Diana DeGette's response

[newracer]

A member on another forum posted her response to his email. The part in bold really shows how she thinks. I think she should get extra emails and postcards, especially from her constituents.


Thank you for voicing your concern with this very important issue. Unfortunately, your view on the 2nd amendment and what you are entitled to is quite wrong. As an individual not in my district, I don't represent you, and will continue to hold my stance on limiting these assault weapons high capacity clips.

[HoneyBadger]

A member on another forum posted her response to his email. The part in bold really shows how she thinks. I think she should get extra emails and postcards, especially from her constituents.

So basically she said: "I don't care what you think. I'm in charge here and I'm going to do whatever the f*** I want to. F*** off."


That's the whole problem though: She thinks that our constitution and its amendments are subjective. She thinks that there are multiple "views" regarding the 2nd amendment. People like this simply do not understand principles and live in a magical world of rainbows, unicorns, logical fallacies, and moral relativism.


I've got 30 postcards addressed specifically to her. I'm going to mail a few out each week for the next several weeks. [Evil]

[DavieD55]

So basically she said: "I don't care what you think. I'm in charge here and I'm going to do whatever the f*** I want to. F*** off."


That is exaclty what she means.

[Holger Danske]

Perhaps she should limit the proposed ban to her constituents.

[Ronin13]

People like her should be locked up for treason. Just saying... What a dumb C U Next Tuesday.

[Cylinder Head]

Since I am in her district:


Diana, as a registered Democrat (little white lie) in your district I have to implore you to abandon your quest against "assault clips", a nomenclature that immediately suggests you clearly do not know much about my Second Amendment rights or about guns in general. First of all, "clips" have not been used since the M1 Garand in WWII, and for the most part you are acting against what are considered by manufacturers and our own military as "standard capacity magazines". The words "assault" and "clip" are terms used in error to evoke a response, and personally I find that sort of tactic underhanded and childish. Assault weapons were banned in 1986. The term "assault weapon" refers to a gun that is fully automatic. As a legal gun owner and law abiding citizen, I am unable to own an assault weapon. Do you honestly think that by limiting magazine capacity to ten rounds you will somehow prevent either the hundreds of millions of STANDARD CAPACITY magazines in circulation from falling into the wrong hands? Even if by some miracle criminals actually decide to selectively obey your law, what is stopping them from reloading and carrying additional magazines?


Have you ever even held a gun or reloaded one? In practiced hands it takes a second or less. That's what you'd be doing, adding seconds to crimes that take 20 minutes on average for the police to respond to. You won't save any lives, you won't discourage anything. The Columbine massacre took place in a gun free zone during a ban. Dylan Kliebold himself railed against laws allowing citizens to carry concealed, because he wanted everyone not carrying a badge to be a victim.


I am not going to get into a discussion of the second amendment because clearly your very liberal interpretation is too far off for any logic to sway, but I will leave you with this. The Second Amendment was written to protect the PEOPLE from their GOVERNMENT, not the other way around. Any attempt to stomp on that right has historically landed a politician without a job, and in your case I'm sure you will find out soon enough if you continue this misguided and emotionally driven quest.

[HoneyBadger]

Since I am in her district:

Nicely done!

[Ronin13]

Can I dispel a common misconception right now? This terminology "assault weapon" and the common mistake made in the definition (full auto), is false. Assault weapon (in regard to the 1986 ban) is defined as a "select-fire" (meaning not just safety/semi) weapon that can fire full auto and/or burst. Just a little FYI, since everyone is getting bent out of shape on definitions and terminology, we might as well lead the charge in being all-the-way accurate here...

[merl]

Keep in mind these things:
1) She is in a very safe district and will do what she damn well pleases. Whoever has a (D) after their name in that district wins, the election is decided in the primary. As a rule gun owners are not (D) primary voters.
2) There is a bit of trolling going on with these proposals. It isn't getting though the house, she knows that. But she gets a smile every time some gun nut sends her an email. If she cannot get the law changed at least she can piss some people off.

Don't say anything to her, remind the speaker to not let it on the floor.

[Cthulhu]

So basically she said: "I don't care what you think. I'm in charge here and I'm going to do whatever the f*** I want to. F*** off."


That's the whole problem though: She thinks that our constitution and its amendments are subjective. She thinks that there are multiple "views" regarding the 2nd amendment. People like this simply do not understand principles and live in a magical world of rainbows, unicorns, logical fallacies, and moral relativism.


I've got 30 postcards addressed specifically to her. I'm going to mail a few out each week for the next several weeks. [Evil]

NICE! Well done Badger!

+50 here! Please tell this b!tch where to get off and send her a Molon Labe postcard guys!

[Cylinder Head]

Can I dispel a common misconception right now? This terminology "assault weapon" and the common mistake made in the definition (full auto), is false. Assault weapon (in regard to the 1986 ban) is defined as a "select-fire" (meaning not just safety/semi) weapon that can fire full auto and/or burst. Just a little FYI, since everyone is getting bent out of shape on definitions and terminology, we might as well lead the charge in being all-the-way accurate here...

I wrote that in my letter to Diana above.

The gun grabbers are almost entirely ignorant to the topic they speak of, which always astounds me.

[spqrzilla]

You are wasting time communicating with DeGette. Spend time on the legislators that worry about reelection.

Also the confusion with full auto weapons is not a mistake, its an intentional lie by the gun control advocates. They want to confuse the two in the minds of the public.

[hollohas]

Also the confusion with full auto weapons is not a mistake, its an intentional lie by the gun control advocates. They want to confuse the two in the minds of the public.

^Exactly. Most of them are not as ignorant as we think they are. They are pandering the the ignorant public. Banning cosmetic features and using the wrong terminology is all part of the plan. They may say it's to save lives, but really their ONLY goal is to get rid of guns. Using cosmetic features as the basis just makes it easier to ban more firearms that are no different than the so-called "hunting rifles" they claim to protect.

[Ronin13]

Question on this, what area of the State does this [redacted] represent? Ya know, in case I do move out of the mountains, don't want to end up surrounded by her supporters.

[jslo]

District one. Basically Denver County spilling over into a little of some surrounding counties. You already no to stay outta there.

[BPTactical]

She obviously slept through Civics class. She needs a few reminders that:
A- she works for the people.
B- she is to uphold and abide by the Constitution.
C- The Bill of Rights is NOT about what We The People are entitled to, rather it is about the limits the government is constrained to. What SHE is constrained to.

If this statement from her is true, I have never seen a more elitist and arrogant response from an elected official.

She needs her reins jerked.
Really, really hard.

[Fmedges]

It's not her job to decide what's right or wrong, it's to represent the majority in her district. If the majority there wanted it then introduce it. The way our government works now has strayed from this and is now broken and dysfunctional.

[roberth]

A member on another forum posted her response to his email. The part in bold really shows how she thinks. I think she should get extra emails and postcards, especially from her constituents.


Thank you for voicing your concern with this very important issue. Unfortunately, your view on the 2nd amendment and what you are entitled to is quite wrong. As an individual not in my district, I don't represent you, and will continue to hold my stance on limiting these assault weapons high capacity clips.

I expected her response to be a little more tactful and pandering but there it is in black and white for ALL to see. She is one face of the enemy.

[Kraven251]

The problem, most of these people don't actually care if they get re-elected. They get health insurance that beats any private plan I have ever seen for them and their family, as well as anywhere from $150-200k a year for the rest of their life.

No matter what happens from this point forward, they get paid.

[Fmedges]

The government should be in fear of the people. Not the other way around.

[TFOGGER]

Thank you for voicing your concern with this very important issue. Unfortunately, your view on the 2nd amendment and what you are entitled to is quite wrong. As an individual not in my district, I don't represent you, and will continue to hold my stance on limiting these assault weapons high capacity clips.

I'm not in her district, but what I am entitled to is PROPER RESPECT from my EMPLOYEE. She was elected to represent the best interests of her constituency, NOT to advance her personal agenda at the expense of the Constitution that she swore an oath to defend. In order to effectively represent those that she works for, it is her duty to assess objectively the information that is available on the issue, and then represent the best interests of her district. We need to organize a strong effort to remove this conceited elitist charlatan from office.

The Bill of Rights does NOT "entitle" me to anything. It restricts the government from encroaching on my natural rights.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I think Degette is a contemptible irrational ideologue with astoundingly uninformed, illogical and idiotic views of the Constitution but to be fair to her, she's right in that she is supposed to represent people in her district and you should be writing to your own Congressman. What we need to do is show her constituents why she is wrong and have them write to her (and hopefully vote to replace her in 2 years).

[Byte Stryke]

Start arresting them for Treason and attacks on the Constitution of The United States...

[roberth]

Start arresting them for Treason and attacks on the Constitution of The United States...

Who starts arresting them? The government? The government isn't going to use its own forces against one of their own, maybe later they'll turn on her if she falls out of favor.

[Teufelhund]

I'm not in her district, but what I am entitled to is PROPER RESPECT from my EMPLOYEE. She was elected to represent the best interests of her constituency, NOT to advance her personal agenda at the expense of the Constitution that she swore an oath to defend. In order to effectively represent those that she works for, it is her duty to assess objectively the information that is available on the issue, and then represent the best interests of her district. We need to organize a strong effort to remove this conceited elitist charlatan from office.

The Bill of Rights does NOT "entitle" me to anything. It restricts the government from encroaching on my natural rights.

THIS.


Start arresting them for Treason and attacks on the Constitution of The United States...

And This. Is this not the duty of every patriot, in the context of a well-regulated militia?

[Kraven251]

And This. Is this not the duty of every patriot, in the context of a well-regulated militia?

I wonder how long I would end up in jail if I put her under citizens arrest for treason against the United States, and then called the FBI to come pick her up.

[Fmedges]

It is. It's also the duty of the military to act independently in removing her from office. That's why these assholes have no fear, it's because they are allowed to run wild.

[Teufelhund]

I wonder how long I would end up in jail if I put her under citizens arrest for treason against the United States, and then called the FBI to come pick her up.

The jail or the morgue. If I thought I could get away with this by myself, she (and the rest like her) would already be booked.

[Marlin]

Keep in mind these things:
1) She is in a very safe district and will do what she damn well pleases. Whoever has a (D) after their name in that district wins, the election is decided in the primary. As a rule gun owners are not (D) primary voters.
2) There is a bit of trolling going on with these proposals. It isn't getting though the house, she knows that. But she gets a smile every time some gun nut sends her an email. If she cannot get the law changed at least she can piss some people off.

Don't say anything to her, remind the speaker to not let it on the floor.


This...

I would however suggest that maybe next time she has a press conferance in say, 5 points, someone needs to ask her if she upholds the ideals of Margret Sanger. Of course I'm sure the question would go over the heads of her supporters.

[HBARleatherneck]

delete

[speedysst]

Can I dispel a common misconception right now? This terminology "assault weapon" and the common mistake made in the definition (full auto), is false. Assault weapon (in regard to the 1986 ban) is defined as a "select-fire" (meaning not just safety/semi) weapon that can fire full auto and/or burst. Just a little FYI, since everyone is getting bent out of shape on definitions and terminology, we might as well lead the charge in being all-the-way accurate here...

Well, Ive been very careful about calling any of my firearms "weapons" since none of them have been used as such. Can they be used as weapons? Yes, but so can rocks and pens. A knife is just a knife until it is used to assault someone, then it becomes a weapon. Semantics, I know but screw em...