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.

[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.

NICE! Well done Badger!

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