Note! When appearing on Tucker’s show and knowing that facts will come up…show prepared.
On Tuesday, Fox News host Tucker Carson had an interview with a New York City council member and a gun activist Jumaane Williams.
Williams tried to corner The Daily Caller co-founder by repeatedly asking him if he thinks people should have unfettered access to guns — completely ignoring the specifics of actual gun legislation.
Carlson fired back: “Look, I’m not for gun killing of any kind. My only point is that legislators make laws, and they do so in the hopes they will have their intended effect, and we know from ten years of experience that an assault weapons ban doesn’t work.”
The real question is always to you, Tucker — do you believe that we shouldn’t have unfettered access to guns,” Williams said, side-stepping the point.
Carlson tried again with a different proposed piece of gun control legislation, asking Williams, “[Democrats] are saying that guns that have something called a ‘barrel shroud’ ought to be prohibited…my question is why?”
“Why would a barrel shroud make a gun more dangerous?” Tucker questioned.
Williams again insisted that Carlson was asking the wrong questions, and accused him of throwing “red meat” to his fans on the internet.
It’s not about the fans or red meat — I’m responding to an actual piece of proposed legislation in the US Congress,” Carlson argued.
I love it that Tucker has these local City Council people on and allows them to demonstrate to the world how stupid they really are.
This guy made not one word of sense. He came on the show with one talking point that had absolutely no sense in the first place. He had no grasp of the facts, was like a child logically and based on the false premise that we have “unfettered access to guns” which simply is false.
What do you think? Scroll down to leave a comment below!
H/T The Daily Caller
Natalie Dagenhardt is an American conservative writer who writes for Right Journalism! Natalie has described herself as a polemicist who likes to “stir up the pot,” and does not “pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do,” drawing criticism from the left, and sometimes from the right. As a passionate journalist, she works relentlessly to uncover the corruption happening in Washington. She is a “constitutional conservative”.