A Congresswoman from the once great state of New-New-York (previously known as “Colorado”) took a page from Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s “regulation for dummies” manual. In a recent discussion on gun control with the Denver Post, Representative Diana DeGette attempted to articulate the manner in which government would be able to rid the world of the inherently evil high-capacity magazines. Her attempt fell far short of success as she inadvertently displayed her complete ignorance toward the very items she hopes to regulate.
Before reporters, gun enthusiasts, the state of Colorado, and God she said the following: (Click here for the video)
"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 magazine-clips is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available."
Take a moment here to roll your eyes, scratch your head, or punch a pillow. The illustrious congresswoman seems to not understand that magazines are merely devices capable of storing, and feeding rounds of ammunition into a firearm. They are (brace yourself) re-usable. . . Jon Caldera with the Independence Institute correctly identified a firearm magazine as being analogous to a Pez dispenser. (Although, in all fairness, not many people are familiar with Pez dispensers either. Their function could very well be lost on people like DeGette who, judging by her previous comments, would likely ask for a ban on any dispenser that holds over 10 candies.)
In the most simple of terms, DeGette displayed a full fledged ignorance for the fundamental properties of the very item she wishes to regulate from existence. But the all-wise Denver-Democrat couldn’t possibly let rest a display of such ignorance. Her office issued a correction that only underscored her total lack of understanding on the issue:
"The congresswoman has been working on a high-capacity assault magazine ban for years and has been deeply involved in the issue; she simply misspoke in referring to 'magazines' when she should have referred to 'clips,' which cannot be reused because they don't have a feeding mechanism."
Recommended
Umm. . . . To begin with, I should point out that nothing about a magazine should be characterized as an “assault.” An “assault” is a behavior. By this rational, every magazine utilized in a firearm that belong to a law abiding citizen should be classified as a “passive” magazine. But the more impressive part of the “correction” is the explanation given regarding “clips.” They are not re-usable? This should come as news to anyone who is familiar with firearms. In fact, most styles of “clips” can be – and are designed to be – re-used. But why let little things like accuracy get in the way of infringing upon the second amendment?
This, however, is about far more than gun control, high capacity “magazine-clips” (whatever the heck that is), or public safety. This is about a Liberal elite who has dedicated much of the last decade to outlawing something about which she knows nothing. And, sadly, she is not alone in Washington DC.
Dodd-Frank was written, and passed, by a bunch of politicians who can barely understand how their direct deposit works. Wrap your brain around this: A group of politicians who urged, and forced, banks to make loans to borrowers with bad credit are now demanding accountability from those very same banks.
President Barack Obama is now urging banks to, once again, make subprime loans. He’s asking banks to perform the very practices that contributed to the financial meltdown, while appearing completely ignorant of the potential consequences. The President of the United States is a man who has spent his life in classrooms, activist headquarters, and politics. He’s not a businessman, investor, or an accountant. He has never had to outline a budget, negotiate a term, or produce profits. He has never had to appease consumers, deliver on a deadline, or balance inventory. And yet, half the country wonders why his efforts to spur the private sector have netted so few results.
Obamacare was rammed down the collective throat of the American Public by a group of politicians who are only peripherally connected to the American healthcare system. Men and women, who were “informed” on the subject by their lobbyists, assured the mere public that despite their lack of fundamental knowledge on the issue they would create a more efficient model for delivering healthcare to the masses.
We are governed by individuals who remove themselves from the tortures of everyday life, and then try to regulate your everyday life. This is what is wrong with Government overreach: It is usually orchestrated by academic theorists attempting to regulate the very real world, of which they have had no interaction.
And while Diana DeGette attempts to outlaw the very things about which she is ignorant, we have the Ezra Kleins of the world cheering her on. (Just trying to tie the article to the tease. . .) Would it be too much to ask that our benevolent leaders inform themselves on the topics they address?
DeGette’s comments demonstrate her blind devotion to a cause. Pelosi, Reid, and Obama didn’t read Obamacare before it was passed. DeGette, Bloomberg, and Boxer are not educated on gun safety or firearm fundamentals. Dodd, Frank, and Biden are not masters of Financials. They all trust the liberal agenda, regardless of inconvenient facts or under-reported truths. They have bought stock in their ideology, and pursue the ends without consideration of opposing views.
Liberals don’t care if what they say is accurate. Congressional Democrats are only concerned with marginalizing the wealthy. Obama is merely concerned with “fundamentally transforming” America. And DeGette is only concerned with getting those evil high capacity magazine-clip-thingamajigs outlawed.
PS: “Thingamajig” actually is in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. . . I checked.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member