“MMM! Guns bad! Congresswoman lazy!
Asked how a ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds would be effective in reducing gun violence, Rep. Diana DeGette, the sponsor of Federal legislation to prohibit the sale or transfer of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds, replied with ignorant semi-gibberish worthy of recent Miss Universe competitors. She said, and I’m not making this up:
“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”
Uh, no, Congresswoman, that’s not how it works, or the theoretical reason for your own legislation. Magazines can be refilled, like Pez dispensers. It’s not as if they have to be thrown away once they are empty. Your reason for the legislation—now read your talking points from the anti-gun lobby!—is that shooters in the process of massacring school children will have to stop to reload after only ten bullets.
Is it too much to expect that elected officials actually understand the things they set out to regulate and prohibit? That they—OK, their staffs, then, assuming the elected representative involved can read—do a modicum of research before sponsoring legislation? That they actually know what they are talking about and answer the most basic of questions—-why will this legislation help?—-accurately and articulately?
Yes, in this case apparently it is. Like gun control or oppose gun control, all Americans have an equal stake in competent legislators who pass laws based on knowledge, not ideological cant at the lizard-brain level of “Guns bad!!! Ban bad guns and you know, gun things!” Too much of gun regulation reform advocacy has been carried on at this level in the public and the media; for a U.S. Congresswoman to do likewise is a disgrace.
______________________________
Pointer: Tim Levier
Facts: Denver Post
Ethics Alarms 
Thanks for the write-up! If you want to make it a two-fer, I’ve got the full hour and half video. At the 49 minute mark, rep Ed Perlmutter D-CO, digs his own hole.
No wonder the rest of the world is laughing.
Because the ultimate goal of gun control isn’t public safety.
OH. … MY. … GAWD.
Well Jack, brace yourself for the “sexist” and “misogynist” accusations….
–Dwayne
Nah, he’s just a mean ole “grammarist” and “syntaxicist” and “rhetoricist”.
Twit!
Elegantly put. I could save so much time if I could be this concise…
So, remind me again why Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin aren’t intelligent enough to hold high office again. It was so clear before I read this. But of course, this is different. She is a Democrat. As long as she is a good girl and votes like she is told to, it is fine.
I read her response and wondered if she was perhaps retired from the world of beauty pageants. Though that is mean of me.
I sadly live in the same state as her. I can’t seem to get away from these kind of people. Get out of California only to find the next zone of hell.
Pity us here in NJ. Not but weeks ago did the NJ legislature committee meet to discuss whether to recommend the 20+ gun bills for NJ to the legislative body. There were 500+ people in attendance against and about 12 for the laws. Room was overflowing that capacity dictated they put the overflow in another room which then was at capacity and people outside on the steps.
The committee headed up by New Jersey assemblyman Charles Mainor (Mainor’s Facebook page scrutinized by local individuals and reported to the media revealed racy and inappropriate ‘likes’ on his page) who stated, after being asked, that it takes 20 seconds to reload a magazine. He had no general knowledge of gun and gun safety. Generally his statements were met with laughter and disdain by the attending body of individuals. Clearly, they did not perform any due diligence with law enforcement prior to creating the new laws.
They also, at the start of the meeting, intended to bypass having public comments by voting on the laws BEFORE the public was allowed to speak. They were called to task by another committee member who said that would be a violation and allowed people to speak prior to voting. One committee woman said that she intended to pass the bills to the legislature no matter what the public said.
The bills were passed with one redundant bill requiring photo identification for purchase of a firearm (already NJ law) and no laws that will decrease the likelihood of a criminal getting a gun. All of this was to lessen the rights of the people of NJ and increase their campaign rhetoric as they seek reelection.