Rep. Diana DeGette, still searching for a clue

[Pullo]

Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette has been the lead sponsor on a federal ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines in two Congresses, saying it’s one of her top priorities.

But Tuesday at a Denver Post forum on the gun control debate, the senior congresswoman from Denver appeared to not understand how guns work.

Asked how a ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds would be effective in reducing gun violence, DeGette said:

“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.”

Link

This is right up there with Carolyn McCarthy's "shoulder thing that goes up" description of barrel shrouds.

[shenmue]

1. I don't know...

Doesn't sound like she's the one with the clue problem.

[gejohnston]

15. she seems to be of the mistaken impression

that magazines are single use and that can't be reloaded. Yes, she has the clue problem.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. Well, that explains one thing...

[rdharma]

2. They aren't "clips" they're "magazines"!

Nanner nanner nanner!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Their cluelessness runs much deeper than that

[sarisataka]

5. Some think they are both...

“It’s extremely alarming that Rep. DeGette is running federal legislation to ban magazine clips, when she doesn’t even know what a magazine clip is,” said spokesman Owen Loftus. “Rep. DeGette’s comments show that Democrats are more concerned with appeasing their radical base, than standing up for responsible, law abiding citizens.”

DeGette’s spokeswoman Juliet Johnson issued a statement Wednesday, saying the congresswoman mispoke.

“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,” Johnson said.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2013/04/03/as-lead-sponsor-in-house-on-gun-legislation-rep-diana-degette-appears-to-not-understand-how-they-work/93506/
So far they are all wrong
Back to basics. Here is a guide:
Clips:


Magazines:

[holdencaufield]

9. What about this?

Her argument follows ... if we ban egg containers that hold more than 10 eggs, eventually there will be fewer eggs in circulation.

She's a huge yolk.

[spin]

34. You just summed it up nicely! LOL (n/t)

[krispos42]

13. I... I... I find I need a visual aid.

[clffrdjk]

18. The worst part is...

That even after they found out that she was wrong, her paid spokeswoman went and made a prepared statement trying to correct it and was wrong AGAIN. I hope she doesn't have any progressive causes that she supports because her credibility will be forever questioned.

[rrneck]

4. If it's one of her top priorities

maybe she could take a minute to, I dunno, watch a youtube video or something.

[Straw Man]

6. It must get expensive ...

... buying a new gas tank every time your car runs out of gas.

[CreekDog]

21. glad you are having a great time making fun of one of our greatest allies in Congress

obviously your mocking of arguably one of the most liberal members of congress, who fought for universal health care, human rights, against these wars, is obviously a total joke to you because she doesn't know enough about firearms.

nevermind that she probably knows more about other policies than you do.

but go ahead, mock her as others in this thread do, because it's because she isn't a conservative. that's the real issue here.

if people here liked liberals, they would say things like, "i really like her but i wish she hadn't said this".

but you all showed your true colors.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. If a parent had a child that was passing 6 of 7 classes but failing math

would you applaud them ignoring the math grade or would you expect them to do whatever was needed to correct the deficiency?

[Straw Man]

24. There is no excuse for cluelessness ...

... when you are tasked with determining the law of the land. I'm sure she's very well-versed in these other areas. Would that she were as well-acquainted with the bare minimum information necessary to make informed decisions about gun laws. It's not rocket science, especially if this is one of her high-priority issues.

Ignorance of firearms seems to be a point of pride among gun control advocates. It's extremely disturbing and points to a cultural divide that is very damaging to the Democratic Party.

You can call me a conservative, but that doesn't make me one. I am pro-choice, pro-union, pro-gay marriage, pro-universal healthcare, and pro-gun rights. Those are my true colors. What are yours?

[hack89]

25. Ignorance in support of a good cause is still ignorance. nt

[CreekDog]

27. she's not ignorant

do not call one of our best, most liberal members of congress "ignorant" about anything.

i challenge you to be a better advocate than her on almost any issue and you don't even compare.

[DonP]

28. You're every bit as well informed as she is on these issues.

[hack89]

29. "the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”

is an ignorant statement. I'm sorry - if she really believes that then she has no clue.

She is very competent in many areas. That does not mean she is automatically competent in all.

[Lizzie Poppet]

32. Except "ignorant" is precisely the correct adjective in this case.

There's no shame in ignorance: it's a correctable condition. But working to enact legislation of a matter about which one is quite demonstrably ignorant is another matter entirely.

[Eleanors38]

37. On this ban policy, she is ignorant & probably remains so.

Again, what are your liberal/progressive views? Do you have any at all?

[FBaggins]

39. So you're saying that she's lying?

I can't think of a third possibility unless she recently suffered a head injury.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. Nice strawman.

You attributed 'ignorant' to her. Not the poster you are responding to.

It is possible for a person to display ignorance about one issue, and not be 'ignorant' en total.

[Trunk Monkey]

51. Challenge accepted the issue I choose is gun rights NT

[CokeMachine]

26. OK

I really like her but she is a moron when it comes to guns and gun control legislation. Is that better? Maybe she should be just a little more informed on the subject -- what do you think?

Take Care -- don't forget your umbrella it's pouring up here.

[Eleanors38]

35. I have no indication of how liberal you are, so don't question others' beliefs...

If you are interested in bans & prohibitions, you had better be up on the thing, behavior, or status you want banned. Unless, of course, you are into the usual culture war.

What are your true colors?

[CreekDog]

36. If you cared about other issues on DU, you would know

The average DU member considers me fairly liberal -you can ask around.

[Eleanors38]

38. I'll take your word for that. Now accept my word: I am

Quite liberal on most all issues, and have diligently worked, contributed to and demonstrated for lefty causes since the mid-60s.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. Fair enough.

Short of disowning her at least on this issue, how in the HELL do we un-do this kind of damage to our credibility?

I mean this is the kind of shit you are going to see scrawled on signs, and in tag lines, and joked about on right wing radio and tv for YEARS.

'Look at how inept these democrats are, trying to ban guns lolololo'

That's the kind of SHIT I have to look forward to seeing every goddamn day.
You might imagine, I am displeased.

[CreekDog]

50. she said the technically incorrect thing about "magazines"?

and somehow you are worried.

the people here are writing about her as if they'd never heard of her, because they probably haven't.

she's one of our best congress people, our best liberals, and the people in this group mostly don't know a thing about her (less about her than she knows about "magazines".)

i'll take her over ppl in this group.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. She said nothing even remotely correct in relation to guns, period.

This isn't even the old 'magazines' vs 'clips' debate. Both can be reloaded. They aren't consumed. They aren't appreciably damaged. Over decades, you might have the spring break or sag, and that's easy enough to replace. There are 100 year old magazines still in service. There is nothing in firearms, or even in ammunition, that matches to what she said. It is total bizzare-o off the wall nonsense.

Not only was she wrong, but I can't even figure out what she was trying to say. And the 'clarification' from her office is even worse. Apparently there isn't a single person on her staff that can advise her either.

Our party would do well to hire a couple advisors knowledgeable about firearms to help navigate these waters. These missteps SUCK.

[Straw Man]

55. If she is one of our best congresspeople ...

... then we are in sad shape. I'm sorry, but there is simply no excuse for being so woefully misinformed on an issue that you deem to be important. I am a gun rights advocate, but I can respect an honest and informed opinion from gun control advocates. Touting legislation as effective based on a complete misunderstanding of the function of the item being regulated casts doubt on the competence of the individual and on the validity of the legislation, and rightly so.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. Don't know her by name.

All I know is, this is some seriously embarrassing shit, when we need to be RESPONSIBLE ADULTS about firearms policy. Do you have any idea the kind of anti-gun-control mileage the right wing is going to get out of this?

Responsible adults generally have something of a fucking clue about an issue before they start blathering trying to get support for some legislation.

If she was this bad at universal health care... I don't even know how to express this. This wasn't just a misfire, it was counter-productive.

[sir pball]

96. Hadn't heard of her, looked her up, and I do quite like her

I'd probably vote for her if she were mine.

And she said something that isn't a minor technical error, a confusion of "magazines" and "clips" - she demonstrated a complete lack of basic knowledge of what a firearms magazine is. No minutiae about springs or followers or plugs or anything like that...to answer this post here, she cannot describe what the thing does, in even simple non-technical terms.

Her intentions are good I'm sure, but quite frankly making such an absolutely uninformed statement IS going to do more harm than good.

[petronius]

7. It probably happens more often than we like to think, that congress members simply

Last edited Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:06 PM - Edit history (1)

do what they're told without thinking or understanding it - but for the sake of their own dignity I'd at least hope they'd remain quiet about it...

[rdharma]

8. The Magazine Bill was signed by the Governor.

So do you guys want a "waaaaaambulance" or a "pacifier"?

[kudzu22]

10. I have this crazy notion that people who ban things

ought to know what they're banning. Next they'll ban magazines with more than 20 grams of fat.

[Pullo]

16. Don't give Bloomberg any ideas n/t

[ileus]

11. How many elected officials know anything about firearms?

3 maybe 4 total in DC?

And now you know why we should reject 99% of the BS laws they propose.

[krispos42]

12. "I don't know why you gun nuts quibble over technical details!"

BECAUSE SOMEBODY HAS TO.

[krispos42]

14. Oh, THIS is what the Fark headline was referring to.

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) argues that banning high capacity magazines will reduce gun violence because magazines are used once then discarded

[Pullo]

17. Here's the video. She brings the stupid at ~31:30

http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_22942476/degette-draws-criticism-pretty-stupid-ammo-magazine-comment

[CokeMachine]

19. If that wasn't so extremely sad (stupid)

it'd be funny. I now know to throw away my magazines and/or clips when they are empty. Do you know if I can throw them in the recycle bin?

[Serve The Servants]

20. Good Lord

Look at the comments on her Facebook page. She's obviously an idiot when it comes to firearms, but this is too much.

https://www.facebook.com/DianaDeGette

[slackmaster]

22. Drunk and stupid is no way to go through life

[locks]

30. Forum on gun control

I was at the Denver Post gun forum. This misspeak by Diana DeGette was an insignificant gaffe in a 2 hour forum where the Editorial Board asked questions of Diana, Rep. Ed Perlmutter and of state senator Lundberg from Ft. Collins and the sheriff of Larimer County. The forum was on proposed federal gun legislation; Diana and Ed did an outstanding job explaining the proposed legislation which both of them have worked on and proposed for years, convincing many reps even on the other side to stand with them. There is no one in the nation who knows more about gun legislation; we are so fortunate in Colorado to have had these two Democrats in the House for a long time, supporting Obama and all of our liberal issues even though they often get slammed and threatened by the crazies in Colorado. The state senator and sheriff from Larimer County parroted the many tired and mostly false and easily-refuted NRA talking points against any reasonable limit on guns or ammunition. They were even against background checks which almost everyone in Colorado (and the nation) support. I'm glad Obama came to Colorado yesterday and spoke at the Police Academy; most of law enforcement in Colorado and the US agrees with him
I wish some of the gun people who are so knowledgeable about how a gun works could have been there to listen. They are the sad ones whose priorities are to argue how many bullets or magazines they need to kill. Diana DeGette's priority (and her great service to Colorado) is to find ways to protect our children and to say "never again" to Columbine, Aurora and Sandy Hook.

[Straw Man]

31. It is not insignificant ...

... when she is defending the legislation by claiming that it does something that it absolutely does not do. If she thinks magazines are not reusable, then her entire rationale for mag capacity limits is faulty: she is claiming a result that will simply not materialize.

Magazines are simple mechanical devices that are extremely durable. The existing supply of full-capacity magazines will be functional for many generations to come. Anyone who does not know this is simply incapable of having an informed opinion on the issue, and should not be proposing or defending legislation.

[Eleanors38]

40. Sorry, not buying it. If she has been pushing this for years...

she has been ignorant for years. Thinking mags are as disposable as a newspaper influences the whole debate, and the practicality (if any) of this ban. FYI, I have supported my congressman for yrs, despite his poor stands on marijuana & guns.

I am particularly perplexed by your reference to most anything a liberal 2A Democrat proposes against gun-control as an NRATalkingPoint, marcus registrada. That kind of sloganeering only serves to further culture war.

[Riftaxe]

33. Her statement is beyond willful ignorance

It shows a lack of intelligence that is truly breathtaking when you consider she sponsoring the legislation.

[oneshooter]

41. It sounds like she is a Colorado's Shelia Jackson Lee

[fredzachmane]

42. This is why experienced gun owners

do not take gun control arguments seriously. Gun control supporters demonstrate over & over that they know almost nothing about the arms, ammo, accessories that they want to regulate. It would be like putting the repubs in charge of race relations.

[locks]

43. Knowledge is worthless unless it is used

All these posts about how great it is to have "gun knowledge" and how ignorant the people are who are trying to change the terrible culture of gun violence in our country would be more persuasive if that "wisdom" had ever been used to decrease the suffering of the tens of thousands who are killed and injured every day by guns. If they really believe they know so much about guns and sincerely want to do what would work to make all our lives safer why have they never supported and informed the great people like Diana DeGette, Mark Kelly and Carolyn McCarthy who are working so hard to write and pass needed legislation. All I have ever heard from the gun people and lobby is: no legislation is needed; we will spend millions to kill any proposal you make; everyone should own any kind of gun they want; gun control equals bestiality; more guns in every school and public place will make us all safer; a limit on gun magazines and doing background checks won't stop all the violence therefore we shouldn't do anything; we need guns to use against our government when it comes to take our guns as Obama wants to do; and, from a Colorado guy, "we just need to go gunning for Democrats." I'm sure no DU'ers endorse these truly breathtakingly brilliant ideas. Perhaps we all could email the guys spouting them on all the media and tell them how crazy most Americans think they are.

[Straw Man]

44. The culture of gun violence?

Violence predates guns and will outlast them.

Where did you get the figure of "tens of thousands who are killed and injured every day by guns"? CDC estimates about 250 per day. Certainly cause enough for alarm, but nothing like that hyperbolic figure of yours. Perhaps you misspoke?

I think if you'll read enough here, you'll see that most on this forum support background checks on all sales if it can be done in a manner that doesn't infringe on rights and doesn't presage confiscation. The reason most gun-owning Democrats don't support people like Carolyn McCarthy is that her complete antipathy to private ownership of firearms is plain to see. Condescension and arrogant ignorance don't lead to the "national conversation" we were supposed to be having about firearms. Carolyn McCarthy has done nothing to make anyone's life safer. Period.

The only way that an AWB and magazine capacity limits make sense is as an incremental step in the eventual outlawing of civilian ownership of firearms. No pistol grips? Ten-round limit? What's the message? That there's an acceptable death toll in mass killings? That it's OK to massacre ten people, but no more than ten? Of course not. The rationale is "It's a start -- it's better than doing nothing." A start? Toward what goal? The reduction of needless deaths, we're told. But why would you want merely to reduce these deaths if you could eliminate them? If you truly believe that hardware bans are the way to achieve that, then any cant about "reasonable restrictions" is just that: hypocrisy, lies, and obfuscation. If you want a total ban -- the only ethically defensible position if you truly believe that bans save lives -- then just say so, and start trying to get the Second Amendment repealed. We'll see how that works out. No, the strategy is incremental. Don't pretend that it isn't.

I don't believe that bans save lives. Bans don't get guns away from the people who do the most harm with them. Any lives that might be saved by a total ban on legal ownership of firearms would be more than offset by those lost by the elimination of the possibility of self-defensive use of firearms, incidents of which are estimated at 300,000 a year by the FBI. Not the NRA.

If you want to effectively reduce gun violence, ask the ATF why they don't aggressively prosecute the crime of lying on the 4473 form. All they do is instruct the FFL to refuse the sale. They lying felon walks out the door to seek his gun elsewhere. Yet we're told that we need more restrictions on what types of firearms and magazines law-abiding citizens can buy. Ask why Washington doesn't withhold any and all federal funds from states that are delinquent on their mental health reporting to the NICS system. Ask why they don't institute a national firearms-owner ID to certify that the holder has recently passed a background check and can be safely sold a firearm in a private sale? These are all practical and common-sense efforts that would reduce the number of guns in the wrong hands without any abrogation of the rights of the people.

The gun-ban mania is all about politics and culture war. It gives the impression that effective action is being taken, and it rallies the troops around "gotchas" against what they perceive as a strictly right-wing position. They are very wrong, and it's hurting our party.

[jmg257]

52. "But why would you want merely to reduce these deaths if you could eliminate them?."

Why do we need speed limits, when we could just ban all motor vehicles to eliminate auto-related fatalities?!

"What's the message"?!?

That many people know and even agree that there are justifiable & beneficial reasons to own & use certain things, but complete lack of control can get people killed & injured needlessly.

[Straw Man]

54. Complete lack of control?

Why do we need speed limits, when we could just ban all motor vehicles to eliminate auto-related fatalities?!

"What's the message"?!?

That many people know and even agree that there are justifiable & beneficial reasons to own & use certain things, but complete lack of control can get people killed & injured needlessly.

Glad to see you recognize the legitimate use of firearms, but there hasn't been anything like "complete lack of control" over firearms in this country for over a hundred years.

Secondly, your analogy fails in that it compares accident prevention to crime prevention. If people were committing deliberate murder with automobiles, would speed limits be the answer?

[jmg257]

56. Did I say there was complete lack of control? Or only that it gets people killed needlessly?

But if you insist, I will reword it:

The message is that many people know and even agree that there are justifiable & beneficial reasons to own & use certain things, but that inadequate controls can get people killed & injured needlessly.


My analogy shows this: that limits and controls are needed, and are in fact very smart, when trying to reduce unwanted occurances dealing with the use/mis-use of deadly weapons & dangerous instruments where normal use is tolerated because they may have beneficial purposes.


Often it is simply a matter of tayloring the limits to the object being discussed, and deciding what type of dangers are trying to be reduced.

[Straw Man]

58. Tailoring.

Often it is simply a matter of tayloring the limits to the object being discussed, and deciding what type of dangers are trying to be reduced.

OK -- so the recent New York State reduction of magazine capacity limits from ten to seven rounds is attempting to reduce the danger of semi-auto firearms by sparing the eighth, ninth, and tenth victim while doing nothing for the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh? Is that an "adequate control"?

I repeat my question: If people were committing deliberate murder with automobiles, would speed limits be the answer?

[jmg257]

60. Thanks - I kept looking at that - couldn't figure out why it looked goofy! :)

If people were committing murder with automobiles, speed limits would not be the answer. Controlling access to the automobiles would be a much better solution.


Yes - reducing from 10 rounds to 7 rounds (and eliminating 'all' 10+ mags) is an appropriate control if sparing/reducing the number of victims is a purpose, while still needing to leave reasonable capabilities for legitimate use (assuming availibility of 7rnd mags).

It will likely not be considered "adequate" overall by many, but it is a reasonable compromise for the crossed purposes involved, and, like UBCs, will be increased in effectiveness when combined with other limits/controls.

[Straw Man]

61. Right.

If people were committing murder with automobiles, speed limits would not be the answer. Controlling access to the automobiles would be a much better solution.

Like not allowing people with violent felony convictions to have them. Great idea! Why does it sound so familiar?

Yes - reducing from 10 rounds to 7 rounds (and eliminating 'all' 10+ mags) is an appropriate control if sparing/reducing the number of victims is a purpose, while still needing to leave reasonable capabilities for legitimate use (assuming availibility of 7rnd mags).

But where does the magic number "7" come from? What is the social or moral calculus that comes up with seven as a sufficient number of rounds for self-defense and an acceptable potential death toll for murder?

[jmg257]

63. You sure are spending ALOT of time/effort on turning cars into deadly weapons...

What is the point???


As far as the number 7? I don't really know. I could speculate (it might be fun)...

1) 7 really is lucky, and Cuomo needed all the help he could get
2) most revolvers traditionally hold 6 rounds, while newer ones often 8
3) Garand en-blocs are 8 round
4) 1911s traditionally load with 7, and Kimber is in Yonkers & Remington is in Illion.
5) newer 1911 mags hold 8 rounds
6) 7 is less then 8
7) PPKs .380 capcity is 7, and that's what the cool Bonds used (Connery & Craig)
8) would have a good chance of rendering most larger semi-auto handguns useless

ETA: add more speculations

[Straw Man]

65. You started with the auto analogy.,

I just tried to bring it in line with the matter at hand.

As far as the number 7? I don't really know. I could speculate (it might be fun)...

1) 7 really is lucky, and Cuomo needed all the help he could get
2) most revolvers traditionally hold 6 rounds, newer ones often 8
3) Garand en-blocs are 8 round
4) 1911s traditionally load with 7, many newer mags ones load 8
5) 7 is less then 8
6) PPKs .380 capcity is 7, and that's what the cool Bonds used (Connery & Craig)
7) would have a good chance of rendering most larger semi-auto handguns useless

In other words, arbitrary and ultimately aimed at banning an entire class of firearms. Pretty much what I thought.

[jmg257]

66. I know, and finished with it quite quickly.

Yep - your guess is as good as mine.

I edited to add:

1911s traditionally hold 7, and Kimber & Remington are NY

[Straw Man]

67. Fair enough.

But honestly, I think you're being too kind to the motives of the prime movers in gun control. I think it's pretty plain that most of them would like to see (to quote a notorious DU zombie's previous incarnation) a "shining gun-free oasis, from sea to shining sea."

[jmg257]

68. I agree with you about the motives of prime movers.

But I honestly don't...study it all enough to know. Surely there are enough who feel that way.

I did read that someone "in the know" in NY said staffers were told to make it as restrictive as possible. AND we know many things were removed to make it more tolerable...

http://www.examiner.com/article/ny-democrat-begs-republican-to-keep-gun-confiscation-proposal-from-public

McLaughlin posted a list of Democratic proposals that were rejected:

1.Confiscation of "assault weapons."
2.Confiscation of ten round clips.
3.Statewide database for all guns.
4.Continue to allow pistol permit holder's information to be replaced to the public.
5.Label semiautomatic shotguns with more than five rounds or pistol grips as "assault weapons.”
6.Limit the number of rounds in a magazine to five and confiscation and forfeiture of banned magazines.
7.Limit possession to no more than two magazines.
8.Limit purchase of guns to one gun per person per month.
9.Require re-licensing of all pistol permit owners.
10.Require renewal of all pistol permits every five years.
11.State issued pistol permits.
12.Micro-stamping of all guns in New York State.
13.Require licensing of all gun ammo dealers.
14.Mandatory locking of guns at home.
15.Fee for licensing, registering weapons.

Anyway, there is no doubt in my mind that plenty of people would like to see no guns in civilian hands whatsoever (sometimes even despite what they say).

I don't agree with that notion.

[Straw Man]

69. Interesting.

I've seen that list before -- seven of those items did make the cut and are now law. Knowing the original intention, it's hard not to see it as an all-out assault on rights. That's the kind of thing that really hands the NRA some good frenzy-fodder on a silver platter.

After they limited the number of rounds to five in semi-auto magazines, I'm wondering if they were going to do something similar with revolvers. Make "six-shooters" a thing of the past?

Of course it's all political gamesmanship, but the fact that they can even entertain those notions is chilling to me.

Anyway, there is no doubt in my mind that plenty of people would like to see no guns in civilian hands whatsoever (sometimes even despite what they say).

I don't agree with that notion.

Thanks -- it's hard to figure you out sometimes, but I suspect that you're essentially a moderate on the issue. I can respect that, even though I'm more of a rights-hardliner.

[jmg257]

70. I know. In many ways I am still figuring it out myself!

I can think of numerous selfish reasons for not wanting more gun control, and have my own situation/responsibility/confidence for seeing "I am not the problem, & won't be one". But in light of recent tragedies (and other interests), I have also seen my perceived wants & needs diminish, and some control notions don't seem all that bad or intolerable....huh - more "reasonable" (ewww).

Discussing as we have here, and with Hack and a couple others today was great.

I also realize I get too emotional about it at times, forget others experiences and situations aren't the same as mine, and so need to remember to reign myself in when I get too passionate or act like a dick.

Working on it!

[premium]

71. Naw,

you're pretty darned reasonable, you're willing to discuss it with clear, concise thoughts without the usual name calling that happens on both sides of the issue.
Just keep up the good work and thank you.

[jmg257]

72. TGIF!! BEERS ON ME!!! BTW - Thanks!

[premium]

73. Outstanding.

Beautiful day today, temp is 82, sunny, slight breeze, life is good.

[jmg257]

74. Shoot - 82!?! Nice! Now I'm thinking a couple Brooklyn Ales and a nice Kristoff cigar!

At last at last, Spring time at last!

Enjoy!

[locks]

62. Hopeless

I'm disappointed that a DU'er would ever hold such ridiculous beliefs as "Carolyn McCarthy has done nothing to make anyone's life safer" and "Any lives that might be saved by a total ban on legal ownership of firearms would be more than offset by those lost by the elimination of the possibility of self defensive use of firearms, incidents of which are estimated at 300,000 a year", let alone express them on this site.
They are very wrong, and it's hurting our party.

[Straw Man]

64. Indeed.

I'm disappointed that a DU'er would ever hold such ridiculous beliefs as "Carolyn McCarthy has done nothing to make anyone's life safer" and "Any lives that might be saved by a total ban on legal ownership of firearms would be more than offset by those lost by the elimination of the possibility of self defensive use of firearms, incidents of which are estimated at 300,000 a year", let alone express them on this site.

The 1994-2004 AWB didn't decrease the availability of semi-auto rifles or full-capacity magazines. It merely removed some cosmetic features from the former and made the latter more expensive. No lives were saved. The AWB was a pointless failure.

McCarthy voted for the 2002 resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq. As an enabler of this action, she shares responsibility for massive and pointless loss of life. On the moral balance sheet, she is on the debit side.

Are you questioning the FBI's figures? Is so, could you provide some kind of rationale? Or is it enough to merely call them "ridiculous"?

I'm disappointed that name-calling and the "no true Scotsman" fallacy are considered to be acceptable rhetorical strategies on DU.

[DonP]

45. Paragraphs are your friends ... so is information. Use both.

[sylvi]

57. This is why so many grab nuts

This is why so many grab nuts get all hot under the collar when pro-2Aers discuss the "distractions" of proper terminology and technical details. They absolutely depend on ignorant-speak like this to sway the masses in their favor. An educated public is a less pliant public, more moved by rationality than appeal to emotion.

[rdharma]

59. "more moved by rationality than appeal to emotion"

Is fear an emotion? Gun huggers rely on that a lot!

[sylvi]

75. Fear

Hey, you guys are the ones who won't go see Jurassic Park 3-D because you think James Holmes is going to jump out of the popcorn machine.

Pro-RKBA demand our rights for the sake of preparedness, grab nuts want those rights squelched out of pants-soiling fear.

So yes, emotion.

[rdharma]

76. WhoTF is James Holmes?

[CokeMachine]

78. Is this another of your trick questions?

Try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Eagan_Holmes

Have a good weekend.

[Straw Man]

84. It's a rhetorical technique.

Just keep asking inane questions and people might assume you know something.

[CokeMachine]

89. Did you mean to respond to me?

If so, I don't know how to answer?

Take Care

eidt: missed something. See my next post. Take Care!!

[CokeMachine]

90. Sorry, you answered my question.

I get lost in these threads sometimes? Take Care!!

[Straw Man]

91. I was responding to you ...

... but I wasn't talking about you.

[CokeMachine]

93. Thanks

I lept to something. Too many beers and a computer are not a good thing.

[jmg257]

95. Let's all go the snack bar, let's all go to the snack bar,

Let's load up our AR, and get ourselves a treat.




Ahh...nothing like everyone strapping them on so they can be prepared to enjoy a good flick!



(grab your seats - the real show is about to start - pow! pow!)

[Warpy]

77. Oh, how awful! A non gun nut lacks the vocabulary to talk about guns!

Quite honestly, she's on the right track. The trick to anything you want less of is to tax it and since we all want fewer bullets flying around schools, malls, theaters, and the street, we need to start taxing ammo. Requiring liability insurance on guns is also a great idea.

Things can't go on the way they are, no matter whether or not you think lacking the vocabulary around guns makes someone stupid and negates their ideas. It's become a major public health issue.

[CokeMachine]

79. It is a problem

if they have no clue what they are trying to ban/control doncha think?

Have a good weekend!!

[Warpy]

81. Fine, I'll expect you to describe where it hurts

in absolutely perfect Medicalese the next time you go to the hospital.

That will last about 2 seconds, too.

Being able to describe what a thing looks like or what it does should be equivalent to knowing a specialized name, don't you think?

Otherwise, you'd be disqualified from receiving medical care the next time you point and grunt.

[Straw Man]

83. It's not just a vocabulary issue.

She honestly believed that magazines were only used once and then were thrown away. This is the basis of her belief in the efficacy of magazine capacity limits. She thinks the millions that are out there will eventually be used up and gone. It doesn't work that way. Her basic premise is false.

I have a semi-auto pistol that is 100 years old. The magazine works perfectly. Oh, and by the way, it's now considered "high-capacity" in New York State.

[sylvi]

85. Wrong analogy

Closer would be the ER doc saying, "If we take enough bowel out, we'll eventually cure his diarrhea!"

I'll let you go to that particular hospital, thanks.

[Straw Man]

86. Oh, it's much more basic than that.

It's not about a specialized name. It's like asking the doctor for a laxative because your elbow hurts.

[CokeMachine]

88. You are reaching!!

I've had more of my pooper (bowle) cut out than you'll ever know. If my doctor told me my ankle hurts because the CT scan said I had a blockage, I'd get a new doctor. Should I send you my CT scans (before/after surgery) so you aren't so flippant.

Give me some of your all knowing stuff -- I love the nurses and doctors that took care of me when my Diverticulitis absessed and burst. Have you ever farted and/or shit out of your peni/vagina.

You might know medical shit but you don't know shit about this subject. Stick with what you know -- OK!!

[sir pball]

97. Except she literally does not know what this thing does

In ANY terms. I don't expect her to be worried about followers or feedlips or spring strength by any means, but I do expect her to know that you CAN REFILL A MAGAZINE. She's a very good rep, but speaking this idiotically on ANY subject does more harm than good - "legitimate rape" ring a bell?

Is THAT too much to ask?

[sylvi]

80. This goes beyond vocabulary

This goes beyond "vocabulary" to demonstrate a lack of even basic knowledge of what it is she wants to regulate. And yes, if you're going to place restrictions on a Constitutionally-enumerated right it you'd damn well better have a clue at least what you're talking about. Something more than, "Guns 'r' bad, mmkay?", preferably.

[rdharma]

82. Requiring liability insurance on guns is also a great idea.

Yes! Insurance companies will check out their clients.

[sylvi]

87. Yay for the insurance companies !!!

Oh...wait...

[CokeMachine]

92. I thought insurance companies are bad -- if so I agree?

Why are you promoting them? You still seem strangely familiar -- just a little (emphasis little).

Have a good weekend!!

[madville]

94. The NRA would love that idea

They are a major seller of firearms insurance.

Gun liability insurance would only be able to cover accidents anyway, no insurance company is going to be responsible for illegal activities perpetrated with a firearm.

[oneshooter]

98. Guns, or gun owners? Big difference.

[rdharma]

99. Guns don't buy insurance for guns......... people buy insurance for guns!

And insurance companies aren't likely to insure high risk people with guns.

Just like auto insurance....... they'll base the premiums on "driving history" and the "vehicle" that's being insured.