HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Lead sponsor in House on ...

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 05:18 PM

 

Lead sponsor in House on gun legislation Rep. Diana DeGette appears to not understand how they work

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/

WASHINGTON — 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.”

What she didn’t appear to understand is that a magazine can be reloaded with more bullets. According to the Shooter’s Log, only early on were magazines for AR-15s designed to be disposable, but the military changed that and now magazines are used several times. In handguns, a magazine is designed to be reused hundreds of times. After her remarks, the audience in the forum at The Denver Post building chuckled. Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith, responding as the audience was laughing, urged people who hadn’t shot a gun to “get to the facts … Let’s be educated as we make this decision.”

The National Rifle Association was not quite as diplomatic Wednesday in response to DeGette’s comments. “Two words — pretty stupid,” said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. The Colorado GOP responded, too, on Wednesday. “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. “Quite frankly, this is just another example of opponents of common-sense gun violence prevention trying to manipulate the facts to distract from the critical issue of keeping our children safe and keeping killing machines out of the hands of disturbed individuals. It’s more political gamesmanship that stands in the way of responsible solutions.”

41 replies, 2832 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 41 replies Author Time Post
Reply Lead sponsor in House on gun legislation Rep. Diana DeGette appears to not understand how they work (Original post)
Peter cotton Apr 2013 OP
Scuba Apr 2013 #1
Sharpie Apr 2013 #2
ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #4
former9thward Apr 2013 #13
NightWatcher Apr 2013 #3
Hoyt Apr 2013 #9
snooper2 Apr 2013 #5
graham4anything Apr 2013 #6
cherokeeprogressive Apr 2013 #19
graham4anything Apr 2013 #22
Kingofalldems Apr 2013 #7
Peter cotton Apr 2013 #10
Kingofalldems Apr 2013 #17
Hell Hath No Fury Apr 2013 #18
CTyankee Apr 2013 #23
Hoyt Apr 2013 #8
frazzled Apr 2013 #11
justanidea Apr 2013 #27
X_Digger Apr 2013 #12
JohnnyBoots Apr 2013 #15
JohnnyBoots Apr 2013 #14
jmg257 Apr 2013 #25
JohnnyBoots Apr 2013 #26
pennylane100 Apr 2013 #16
Marr Apr 2013 #20
timdog44 Apr 2013 #21
Llewlladdwr Apr 2013 #24
Skip Intro Apr 2013 #28
Kingofalldems Apr 2013 #33
Skip Intro Apr 2013 #34
HangOnKids Apr 2013 #38
HangOnKids Apr 2013 #37
ellisonz Apr 2013 #29
Moses2SandyKoufax Apr 2013 #30
Kingofalldems Apr 2013 #32
backscatter712 Apr 2013 #35
devilgrrl Apr 2013 #36
Comrade_McKenzie Apr 2013 #39
jazzimov Apr 2013 #31
Truly Deeply Apr 2013 #40
In_The_Wind Apr 2013 #41

Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 05:22 PM

1. Congresspersons don't understand how toxins works either, but they regulate them.

 

Few Congress-critters can fly a space shuttle or build a highway.

On the other hand, I'll bet Congresswoman DeGette understands what dead children are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #1)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 05:25 PM

2. They should know what they are talking about...

 

... Especially about such a simple topic.

Basic definitions are not the equivalent of flying a space shuttle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #1)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 05:31 PM

4. False Equivalence

Understanding the basics of the tech is not the same as flying a space shuttle. Maybe we should mandate a basic pistol course for all of them...

Note that they have not done all that great a job on toxins and high tech either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #1)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 06:02 PM

13. Actually they don't regulate toxins.

Precisely because they don't understand them. That authority is given to agencies like the EPA, FDA and OSHA. They have career professionals who do understand them. They are the ones who issue the regulations not Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 05:29 PM

3. This is why some of us DUers with guns have begged you to know your definitions

Sure, we regulate things without knowing everything about them, but this is a prime example of looking like an idiot for not knowing the basics of guns. Please contact a "gun person" to help you with your argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightWatcher (Reply #3)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 05:47 PM

9. Yeah, let's ask Wayne LaPierre or Teddy Nugent about why gun cultists need them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 05:32 PM

5. See what happens if you never watch Die Hard

 

and people say movies dumb us down

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 05:32 PM

6. Ban all bullets. Gun size don't matter it's what you do with it, and all guns kill. Ban all of them

 

This stupid minutia of the NRA.

Reinterpret the 2nd with ONE new SCOTUS in the next few years and that's it.

Yes, I want a new SCOTUS ruling to grab their guns and I am not embarassed to say so.

Enough beating around the Bush and enough NRA blackmailing candidates.

ZERO tolerance after a reinterpretation.
No more bullets for any private citizen.

Time to play hardball.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #6)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 07:26 PM

19. Is there precedent for the USSC to make decisions that revoke an individual right affirmed by

 

a previous USSC?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #19)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 07:37 PM

22. They actually left the interpretation open otherwise all private citizens could own ...

 

And,after all, shoulder to air missiles cannot be had by every American, yet, under this ruling,why not?

And aren't they doing that with abortion and woman's choice?

After the 2000 ruling, they can do whatever they want. Just like Lincoln did.

Besides, they have NEVER said what a militia is, what weapons, nor did they bullets.
You can keep your guns, once bullets are gone.

After all, it said cannons and not today's guns

After all, freedom of speech does not allow one to yell a terroristic word in an airport, or yell fire in a nonburning theatre.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 05:40 PM

7. You seem obsessed with guns

Just an observation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kingofalldems (Reply #7)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 05:47 PM

10. You seem obsessed with my posting habits.

 

Just an observation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Reply #10)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 06:06 PM

17. And ain't going away

Just a fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kingofalldems (Reply #7)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 06:13 PM

18. One trick pony, for sure.

 

Hard not to notice....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hell Hath No Fury (Reply #18)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 07:42 PM

23. He showed up Feb.20, 2013 so draw your own conclusions...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 05:45 PM

8. She understands hi-cap mags are used by those who act like we are in a war zone.

She understands it well enough to know they aren't needed by rational/mature folks. I suppose you'd prefer Wayne LaPierre or Teddy Nugent BS about why the poor oppressed gun culture needs hi-cap mags.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 05:51 PM

11. Ah, the old "get them on a technicality"

This is the defense when you have no defensive position on your side. Hello, guns-at-any-cost lovers: your position is dying as fast as the anti-same-sex-marriage position has died.

The Representative's legislation is good and is supported by the vast majority of Americans. The tide is turning. Just today the Maryland courts upheld the law that gives the state to issue public carry permits only on a "need to carry" basis (from an email from Brady Campaign today):

In one of the gun lobby's few — and most dangerous — successful challenges to common sense gun laws, last March a federal district court judge struck down Maryland's law that reasonably restricts the carrying of handguns in public. That decision could have enabled dangerous people to carry loaded hidden handguns in public, and would have served as precedent for other courts across the country.
But over the past year the Legal Action Project worked long and hard, along with top lawyers with the Maryland Attorney General's office, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently reversed that decision, and unanimously upheld Maryland's law that only allows handguns to be carried in public by persons found by law enforcement to have a "good and substantial reason" to do so.


Many states are going to follow on this precedent. So you'll have to keep those pistols at home, boys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #11)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 08:35 PM

27. No they aren't

 

The trend with concealed carry for the last 25 years has been to relax the laws. We wont see states banning concealed carry any time even remotely soon.

As far as it being a technicality, well not quite. It's a pretty basic bit of knowledge. She might as well of gotten up there and said guns are powered by diesel fuel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 05:54 PM

12. Umm, the 'clarification' doesn't make sense either.

'Clips' can be reused, and nobody is proposing a ban on 'clips'.

*sigh*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #12)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 06:05 PM

15. Yeah,

 

that was total spin trying to save face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 06:03 PM

14. I would love to see her face

 

when she realizes that she doesn't have to buy a new car every time she runs out of gas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnnyBoots (Reply #14)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 08:24 PM

25. Not for nothing - but that was pretty funny. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #25)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 08:31 PM

26. Thanks.

 

We can all use a laugh every now and then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 06:06 PM

16. Which means absolutely nothing.

She does not have to know how guns work to understand that they are responsible for thousands of deaths each year.

There is a reasonable chance that many victims of gun violence, and their families, also do not understand how the laws work. Does that mean they cannot lobby to get these insane gun laws changed.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 07:30 PM

20. Oh, for christ sake-- I get so sick of gun advocates insisting on talking about gun mechanics.

 

Maybe this individual isn't aware of how guns work or what a magazine is, but I assure you-- most of the people making the very reasonable suggestion that high capacity magazines be banned understand it perfectly well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 07:36 PM

21. I don't have to know

how an atomic weapon works to know that I don't want anyone to have one.

The argument of her not understanding guns sucks swamp water. I am, for one, am glad she does not understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 08:13 PM

24. This is why there won't be *any* new gun legislation this year.

When you look incompetent you get treated that way. Respect for your position goes down.

The mechanics of how firearms work are not difficult at all to understand or explain. If a person can't be bothered to gain a basic understanding of a subject on which they wish to legislate then why should I bother to support them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 08:39 PM

28. Wow, that is embarrassing.

The clarification was bizarre as well.

I mean, someone who wants to snip away at my rights, and your rights too, and she sounds like she doesn't even know what the hell she's talking about.

The gun grab crowd is imploding.

Can't say it makes me sad.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #28)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 10:20 PM

33. Your friend has been shown the door.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kingofalldems (Reply #33)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 10:23 PM

34. My friend? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kingofalldems (Reply #33)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 11:54 PM

38. Of Course They Will Claim To Not Know Pete

 

A quick search proves otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #28)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 11:51 PM

37. No the gun lovers are imploding dear

 

Your buddy Pete got shown the door.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 08:41 PM

29. He came, he trolled, he was PPR'd by Skinner for being a "Gun Troll."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #29)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 08:42 PM

30. About fucking time. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #29)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 10:05 PM

32. Poor Peter Cottontail

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #29)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 10:31 PM

35. Jim Carrey is singing a song for him... n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #29)


Response to ellisonz (Reply #29)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 11:56 PM

39. Hahaha. Way to go Skinner!!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 08:57 PM

31. I don't give a sh!t. MOST people don't know

how guns work.

Here's what matters - guns shoot bullets. Bullets shot from guns can kill people. The more bullets you can shoot, the more people you can kill.

Magazines can be re-loaded, but it takes time to re-load a mag. That's why most shooters will have multiple pre-loaded mags so they can swap them out more quickly. It still takes time to release on mag, insert another, and cock the weapon. Not nearly as much time as re-loading a mag, but it does give the targets a chance to escape.

That's why I support limiting the mag capacity to 3. Yes, you heard me right, 3. If you can't take down a target with 3 shots, then you don't deserve to hold a weapon much less fire it.

As far as "home defense" is concerned, once they hear the first shot they are going to be running away. So don't give me any bullsh!t about "what if there are 4 attackers?" If there are more than 3, they will be leaving after the first shot is fired.

Yes, I have been in the military. Yes, I own a shotgun because I live in the woods. It is a single-shot shotgun. I have to unload and re-load after each shot. Each SINGLE shot. Because that's all I need.

3 shots should be more than enough. I will compromise for 5, but 3 is more than enough. Don't DARE try to convince me otherwise - I know better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 12:53 AM

40. Hmmm, America needs to wake up...

First, I am a foreigner, but fairly benign. Here in New Zealand we have strict firearms laws. The vast majority of firearms owners have shotguns for the duck season, and deer rifles in the .243 to 30.06 range. 7mm-08 is the most popular calibre, as our deer are quite large, and our wild pigs are mouth wateringly delicious!

The AR-15 type of rifle is useless for hunting our game, except for wallabies or goats. Special expensive safes and licenses are needed for any military style SEMI automatic rifle, which are only used at club ranges. Our magazines can only hold 5 rounds unless you go for a higher class of license. .22 rifles can hold 15 rounds, and are suitable for rabbits and possums (we have no squirrels, strangely - all our mammals are introduced).

We have a few handguns here, but all are in the hands of pistol competition club members, and the requirements are very rigorous and costly. Owning a handgun here will cost us about four times what it will cost you guys.

Under no circumstances can you transport a loaded firearm of any sort. Carrying a loaded handgun is extremely illegal, and you go straight to jail.

We have very few firearm deaths, mostly deer hunting accidents.

In the USA, most firearm deaths are from handguns in criminal hands (roughly 90% or more). Banning handguns would achieve far more than coming down on AR-15s. The craze for going about tooled, ready for anything, is a form of collective psychosis. True, you may be attacked and molested by armed criminals in the meantime, but eventually a ban on all handguns will achieve a higher level of personal security. The real problem is treating fellow citizens like scum rather than building them up where they turn from crime. The deeply imbedded drug culture is another driver of crime. Look into the mirror and you'll see why angry young men with no consciences prey on your citizens. Improve your welfare systems to a point where they work, stop sending your jobs to China, and you may reclaim the lost men in the criminal justice system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Truly Deeply (Reply #40)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 12:29 PM

41. Hello ~ Truly Deeply

[img][/img]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread