Talk:Barrel shroud

I'm SHOCKED that a doo-goody liberal would ban something that they didn't know what it was, to stop somebody who isn't a criminal, from exercising their Constitutional right... unless that right is something in the penumbra of the Constitution and it involves aborting unwanted children....— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.44.91 (talk • contribs)

removed 'In The Media' section

I didn't feel it was an appropriate subject to have in the Barrel Shroud article. Perhaps it would be better suited in an article on Gun Control measures, but definitely not here.

And the discussion page that exists for this article suggests that the addition of the In The Media section is politically motivated.

--KickTheDonkey 15:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular Wikipedia guideline that you feel is being violated? Many articles have an "In popular culture" or "References in media" section. You need to be more specific than saying the section is not "appropriate".--Daveswagon 20:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is apropriate to have it in this artical as well. Just because you don't like how something played out on TV doesn't mean it should be removed. MrCynic 17:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Mr CynicMrCynic 17:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then shouldn't there be more 'references' to Barrel Shrouds in the media than just one about a lame congress-critter? It doesn't seem to be balanced at all, and is only included in the article to make a political point. Don't paint me as 'not liking how it played out on tv' just because I see the addition of the 'In The Media' section as being politically motivated.

Perhaps the section should just include:

"The topic of barrel shrouds was brought up during an interview of United States House of Representatives member Carolyn McCarthy by Tucker Carlson in April of 2007. McCarthy, who had introduced legislation that would have banned semi-automatic rifles and pistols that accepted detachable magazines and barrel shrouds,..."

and not anything after it. The nonsense about her not know what a barrel shroud was should be left to an article on gun control, or the congress woman herself. --KickTheDonkey 12:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense?

I agree that this one piece of media reference should be moved to a different article, if kept. It's not a particularly signifigant happening and it's about the same length as the entire article. It is likely however that this page will get a lot of traffic due to the brief attention spawned by the media this is going to cause; so it could be worth keeping in some regard, or kept if the article was expanded. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 17:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]