Representative Diana DeGette (D-Colo.-1) indicated that a high capacity "magazine clip" ban would eventually lead to these high capacity magazine disappearing because they would be gone.
"These are ammunition. They are bullets," she said. "So the people who have those now, they're going to shoot them. So, if you ban them in the future, the number of the 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."
This person is a co-sponsor of HR308, Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act.
Now, I don't pretend that everyone should know the difference between a magazine and a clip. Nor do I expect everyone to know that they are both re-usable (her office claimed that she mis-spoke and was talking about clips, "which cannot be reused because they don't have a feeding mechanism.", which is of course, wrong). But, if you're going to co-sponsor legislation and then go out in public in support of that legislation, shouldn't we expect that you should know what the hell you're talking about?
I mean, this is analogous, not quite as offensive, but analogous to Todd Akin saying that a rape victim can prevent pregnancy.
Why do we allow these idiots to continue to speak? Why do they get reelected?
Please, this isn't about gun control. This is about ignorant politician control.
Let's just poke fun at these people, because otherwise, it's just sad and depressing.
tz757300 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 17 hours ago) and read 2644 times:
Quoting fr8mech (Thread starter): Why do we allow these idiots to continue to speak? Why do they get reelected?
IMO it's because most people don't give the time of day to get as involved in the political process as they need to, therefore vote by party lines AND becoming a politician is a money pissing contest. Spend more than the other, get voted in.
Money and public ignorance will never buy smart politicians.
zckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 2440 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 month 16 hours ago) and read 2587 times:
I think a lot of them are not so much morons but just incredibly lazy. I don't expect politicians to know everything, but I do expect them to read up on what they are co-sponsoring. I wonder if in this case this woman was just told by somebody the bill was a good idea, but couldn't be bothered to do her own research. "My political party supports it so it must be great".
something From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2204 times:
Sorry for digging this old thread out, but way to go on focusing on the irrelevant to distract from the actual point. It obviously shines a very bad light on her and I am not even arguing that she may for all intents and purposes be the most ignorant person on the subject. It's embarrassing and unprofessional of her to speak in public with such little preparation.
However, the correct terminology for components of firearms is entirely relevant to the law itself. The law is supposed to reduce the availability of guns, or components thereof, that make their criminal use easier, or more effective, and contribute little to nothing to the rest of gun owners. Similar legislation applies to silencers and it is working very effectively.
If you want to talk gun/magazine/silencer control, start a thread. I just wanted to point out that we have legislators that are out there "legislating" or providing legislative oversight without a suitable base of knowledge. Like this guy: