What is a barrel shroud?
- Thread starter mrshish
- Start date
- Status
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
When a keg of beer is empty it is considered to be dead. The way a dead keg is distinguished from other kegs is by covering it with a cloth. That cloth is called a "barrel shroud."
Barrel shrouds are not dangerous, although among primitive peoples there is a fear of dead beer kegs. Civilized people are not so superstitious. The district in Queens that elects Carolyn McCarthy is either trying to get her out of town or is composed of extremely primitive people who spend a lot of time killing kegs of beer. I don't know which.
Barrel shrouds are not dangerous, although among primitive peoples there is a fear of dead beer kegs. Civilized people are not so superstitious. The district in Queens that elects Carolyn McCarthy is either trying to get her out of town or is composed of extremely primitive people who spend a lot of time killing kegs of beer. I don't know which.
Gunsby_Blazen
Member
you have got to be kidding me......
outlaw a barrel shroud?? I guess they are afraid that someone will get burned....
That would be too dangerous!
outlaw a barrel shroud?? I guess they are afraid that someone will get burned....
That would be too dangerous!
Sans Authoritas
member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,126
Robert, you have to be careful about those barrel shrouds. Remember the Count of Monte Cristo? You could be dumping a FULL keg into the East River and not know it!
Now that would be criminal. Unless it were Budweiser. And in that case, you should encase the keg's bottom in concrete first.
-Sans Authoritas
Now that would be criminal. Unless it were Budweiser. And in that case, you should encase the keg's bottom in concrete first.
-Sans Authoritas
Sato Ord
Member
Uh-yeah
This is a funny topic to kick around here, but it has serious ramifications.
A barrel shroud is what most of us real people refer to as a forward stock, or front grip. For some reason they call it a barrel shroud if it is open for ventilation. They are used on such weapons as AR-15 and M-16 for added cooling.
Basically it's a way to sneak a ban on "assault weapons" past the watchdogs. Gotta watch those damned sneaky politicians. Notice how they gloss over the "ban on assault weapons" and focus on specifics like large capacity clips, and barrel shrouds to divert our attention from the fact that they want to infringe on our second amendment rights.
This is a funny topic to kick around here, but it has serious ramifications.
A barrel shroud is what most of us real people refer to as a forward stock, or front grip. For some reason they call it a barrel shroud if it is open for ventilation. They are used on such weapons as AR-15 and M-16 for added cooling.
Basically it's a way to sneak a ban on "assault weapons" past the watchdogs. Gotta watch those damned sneaky politicians. Notice how they gloss over the "ban on assault weapons" and focus on specifics like large capacity clips, and barrel shrouds to divert our attention from the fact that they want to infringe on our second amendment rights.
Everyone knows what a barrel shroud is... Its a shoulder thing that goes up. And I didn't even have to watch the link you posted. News guy interviewing Carolyn McCarthy, right?
That video has made the rounds here before and has been picked apart at great length.
IBTL.
That video has made the rounds here before and has been picked apart at great length.
IBTL.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Problem is there is no humor in it. These are the people that were elected to protect your rights.
Write your representatives today, just to remind them they work for us.
Write your representatives today, just to remind them they work for us.
Little known fact, the first barrel shroud was found in Turin alongside the shroud that wrapped the body of Christ, a clear outline of an M-16 can be found imprinted on it, and carbon dating indicates it is the real thing. More proof that the right of self defense is a God given right.The anti gunners have kept it hidden and actually refute that it actually exists but a few of the faithful managed to see it, do the aforementioned tests and have signed afidavits regarding it's existance.Our congress on the other hand has attempted to pass laws that should it exist it should be destroyed and anyone trying to save it be imprisoned and fined.
Tribal
Member
Hold up; I'm confused now. I thought that what's on an AR-15 is a barrel shroud because it goes all the way around and thus prevents people from burning their hands, whereas, say, a Marlin 336 doesn't have a barrel shroud because the stock doesn't cover the whole barrel.
jackstinson
Member
Until March 14th, 2007....barrel shrouds and forearm pistol grips were illegal in my city and many cities in Ohio. As were folding stocks, and other items. Technically, I could not even have a pistol grip and folding stock on my 10/22 back then.
The flawed-reasoning on the "shroud" was that it enables endless rapid fire because you can hold the forearm any way you want and not feel the barrel heat up as you mow down the populace. In actuality, it was a way to put a ban so-called assault weapons and their components. It was as silly as having to "apply to purchase a permit which allows you to purchase a gun"...that was a really dumb one! Ohio HB347 abolished the individual municipalities ability to create and enforce silly laws like these, when there is no state law prohibiting such.
Jack
The flawed-reasoning on the "shroud" was that it enables endless rapid fire because you can hold the forearm any way you want and not feel the barrel heat up as you mow down the populace. In actuality, it was a way to put a ban so-called assault weapons and their components. It was as silly as having to "apply to purchase a permit which allows you to purchase a gun"...that was a really dumb one! Ohio HB347 abolished the individual municipalities ability to create and enforce silly laws like these, when there is no state law prohibiting such.
Jack
The Lone Haranguer
Member
On this Winchester 1897 "Trench Gun" ...
Photo credit
... after all the shells have been fired, the bare barrel gets hot. The shroud enables the soldier to wrap his hand around the shotgun for use as a bludgeon or with a bayonet.
Even after nearly 100 years (and the design is even older than that) it looks wicked and evil, doesn't it? But it works just like any other pump shotgun.
... after all the shells have been fired, the bare barrel gets hot. The shroud enables the soldier to wrap his hand around the shotgun for use as a bludgeon or with a bayonet.
Even after nearly 100 years (and the design is even older than that) it looks wicked and evil, doesn't it? But it works just like any other pump shotgun.
Ash
Member
Not so strange that she has no clue what a shroud is. But she thinks it should be banned.
Ash
Ash
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
I suppose that's one way to make your Bud wiser. It will, however, make his bottom weightier and much more difficult to drag around.
Returning now to the even more ponderous side of the news . . .
This occasion is one of the rare times when I disagree with my colleague TexasRifleman. There is indeed much humor in Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's abysmal ignorance of the Universe and everthing in it. There is nothing but humor in Rep. McCarthy's gross stupidity: in the vacant expression of her eyes, in the mindless drivel that emanates from the vicinity of her mouth. Rep. McCarthy is all the more humorous for obviously having been scripted by puppet masters attempting to make an especially dense blockhead mimic a thinking human being.
Rep. McCarthy's handlers must envy Geppetto for the much easier task he had with Pinnochio. Squint your eyes just a little while watching the Walt Disney feature animated cartoon and Pinnochio looks almost real. Rep. McCarthy never does. She is so lacking in intellectual animation that even her stubborn malice is funny in a way. One wonders what runs through the mind of Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, and Barney Frank when they have one of their Democratic Party ladies' lunches. Each of them, I suspect, barely suppresses a plaintive "Oy vey" each time Rep. McCarthy opens her mouth to say something wise.
Her father Charley McCarthy was sort of cute, sort of charming, sort of wise, and always well dressed.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, however, is merely an idiot who evidently is unable to recognize that her husband might have lived and her son might be fully functioning if not for the gun control laws in New York City and New York state. They were the conditions for her husband's murder and her son's paralysis. So she, the grieving wife and loving mother, has committed her life to spreading those conditions as widely as possible. She, one must conclude, is not only a moron but also a most vicious moron who is the living emblem of the Democratic Party's gun control faction. Stupid, mean, and ridiculous.
There was no way to prevent the madman Colin Ferguson from trying to murder everyone in a Long Island Rail Road commuter car in 1993. That was during the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" but he didn't use a so-called "Assault Weapon" anyway. Rep. McCarthy either doesn't know or doesn't care. She has introduced its even harsher successor, and the obvious reason must be to make even more decent people helpless prey for madmen and criminals.
Rep. McCarthy also doesn't know, care, or understand that it was not the cops but three other passengers on that train who overpowered Ferguson and stopped his killings. Had the law allowed them or any other passengers on that train to have the means of effective self-defense, any of them might have--and obviously would have--stopped Ferguson from murdering 6 people and wounding 19 others.
In fact that incident is an excellent example of why gun control and gun free zones must go. But it takes at least a partly functioning mind to understand that, and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy does not have it.
So there is much humor in the sorry attempts of Rep. Carolyn McCarthy to imitate a thinking human being engaging vitally important matters of human survival. I agree that it is important to let her colleagues know that they can't either make believe she doesn't exist or that there's something in what she says. They own Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and she is emblematic of them.
Don't treat her seriously. How could you possibly do so without becoming at least a little like her each time. Medical science apparently has no cure for that ailment. Why risk it when humor is much more effective and more honest.
Ash
Member
Oh, don't treat her seriously at all. But, treat her threat very, VERY seriously.
Ash
Ash
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Oh yeah. RH's posts are always the most fun to read but he knows as we all should that this is a very dangerous person here.
Lacking any knowledge at all she's insisting on banning things anyway.
This is not about guns, not about her family's connection to any violence, this is about control of the "peons" and that's the most dangerous kind of politician on the planet.
Not surprisingly it's exactly the kind of politician the Second Amendment was designed to thwart, and they know it.
The Lone Haranguer
Member
Robert H: what does that say about the majority of people in her district who elected and reelected her six times? 
Hopefully she is doing other things for them.
Hopefully she is doing other things for them.TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
You can't really debate an emotional issue in an intellectual manner.
The anti's simply fall apart if you try to go that way. Look at some the posts on Brady's forum etc for examples. They simply refuse to participate in any kind of debate because they have no argument.
They throw a few statistics against the wall and hope they stick, that's about all.
It's why they don't get much funding also. If you look at where these groups get their money it's not from private citizens sending $35 a year or whatever, it's from large donors like Soros etc.
That's because on a rational level they can't entice the average citizen with their arguments.
Doesn't make them any less dangerous unfortunately.
Sniper X
Member
I seem to remember that in the original assault weapons ban, they had language that said something to the effect of the "looks" of a weapon, so if a gun looked angry it was banned.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy On the Issues:
LH, let there be no doubt that the Rep. Carolyn McCarthy represents the 4th Congressional District of New York as they wish to be represented. And that's part of the point I've tried to communicate. What she is, they must be. Rational thought is not in them. She is what they want. She is at once the triumph of democracy and its shame.
Were constituents capable of hard stuff such as thinking they would have recognized long ago that Rep. McCarthy is a joke, and a dangerous joke at that. But they operate on feelings, not thought, as does she.
For just a few examples look at the quotation I've put at the head of this message. I just now cut and pasted it from Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's official U.S. government web site. It's the second paragraph of her statement on "The Assault Weapons Ban."
There are only three sentences in that paragaph. They're not terribly complex sentences and shouldn't have been hard to write. They're surely not hard to read. So please take a minute to read each of those sentences, as presumably Rep. McCarthy's constituents have done.
Start with the last sentence: "Since the Ban, use of assault weapons has dropped xx% from the pre-ban rate." It should not take even xx IQ points to understand immediately that at least something is wrong there. Or do Rep. McCarthy's constituents not have even the sense of an xx-year-old.
Seen in isolation it might seem to be a careless error that crept into public view because the hireling who wrote it was tapping the office keg while he worked and, of course, because Rep. Carolyn McCarthy doesn't concern herself with what's said in her name. She don't care and her constituents don't care either. Neither of them know enought to even be embarrassed.
But when viewed in the context of the Rep. Carolyn McCarthy on barrel shrouds and her enduring reaction to Colin Ferguson's murder of her husband and others, it becomes more than xx% significant. She doesn't understand facts, doesn't care about them, and manipulates them to serve her own purposes. Her constituents obviously appreciate that. They'll fill in the xx% later if necessary. So far it hasn't been necessary. She is what they are.
Now read the sentence immediately preceding: "ATF found criminals prefer assault weapons over law-abiding citizens eight to one." Of course you see that the statement as written is nutso. It makes me wonder if the ATF thinks that on lonely Saturday nights criminals would choose to date an assault weapon instead of a law-abiding citizen. What the Rep. Carolyn McCarthy might have intended to say is something like "The ATF found that eight times as many criminals as law-abiding citizens own [or use? or like the looks of?] assault weapons." Who knows what she really meant other than a primal grunt. Her constituents might know, but I doubt that even as many as xx% of them do.
In fact this sentence is one of those relatively rare creations that is a falsehood no matter how it is read. The ATF found that only a statistically insignificant percentage of the firearms banned in the 1994 law were used in crimes. As for other possible interpretations of Rep. McCarthy's idiotspeak, how in the name of Chuck Schumer could she or the ATF or anyone else possibly know what criminals "prefer" and what law-abiding citizens "prefer"? Do they post surveys asking people to identify themselves as criminals or law-abiding and asking for their preferences?
Using the same methodology it is possible to say with equal confidence that xx% of those voting for the Rep. Carolyn McCarthy prefer to be represented by a vacuous moron instead of Buicks.
Now to the first of those three sentences. Virtually every federal, state and local law enforcement agency does not support the so-called "assault weapons ban." Virtually everyone in those virtual agencies opposes it and thinks that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy is an idiot. Take my word for it. Have I ever lied to you before? Have you ever caught me?
But we've caught her, more than once. Either her constituents haven't or they don't care or they are even stupider and more irresponsible than she. That's quite a feat.
And the Democratic Party loves her. Says something about them that people need to remember when voting in the next election. I wonder if even xx% of them will.
LH, let there be no doubt that the Rep. Carolyn McCarthy represents the 4th Congressional District of New York as they wish to be represented. And that's part of the point I've tried to communicate. What she is, they must be. Rational thought is not in them. She is what they want. She is at once the triumph of democracy and its shame.
Were constituents capable of hard stuff such as thinking they would have recognized long ago that Rep. McCarthy is a joke, and a dangerous joke at that. But they operate on feelings, not thought, as does she.
For just a few examples look at the quotation I've put at the head of this message. I just now cut and pasted it from Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's official U.S. government web site. It's the second paragraph of her statement on "The Assault Weapons Ban."
There are only three sentences in that paragaph. They're not terribly complex sentences and shouldn't have been hard to write. They're surely not hard to read. So please take a minute to read each of those sentences, as presumably Rep. McCarthy's constituents have done.
Start with the last sentence: "Since the Ban, use of assault weapons has dropped xx% from the pre-ban rate." It should not take even xx IQ points to understand immediately that at least something is wrong there. Or do Rep. McCarthy's constituents not have even the sense of an xx-year-old.
Seen in isolation it might seem to be a careless error that crept into public view because the hireling who wrote it was tapping the office keg while he worked and, of course, because Rep. Carolyn McCarthy doesn't concern herself with what's said in her name. She don't care and her constituents don't care either. Neither of them know enought to even be embarrassed.
But when viewed in the context of the Rep. Carolyn McCarthy on barrel shrouds and her enduring reaction to Colin Ferguson's murder of her husband and others, it becomes more than xx% significant. She doesn't understand facts, doesn't care about them, and manipulates them to serve her own purposes. Her constituents obviously appreciate that. They'll fill in the xx% later if necessary. So far it hasn't been necessary. She is what they are.
Now read the sentence immediately preceding: "ATF found criminals prefer assault weapons over law-abiding citizens eight to one." Of course you see that the statement as written is nutso. It makes me wonder if the ATF thinks that on lonely Saturday nights criminals would choose to date an assault weapon instead of a law-abiding citizen. What the Rep. Carolyn McCarthy might have intended to say is something like "The ATF found that eight times as many criminals as law-abiding citizens own [or use? or like the looks of?] assault weapons." Who knows what she really meant other than a primal grunt. Her constituents might know, but I doubt that even as many as xx% of them do.
In fact this sentence is one of those relatively rare creations that is a falsehood no matter how it is read. The ATF found that only a statistically insignificant percentage of the firearms banned in the 1994 law were used in crimes. As for other possible interpretations of Rep. McCarthy's idiotspeak, how in the name of Chuck Schumer could she or the ATF or anyone else possibly know what criminals "prefer" and what law-abiding citizens "prefer"? Do they post surveys asking people to identify themselves as criminals or law-abiding and asking for their preferences?
Using the same methodology it is possible to say with equal confidence that xx% of those voting for the Rep. Carolyn McCarthy prefer to be represented by a vacuous moron instead of Buicks.
Now to the first of those three sentences. Virtually every federal, state and local law enforcement agency does not support the so-called "assault weapons ban." Virtually everyone in those virtual agencies opposes it and thinks that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy is an idiot. Take my word for it. Have I ever lied to you before? Have you ever caught me?
But we've caught her, more than once. Either her constituents haven't or they don't care or they are even stupider and more irresponsible than she. That's quite a feat.
And the Democratic Party loves her. Says something about them that people need to remember when voting in the next election. I wonder if even xx% of them will.
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
Someone did one of the motivational posters on this one - it said:
brighamr
Member
Here's the scary part. Lets say McCarthy pursues and achieves her goal (a long shot I know). the next step will be her running for presidency 2012....
- Status
