Diana DeGette's response

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spqrzilla

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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