In case you missed it, here’s the story. A representative to Colorado’s state general assembly, Diana DeGette, has been an advocate of gun control for a long time. At a public meeting on Wednesday she said that banning high-capacity magazines would in the long run reduce gun violence because the people who own them would have eventually shot all the ‘bullets’ and then wouldn’t be able to replace them. Huh? Here’s an 80 second clip of her gaffe:
First, there is the issue about the difference between a bullet and a cartridge. But a good number of people don’t know that the ‘bullet’ is the tip (often lead) at the front of the projectile. I could almost give her that one if she weren’t someone in power in Colorado trying to limit second amendment rights. If I was “in power” and promoting legislation that would support the INFRINGEMENT of the Constitutional rights of my constituents, I think I would work on gaining knowledge about the subject. But let’s give her a pass on the bullet versus cartridge terminology, just to be fair.
Second, the idea that she believes the proposed ban on high-capacity magazines would be “effective” because “eventually the bullets would have been shot and there won’t be any more available” is NOT forgivable for someone intending to violate the US Constitution, to which she swore an oath to uphold, right? Don’t they require that oath in Colorado?
Oh, gosh, it turns out she “misspoke”. She meant to say ‘clips’, not ‘magazines’, according to a later press release from her spokesman Juliet Johnson. Thank goodness she clarified that. In case you need to refresh your memory about a clip versus a magazine, check out this link from thegunzone.com.
But I don’t think her stupidity is the real story here. Check out this 53 second clip from the same forum. It shows a senior citizen asking a question. It’s difficult to hear his question, but essentially he is asking how he should defend himself if one or two or more bad guys came into his home.
Carefully observe the look on her face at about 38 seconds in when she responds to the gentleman “Good news for you. You live in Denver. DPD would be there in seconds.” I’ve watched these few seconds of this clip several times. She is smug, arrogant, and clearly pleased with herself about the cleverness of her reply. It is really disgusting. I can’t believe there hasn’t been more outrage about this aspect of her behavior than her stupidity about the definition of gun parts. SHE WORKS FOR THAT MAN! She is not his boss or his queen. He is not her subject. It really boils my blood. Then at about 46 seconds in, she decides she’s so pleased with herself that she can be humorous again. She is so clever! She tells the man he’d probably be dead anyway. So apparently the fact that she’s decided she can limit the man’s ability to defend himself is funny. Wow. People voted this piece of crap into office?
Did you notice the laughter in the background after her first ingenious quip? I don’t think the audience is laughing at her ability to deliver a witty comment. Rather, it seems that there has been an issue with Denver Police Department response time. In 2011, the average response time for a serious emergency (kidnappings, domestic violence, assaults) was 14.2 minutes (see the Denver Post article here). The Chief of Police is concerned that the response time is now 17 minutes when for such emergencies it should be 5 to 7 minutes. I think the audience was laughing at her stupidity, not at her ‘joke’. Sorry, Diana, you’re not as funny as you thought.
What is it with these arrogant people in office? Why do they assume they can legislate our rights away? Gun control – sorry, but this issue has been settled since 1791. Thankfully, the NRA issued a comprehensive response to DeGette’s comments: “Two words: Pretty stupid.”
Follow Gail on Twitter: @AcctgProfTX