Carolyn McCarthy doesn’t understand her own gun-control bill

Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by mzmtg, Apr 19, 2007.

  1. Taler

    Taler New Member

    1,089
    0
    0
    I like Tucker's last line... "No, it's not."
     

  2. Foul

    Foul New Member

    780
    0
    0
    What a STUPID cow.

    People like this, who know NOTHING about the bills they put forward, should be banned from public "service".

    They try to legislate things which they know nothing about?!

    That's like asking your proctologist to perform open heart surgery.

    :screwy:
     
  3. mzmtg

    mzmtg Active Member

    3,119
    0
    36
    She knows that guns are bad and she knows that she knows how to run your life better than you do.

    That's all that matters.
     
  4. Foul

    Foul New Member

    780
    0
    0
    Wow...I still have an "innie" belly button, so the umbilical cord HAS been cut for quite a while.

    Tell me again, WHY do I need government to run my life?

    :p
     
  5. ptsmith24

    ptsmith24 New Member

    8,809
    0
    0
    haha, pwnt is right... :lol: she sounded just like she was giving a prerecorded answer.
     
  6. Watch_Their_Hands

    Watch_Their_Hands New Member

    775
    0
    0
    :shakehead: Perhaps the next time she eats a logroll she'll choke on the filling. :wink: :twisted:
     
  7. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
  8. asbrand

    asbrand Active Member

    1,530
    0
    36
    Is there a text transcript of this video? Would love to see what was said...
     
  9. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    Yes there is.


    Color coded for your ease.

    Source
     
  10. jgullock

    jgullock Active Member

    1,655
    2
    38
  11. ptsmith24

    ptsmith24 New Member

    8,809
    0
    0
    :lol: It's better the second time around. :lol:
     
  12. Tinkerhell

    Tinkerhell Active Member

    2,417
    1
    38
    The exact same kind of thing from our own state legistature as well. Everyone recalls that first committe meeting that we had video from with MP (and his tie). I don't remember which woman is was but she had no clue what the bill said that she was voting on & certianly had no idea of what the existing gun laws are. I know we all have a "report card" that we get to cast on our reps every so often but in reality how many people ever see just what their reps are doing for them? Very very few. It would be great if there were a mediator in those committee meetings that could basically jump the members if they demonstrate their ignorance in such a manner.

    I really can't stand most politicians. :evil:
     
  13. Doc Holliday

    Doc Holliday New Member

    633
    0
    0
    Haha! What an idiot. Carlson did a great job setting her up to look like the fool that she is.
     
  14. merlock

    merlock New Member

    2,513
    0
    0
    This woman is more of a :censored: than Ann Coulter is :)
     
  15. geaux_tigers

    geaux_tigers Member

    994
    0
    16
    Her name is Representative Roberta Abdul-Salaam. She is the very same person that introduced HR376 to have Coretta Scott King's picture displayed in the capitol then failed to show up on time for 2 or 3 committee meetings where the matter was supposed to be heard. :roll:
     
  16. asbrand

    asbrand Active Member

    1,530
    0
    36
    Thanks for the text.

    I never ceased to be amazed at the amount of stupid in our country. Especially in politics.

    I do agree that Cho's mental issues should have raised a flag with NICs, but come on... This woman is beyond clueless...
     
  17. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    24,121
    71
    48
    Function vs. Image

    Okay, do think there's something to the argument that a gun that LOOKS like its made for killing people will tend to attract a different type of prospective buyer than a gun that looks like a mere sporting tool, suitable for hunting or target shooting? Even if the difference is ONLY in looks, and marketing, and the gun's "image" and both are, from a practical standpoint, equally lethal?

    This Congresswoman says she doesn't know what a barrel shroud is (she attempts to describe it and it sounds like she's describing a folding stock). But she says that gangsters used such weapons to kill police. That may be a lie or just an exaggeration, but if we simply what she meant to just "bad people choose assault weapons for their crimes" there may be some truth to that. (Of course, plenty of law-abiding citizens choose them too, and never hurt anybody with theirs, but she's only looking at bad guys' guns).

    My response to her would be, do you think the guy planning a murder who would ordinarily choose the "assault weapon" over the "ordinary sporting gun" would, if such an assault weapon were not available,

    (A) Give up his homicidal plans and instead take up yoga and meditation to deal with his frustrations, or

    (B) Choose an "ordinary sporting gun" that doesn't have muzzle breaks or barrel shrouds or bayonet lugs and then proceed to kill a bunch of people anyway?

    If she says "A" then she's a bona-fide lunatic who is detached from reality.

    If she answers "B" then the follow-up question is: Would that "sporting" gun be significantly less deadly in the hands of a crazed killer than the "assault weapon" would have been?

    She is obviously incapable of answering that question, since she knows nothing of guns or ballistics or the tactical considerations of using deadly force. But we know the answer is NO, people would not be safer. The gun without the barrel shroud is just as deadly as the one with it.

    I think her honest answer, the one she'll never give until the time is right and gun confiscation is right around the corner, is that if you would just allow her to write her own definition of an "assault weapon" without interference from the NRA and other gun nuts, she would make sure that the level of dangerousness of legal sporting guns is much less than that of prohibited assault guns.

    In her world, any gun that can penetrate human skin, or any replica or toy gun that looks real enough to fool a victim into not resisting another crime like kidnapping or child molestation, is an illegal "assault weapon."

    Air-soft guns that shoot 5-grain plastic BBs at 200 f.p.s. would be permitted, if they were bright orange all over, and if they were only sold to persons over 21 years of age who did not live within 5 miles of a school or school bus route.
     
  18. Foul

    Foul New Member

    780
    0
    0
    To go further with the second part of that story...

    "Coretta Capitol Portrait Fails
    (WSB Radio State Capitol Bureau) A measure to encourage the State Arts Commission to hang a portrait of Coretta Scott King in the State Capitol died in committee today after the motion to pass it failed to get a second.

    It was the fourth time the three-member Special Rules Committee had met on the matter.

    The last time sponsor Representative Roberta Abudl-Salaam (D-Riverdale) tried to present her bill, she was late and the meeting adjourned. The time before that she was sick and didn't attend.

    After today's failure to pass, she said the committee's no-action is worse than comments made by radio talk show host Don Imus regarding the Rutgers Women's Basketball Team.

    ``It's just like calling Mrs. King a nappy-headed (n-word)," she told reporters afterwards.

    Another resolution to display portraits of other civil rights leaders also died this session."


    Where were the Antichrist twins Sharpton and Jackson screaming for her to step down?