April 3, 2013

“Rep. Diana DeGette Mocks Concerned Senior at Gun Rights Forum”

Remember, this is the same Representative who believed magazines were disposal, probably because she saw a movie or tv show where a character simply dropped one to load another in the heat of some (wildly inauthentic) exchange of fire.

And yet she gets to introduce anti-gun legislation — and her Democrat colleagues will vote to impose it on people who know about guns, and have every right to protect themselves and their families.

Or do they? Watch, and listen closely:

Evidently, your chances of surviving an attack as a senior are vanishingly small. If the Denver PD can’t save you within 3 minutes, you’d “probably be dead anyway” — so really, why should Rep DeGette care that having extra rounds in your magazine nurtures your false sense of security?

People like DeGette, who are voted in by urban center liberals and welfare cases, represent the liberal elite. They represent the people only inasmuch as they are quite willing to manage them and mold them and move them about at their whim. But make no mistake: she believes to her core that she is their better, and that her role in life is to run theirs in ways they are too stupid to choose voluntarily.

This is what contemporary statism looks like. And as we’ve seen, at the state level, it takes its marching orders from the national party and — by strict party line votes, when it has a majority — imposes that national agenda on people of both parties within the state, often against their wishes.

In the case of gun control, a Denver Post poll split 70/30 against the measures forced through our legislature and signed by our Bloomberg puppet, Gov Hickenlooper.

This is not how a representative republic is supposed to run. But then again, this is what you get when an uninformed, indoctrinated public votes in a rote way for “their economic interests” — unaware that they are trading that measure of nannystate security for their incremental enslavement.

DeGette’s campaign slogan may as well be, “I will let you eat cake.”

(thanks to geoff B)

Posted by Jeff G. @ 9:57am
46 comments | Trackback

Comments (46)

  1. But make no mistake: she believes to her core that she is their better, and that her role in life is to run theirs in ways they are too stupid to choose voluntarily.

    A little dip in some hot tar would wipe that smug smirk right off her face.

  2. DeGette’s campaign slogan may as well be, “I will let you eat cake.”

    Along with a sotto voce “While quietly hoping you choke to death on it.”

  3. Evidently, your chances of surviving an attack as a senior are vanishingly small. If the Denver PD can’t save you within 3 minutes, you’d “probably be dead anyway” — so really, why should Rep DeGette care that having extra rounds in your magazine nurtures your false sense of security

    Nice to have that outcome decided for you by someone removed from the situation in advance. Kind of like Obamacare.

  4. It is a peculiar position to be in, from a political point of view, to glance around at one’s country, see manifest injustices committed everywhere by the stewards of our government — even to the highest offices of power and honor in the land — and know to a certainty that no rectification of these injustices, no rebuke, no punishment of any sort will ever come to these vulgar scum, but to the contrary, gain upon gain, hand over fist, and power after power.

    What could possibly be more upside down, politically speaking? And yet these are celebrated, as though they were an achievement bestowed by grace.

  5. The Denver PD officials take their stand.

    CBS4 has learned that the Denver Police Department has been asking for officers — in uniform — to volunteer to stand behind Obama as he makes his speech Wednesday at the Denver Police Academy.
    [...]
    DPD spokesman Sonny Jackson said the department began seeking volunteers last week who were willing to stand behind the president during his speech. Jackson said numerous officers have volunteered for the assignment.

    But not all Denver cops agree.

    “This is wrong and it shouldn’t be happening,” said Mike Rossi, a retired Denver police detective who left the department in 2005.
    [...]
    “It’s agenda based and they shouldn’t be there,” said Rossi. “To me if you put Denver police officers behind the President, who is pushing this agenda, then what you are telling the citizens of the city is that the Denver Police Department is for this.”

    Precisely so.

  6. This woman is even more stupid and feckless than your average politician.

    Which makes it a wonder that she’s lived this long, what with difficulties in self-feeding.

  7. “To me if you put Denver police officers behind the President, . . . “

    Will the Secret Service disarm these cardboard cutouts prior to allowing them to appear on the stage?

  8. DPD spokesman Sonny Jackson said the department began seeking volunteers last week who were willing to stand behind the president during his speech. Jackson said numerous officers have volunteered for the assignment.

    They started looking for volunteers a WEEK ago, and the best they’ve got it “numerous”? How many is numerous? 4? 5?

    I don’t know how many props they will find for the show, but I imagine the DPD is rather large, and whatever size group they find to act as propaganda tools -it STILL will have taken a week to find that many.

  9. Greetings:

    1) My father used to have a comment he used when one of my associates went beyond his pale. “The next time you see your parents,” he would intone, “tell them I said they still have some work to do.” Too bad the questioner wasn’t familiar with it.

    2) I would have been interesting if the police officer there on the right was asked how many rounds were in his officers weapons.

  10. DeGette’s campaign slogan may as well be, “I will let you eat cake.”

    More like, “Eat your cake — and don’t talk with your mouth full.”

  11. Isn’t it nice to know how thoroughly you disgust your Representatives?

  12. Somewhere along the way, nice ate the good and left the world in an indiscriminate state, incapable of distinguishing an ally from an enemy.

  13. DeGette’s campaign slogan may as well be, “I will let you eat cake.”

    Gluten-free, vegan, sugar-free cake. For your own good.

  14. Representative DeGette, Weld County covers more than 4,000 square miles. If I live, say, northeast of Pierce, how long should I expect DPD to show up at my house at 3:00 in the morning?

    Oh, DPD doesn’t serve Weld County? Then approximately how many Weld County Sherriff’s officers would be required to get me service in 3 minutes?

    And, how many bullets can a semi-automatic handgun fire in those 3 minutes? Even assuming a 10 round magazine with 10 seconds to reload between magazines?

  15. Isn’t it nice to know how thoroughly you disgust your Representatives?

    Sure gives me a warm, gooey feeling inside.

  16. John, John, John. Everybody knows there’s nothing outside Denver city limits but a howling wasteland. If you choose to live out there you deserve to die at the hands of those feather-wearing, war-painted savages like Lord Humongous and Elizabeth Warren.

  17. Someday it may come to be called “the Obama effect.” This belief among the, until now, masked progressive socialists, that his re-election in 2012 was a huge mandate for all that they have lusted for to be instantly realizable now.

  18. In other news:

    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.”

  19. Nevermind. Didn’t see the related link at the beginning.

    Although the fact that it was from the Denver Post is in itself noteworthy…

  20. assuming a 10 round magazine with 10 seconds to reload between magazines?

    10 seconds to change a mag? You’re either one handed, or lack opposable thumbs.

  21. Refilling the mag with fresh rounds might take that long…

  22. You’re either one handed, or lack opposable thumbs.

    Or yet, while missing an upper limb, one could also be simultaneously engaged in hanging wallpaper.

  23. Refilling the mag with fresh rounds might take that long…

    That’s why god created speed loaders.

  24. Wait, you can reload magazines?

    That little tidbit is going to dramatically reduce my per-shot costs. Thanks, internet!

  25. Representative DeGette,

    What would the approximate response time be for DPD for the DDA in Grand County?

  26. Tom Clements could not be reached for comment.

  27. DeGette’s campaign slogan may as well be, “I will let you eat cake.”

    Except the cake is a lie.

    o/~Liberal Fascism! We do what we must because we can!/For the good of all of us — except the ones who are dead…o/~

    Apologies to GladOS. Or not.

  28. DeGette’s spokesperson doubles down in clarifying the Congresswoman’s remarks.

    A spokeswoman trying to deflect well-deserved ridicule and criticism made things worse in an issued statement, calling it “political gamesmanship” by “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.

    “The Congresswoman has been working on a high-capacity assault magazine ban for years, and has been deeply involved in the issue,” Juliet Johnson said. “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.

    She’s been working on this for years? This correspondent has firearms that use magazines and firearms that use clips, and has unwittingly been reusing both of them for decades, fortunately without incident!

  29. Cartridges, magazines, bullets, clips, all these confusing technical terms. Details for those simpletons to know. We don’t need no stinking details, we are after JUSTICE for the children!!

  30. “Clips, which cannot be re-used because they don’t have a feeding mechanism” doesn’t make sense no matter how you look at it. I mean, starting with the fact that the overall gist is completely wrong, you then drill down and marvel at how someone gets the impression that a device for holding cartridges together by friction to ease loading of magazines and thus actually *is* a feeding mechanism, although one could easily say the thumb is the “feeding mechanism” and the clip isn’t, is therefore not re-usable.

    Also something of a marvel is how a pruportedly employed adult, employed in PR nonetheless, would go out in front of reporters to make an assertion without asking *anyone* who might know, and not even take the fifteen seconds it would require to search for the topic on an internet and find a variety of answers which I would suspect would be remarkably similar and contrary to her bizarre assumption.

    Seriously, did anyone check to see if she had slip-on shoes? I’m fairly sure “tying knots” is above her pay scale.

    The answer is, of course, not only does she not care what the facts are, she believes she would be something *less of an enlightened person* if she knew such things. It’s one reason why so many liberals look like such damned idiots when things get technical (outside their immediate specialty and doubly so when the topic is something perceived as “not liberal”). “Enlightened ignorance,” they *refuse* to learn certain things because those things are “icky,” ideologically speaking. They have “right wing cooties” on them, and if you know those facts you must be an icky person.

    Thus, they are *perpetually ignorant*. Which is actually a form of lie, as it’s deliberate.

  31. NBC: Intruder killed while breaking into Colorado prosecutor’s home.

    Lucky thing the prosecutor’s husband is a cop, so she didn’t have to wait for the police to arrive from elsewheres.

  32. “which cannot be reused because they don’t have a feeding mechanism”.

    The M1 Garand doesn’t exist over on this alternate timeline, I see.

  33. Indiana introduces bill requiring at least one armed staff member at every school:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/03/indiana-school-gun-bill-raises-concerns/2051777/

  34. it’s good for someone to have a gun for in case somebody tries to hurt the kids

  35. Yes, you’d think.

  36. Let me juxtapose both statements, for shits and giggles.

    “What’s the efficacy of banning these magazine clips? I will tell you, these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now, they’re going to shoot them” says Rep DeGette. According to her, “the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will be shot and there won’t be any more available.”

    And the spokesperson.

    “The Congresswoman has been working on a high-capacity assault magazine ban for years, and has been deeply involved in the issue,” Juliet Johnson said. “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.

    Further clarification may need to be forthcoming.

  37. The spokeswoman would have been better of with a simple “it’s the wrong time of the month for a completely coherent, rational answer, from the Congresswoman and you’re all misogynists for noticing.

  38. The Congresswoman is 55 so that too would require further clarification.

  39. Interesting if it works.

    Stockman moves to automatically kill Senate gun ban
    [...]
    “The Democrat gun ban is dead on arrival. I will introduce in the House a blue slip resolution that will automatically kill the Senate gun ban,” said Stockman.
    [...]
    A “blue slip” is a resolution that automatically returns to the Senate any bill that violates the “origination clause” of the United States Constitution. The origination clause states “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.”
    [...]
    According to The Heritage Foundation, S.649 imposes a new tax by forcing individuals to pay for background checks when selling or giving away a firearm. The mandate to use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System does not provide a service to the buyer or seller but to the government, making it a tax.

    Additionally, the Supreme Court ruled last year in NFIB v. Sebelius that mandating citizens to pay for a service can be construed to be a tax, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinion expanding the federal definition of a tax.

    Of course Reid can simply take something the House has passed and do an amendment to it that replaces the entire bill with his new language and he’s good to go. IIRC.

Leave a Reply