommy1 on April 19, 2007 at 12:15 AM
If you are going to defend the life of you and your loved ones, spend the money and get the reliability and accuracy.
If you want .380 auto, Walther PPK or PPK/S is a very good choice.
And pretty, too.
.
The Machine on April 19, 2007 at 12:23 AM
Ah…. .380 are girly guns….
1945A1 .45 Cal… still the best bang for the buck for personal defense…
Cause you don’t need personal defense at 50 yards anyway… LOL…. up close and personal I want somthing with a bit of authority…
Romeo13 on April 19, 2007 at 12:32 AM
Alright See-Dub…but at least she’s HOT
Topsecretk9 on April 19, 2007 at 12:34 AM
Up close and personal…..my Roman gladius….not much range but makes a nice big hole. Seriously….I love the PPK. Wife can handle it fine and it has never jammed(unless, of course, I put an ABC high capacity magazine in it).
Limerick on April 19, 2007 at 12:38 AM
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
Check.
`(ii) a threaded barrel;
Check.
`(iii) a pistol grip;
Check.
`(iv) a forward grip; or
Check.
`(v) a barrel shroud.
Check.
Where do I turn myself in? Is there an 800 number or something? ‘Cause I’m feeling really, really guilty.
/McCarthy off
wccawa on April 19, 2007 at 12:38 AM
What a dumb broad, she doesn’t even know what she’s banning, she’s just a willing puppet of anti-2nd amendment forces.
Bad Candy on April 19, 2007 at 12:42 AM
Tuck: “Do you know what it is…. Because it’s in your legislation….
McCarthy: “it’s the thing that goes up”….
Tuck: NO it’s not…
And did anyone catch that she say’s “I’m not saying it’s the best legislation”?
WTF? She sponsored it?
Topsecretk9 on April 19, 2007 at 12:46 AM
One’s responsibility for their own safety does not end when they leave the relative security of their home.It is in public that one is in the most vulnerable environment and requires diligence, awareness of surroundings, and a capability that is equal to or better then any dire circumstance one might find themselves in. Anything less and you are a “victim in waiting”. Ms. McCarthy has no concept of an individual’s responsibility for their own self defense. If her husband had, he would possibly still be alive.
Chief1942 on April 19, 2007 at 12:52 AM
FYI: In the bill the barrel shroud is also used on a semi-automatic rifle. A ventilated barrel shroud’s main purpose is to dissipate the heat generated which allows accelerated barrel cooling from rapid firing.
I’m not an expert but I believe a shroud can also be considered a flash supressor, and silencers also look like shrouds. A shroud can also extend the length of certain short illegal automatic rifle upper barrels into legal 16″ barrels.
I think however, that Congress is more concerned over appearance than substance. I don’t know what’s more scary – seeing a person with an assault rifle or a Congresswoman who doesn’t know in her on bill what’s she is trying to pass.
Texas Mike on April 19, 2007 at 12:55 AM
Oh, Science, that was funny.
Tucker’s tone is deadpan at its best.
PaisleyCow on April 19, 2007 at 12:58 AM
Yeah, well, most of the legislation she sponsors don’t see the light of day.
thedecider on April 19, 2007 at 1:34 AM
Just for some perspective:
thedecider on April 19, 2007 at 1:36 AM
The irony of attacking ‘assault weapons’ that ‘are killing our police’ is that the semi-automatic rifles people usually mean by that term (M-16 and AK-47) were specifically designed to have less killing power than prior infantry rifles.
The logic is this: If you kill an enemy soldier, you take him off the battlefield. But if you wound him badly enough to incapacitate him as a fighter, without actually killing him, you also take some of his buddies out as well, because they stop shooting at you long enough to stablilze his wounds and evac the guy. You cause the enemy transportation and logistics system to be used for transporting wounded soldiers, medical personnel, supplies etc., rather than fighting men and their supplies.
A true ‘assault rifle’ is deliberately designed to be less likely to kill than older rifle designs.
The Monster on April 19, 2007 at 1:47 AM
In Soviet Russia; for $150, Makarov pistol gets YOU!
Tucker nailed this one. Is it just me or do the keep trying to ban AR-15s? Thats really the ones that are most effected.
liquidflorian on April 19, 2007 at 1:49 AM
My question: Why is this woman still in office? She’s obviously a blathering idiot who can’t get any legislation out of committee, much less passed with any success. What do these voters see in her? DUMP THE DEAD WEIGHT PEOPLE!
thedecider on April 19, 2007 at 2:01 AM
Dunno, I’d get an AK anyway. They can be treated like utter crap and they’ll still fire, plus they’re better for melee.
Bad Candy on April 19, 2007 at 2:06 AM
Clueless.
It’s important to remember that liberals don’t care about Americans or saving American lives and that any “assault weapon” ban isn’t anything to do with safety, it’s about cradle to grave control of our dependent on them lives.
If we’re able to speak out, if we’re self determining and especially if we can defend our selves then Americans can’t be controlled and of course we remain free.
Speakup on April 19, 2007 at 2:38 AM
The Yakov Smirnov thing is always funny.
see-dubya on April 19, 2007 at 2:41 AM
Barrel shrouds are NOT silencers, or flash suppressors, or muzzle compensators. Their only function is providing insulation between the forward hand of the operator and the high temperature barrel during burst or automatic firing.
Agreeing with most everyone else, bills like this are for show, going after the “scary-looking” weapons. A gang hit goes down, police recover weapons, and we get to see photos in the news. Some bleeding heart legislator targets (pardon the pun) weapons of similar appearance for a ban. These dolts seriously think that the public will just have to agree, that since bad guys had that weapon it has to be a “bad” weapon.
There are no bad weapons. There are evil people. To stop evil people you MUST confront them with greater force than they are using to apply their evil. It can’t be put any simpler than that. You don’t negotiate with evil, you don’t hope it gives up and goes away, you defeat it.
Freelancer on April 19, 2007 at 2:50 AM
Shooting fish in a barrel = interviewing Democrats about substative issues
too bad no one watches this show……….
Janos Hunyadi on April 19, 2007 at 3:11 AM
The problem with the gun control issue is one that has been mentioned here a bit: No one is really serious about it. I can respect, but still disagree with, someone who honestly thinks that there needs to be far-reaching legislation that controls the types of guns that they believe the most harmful.
The problem is that, as with the so-called Assault Weapons ban, proponents of such bills are merely looking at aesthetics rather than substantial issues with guns.
Shivv on April 19, 2007 at 3:43 AM
I was alway partial to the G3, but here in CA its a no go. M1’s are still legal though, witch is funny when you think about it.
liquidflorian on April 19, 2007 at 4:47 AM
Pinky, right on the money!
Viper1 on April 19, 2007 at 6:18 AM
I’m sorry for her loss but that loss does not mean she would be a good legislator. She sounds like an unprepared propagandist.
Zorro on April 19, 2007 at 6:48 AM
I think that’s a typo, could be 1911A1 service pistol. One of John M. Brownings greatest inventions.
Zorro on April 19, 2007 at 6:54 AM
Guns don’t kill people….liberal judges kill people.
(Now, because of this stupid liberal NY legislator, I am making another donation to the NRA)
lynnv on April 19, 2007 at 8:07 AM
Limerick, I have a PPK myself. It’s a great gun for my home defense, fits perfectly in my hand (I like those grooves!) and is easy for my skinny arm to shoot. Oh, and yes, 10 rounds.
I remember thinking when they showed the shooter’s guns on television that one looked suspiciously like mine and how could it possibly hold all these rounds everyone was talking about.
serpentineshel on April 19, 2007 at 8:27 AM
It’s sad that her district can’t scrape up a someone to replace her. Maybe some in her area will be able to muster enought mist on a mirror next year and give people in her district a choice. She’s been a joke ever since she entered congress. One issue legislator that doesn’t even know that issue. It’s pathetic what passes for public servants these days,if she’s one of the best and brighest, we’re doomed.
madmonaco on April 19, 2007 at 8:52 AM
As a taxpayer of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
JANE DEMANDS VIRGINIA TECH VICE PRESIDENT FOR UNIVERSITY RELATIONS, LARRY HINCKER’S, CAREER ON A PIKE.
TO.DAY.
seejanemom on April 19, 2007 at 9:01 AM
and if it please the court, may I add…TUCKER IS A BULLDOG…and MAD SEXY in a bow tie….WOOOOOF.
seejanemom on April 19, 2007 at 9:04 AM
And just how will banning barrel shrouds save lives?
Do you think madmen bent on slaughtering their victims are the least bit concerned about the heat generated on the barrel?
Geesh. What morons.
fogw on April 19, 2007 at 9:11 AM
Ho ho, this is RICH! This utter moron just got owned by the sub-par Tucker Carlson? Carlson got owned on his own show by Jon Stewart! I like Carlson, but if he punches at his own weight, he loses. That’s why this is so damning–this woman is part of the government and just had her lunch eaten by Carlson? What perfect incompetence! Good Job, Carlson, keep it up, etc…
haakondahl on April 19, 2007 at 9:11 AM
She can have the barrel shroud off my Mossberg 590 when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
csdeven on April 19, 2007 at 9:12 AM
My Sig P239 in 9mm uses an 8 round mag. Let the libtards ban
larger mag’s. If I can’t “get the job done” in 8, another 2 probably would’nt help anyway.
bernzright777 on April 19, 2007 at 9:12 AM
Is it just me, or does that woman look like Martin Short in a blue dress and a really, really bad red toupé?
Jaibones on April 19, 2007 at 9:58 AM
(In my best Beavis voice) Dude…you said ho..heh-he heh-he
brtex on April 19, 2007 at 10:08 AM
Genius, Tucker!
BirdEye on April 19, 2007 at 10:57 AM
What a disgrace. How many bills have these idiots presented without knowing what is in it? Absolutely shameful.
Wade on April 19, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Seperated at birth. Nancy Marchand
Wade on April 19, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Thanks Freelancer on the clarification on the barrel shrouds. I do think the reason why they are mentioned in the bill for semi automatic rifles and pistols is that they can look like silencers which is illegal and flash suppressors – there is no safety issue involved. They just make the firearm look more dangerous and looks are everything to Democrats. – just ask John Edwards.
When law abiding citizens discharge their firearms they want the 2nd admendment sound to be heard and the nice flash visible. Only snipers need silencers and flash suppressors.
Texas Mike on April 19, 2007 at 11:50 AM
You know what else we should ban because it looks scary?
Midgets.
They creep me out.
True.
Google it.
natesnake on April 19, 2007 at 11:56 AM
And Appalachian Americans. Gemtech makes a nice silencer.
natesnake on April 19, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Silencers should not be illegal anyways. They are great for saving your ears from hearing damage.
That is why they are legal in many countries but the gun grabbers infringed on the second amendment long ago to make them a licensed item.
They are regulated just like machine guns and require a 200 tax stamp.
ScottyDog on April 19, 2007 at 12:27 PM
I actually thought a barrel shroud was a burqa for your gun.
Who’d thunk it!
Kini on April 19, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Told ya. They want your guns folks, and every time there have been major massacres like this in other countries, these creeps come out of the woodwork like cockroaches (can I say that word here? Is COCKROACH a BAD word? Am I gonna get banned from the internet for saying MCCARTHY is a COCKROACH? Hmmm)
They can have MY weapons, when they take them from me, after they kill me. I’m not giving them up to anyone, for any reason.
Rick Donaldson on April 19, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »