Recently President Obama tried to cast "shame" on America and Congress for not acting to approve new gun control measures, including a ban on "military-style" weapons, although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) stated that he would not include an assault weapons ban in an initial gun control package before the Senate. Once again the president invoked the emotion of the Newtown, Conn. tragedy to push a gun control agenda, and once again this highlights how the push for gun control is not based upon facts, but upon emotion and an anti-gun agenda. The dearth of facts is painfully obvious once gun control advocates go into detail in defense of pushing their legislation.
President Obama has stated repeatedly in multiple speeches that "military-style" assault weapons don't belong on our streets, but he has failed to say why. To those who are unfamiliar with these firearms, they are simply semi-automatic rifles that fire one bullet with each pull of the trigger. They may look like the rifles that the military uses, but they are not. Do gun control advocates really not know the difference between the firearms that the military uses and the ones they are seeking to ban for civilians?
In another instance, Joe Biden recommended to women that "You don't need an AR-15, it's harder to aim, it's harder to use" and to get a double-barreled shotgun. Anyone familiar with either of these types of firearms knows that a double-barreled shotgun has substantially more recoil and is harder to use than an AR-15. Biden even stated that he recommended to his wife Jill that, if there were aggressors outside of their home, that she should go out on the porch, and fire "two blasts" in the air with the aforementioned shotgun. However, not only would following this advice be illegal and dangerous, but if one knows anything about a double-barreled shotgun, they would realize firing "two blasts" in the air would effectively leave you defenseless afterwards. This is the man who was heading Obama's gun control task force?
In yet another instance, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) recently participated in a forum hosted by the Denver Post editorial board where she displayed a fine example of the ignorance regarding magazines. DeGette stated, "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." To those that don't see what is wrong with this, a magazine is simply the container that holds the ammunition. Once the ammunition inside is used, the magazine itself can be reloaded and reused, making DeGette's claim totally wrong.
After pro-gun advocates noted the error, DeGette's spokeswoman, Juliet Johnson, quickly issued a statement saying that DeGette simply "misspoke" and what she meant was that "clips", not magazines, were not reusable. In the same statement Johnson, said that DeGette had been involved in banning "high-capacity assault magazines" for years. What exactly is an "assault magazine" anyways?
But even with Juliet Johnson's correction, DeGette's comments are still completely wrong, as clips can also be reused. Besides, this excuse doesn't make any sense as the topic was about banning magazines, not clips. If DeGette is confused or misspoke, then should she really be offering her opinion on a national level? If she has been working on banning these items for years, then surely she should know the difference between a magazine and a clip, and know that both are reusable. With an issue as politically charged as gun control, we would hope that our legislators would be knowledgable on the topic before offering legislation on such a divisive issue. By the way, Rep. DeGette is introducing legislation in Congress to ban high-capacity magazines.
President Obama is trying to cast shame on Americans and Congress in his bid to push gun control legislation, but the shame should really be directed at himself and some of his fellow gun control advocates. Shame on them for resorting to emotion and tragedy to push their agenda. Shame on the media for allowing them to get away with it. Most of all, with over one hundred days passing after the tragedy at Newtown, Conn., shame on our politicians for not doing their homework to show that they have at least a rudimentary understanding of the firearms and the firearms community with which they seek to impact with their legislation.