CitizenBBN
04-05-2013, 05:15 PM
Colorado Representative Diana DeGette, a major backer of the ban on high capacity magazines and long time anti-gun advocate, made statements in a public forum roundtable that will drop the jaw of gun owners. Here's the abbreviated part. It was in response to a question about the efficacy of banning high capacity mags given there are 40 million of them already in circulation:
These [high capacity magazines] 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.
I kid you not. This is a person writing laws we all have to obey. There's video and everything. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/344638/low-capacity-lawmaking-michael-walsh
Her staff issued a "correction" that's actually just as dumb, I'm sure b/c this is one that is impossible to cover up so they were really grasping at straws:
“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,”
That's great, except a) most clips can be reused just like magazines and the "feeding mechanism" is your finger and it's reusable too, and b) I have yet to see a 30 round clip. Most are 5 rounds or 10, already below the capacity of what she was talking about banning in her comments.
I can see someone who knows NOTHING about guns not understanding that magazines are RELOADABLE (hey we're green!), but those people I would hope wouldn't have spent years advocating their ban and not even know how they work and have the power of a Congressional vote and not due any diligence to learn about the issue.
No way around those comments. This person has advocated a ban on high capacity magazines for years, per her own staff, and has no clue what one is or how it works, which means she has no understanding of the impact of the ban she's advocating. none.
These [high capacity magazines] 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.
I kid you not. This is a person writing laws we all have to obey. There's video and everything. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/344638/low-capacity-lawmaking-michael-walsh
Her staff issued a "correction" that's actually just as dumb, I'm sure b/c this is one that is impossible to cover up so they were really grasping at straws:
“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,”
That's great, except a) most clips can be reused just like magazines and the "feeding mechanism" is your finger and it's reusable too, and b) I have yet to see a 30 round clip. Most are 5 rounds or 10, already below the capacity of what she was talking about banning in her comments.
I can see someone who knows NOTHING about guns not understanding that magazines are RELOADABLE (hey we're green!), but those people I would hope wouldn't have spent years advocating their ban and not even know how they work and have the power of a Congressional vote and not due any diligence to learn about the issue.
No way around those comments. This person has advocated a ban on high capacity magazines for years, per her own staff, and has no clue what one is or how it works, which means she has no understanding of the impact of the ban she's advocating. none.