Democrat Contradiction: Gun Control Fine But Pro-Life Bill Unconstitutional

Congress(wo)man Diana DeGette is the Colorado Democrat who voted for a federal ban on high-capacity magazines but had no idea what magazines or clips were. Remember when she said this to justify her support for infringing on people’s 2nd Amendment liberties:

 “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.”

Her absolutely baffling “argument” shows she had no idea what she was talking about, except that she was in favor of regulating guns in violation of the 2nd Amendment. Her spokes(wo)man Juliet Johnson didn’t make matters any better when she “clarified” what DeGette actually meant:

“The Congresswoman has been working on a high-capacity assault magazine ban for years, and has been deeply involved in the issue; 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. Quite frankly, this is just another example of 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. It’s more political gamesmanship that stands in the way of responsible solutions.”

So, her spokes(wo)man doesn’t have any idea what magazines or clips are either. But it didn’t matter that neither of them knew anything about the subject that they purported to be so passionate about. All that mattered was that they were trying to “keep our children safe.” Those are the magic words. They cared so much for children’s safety that they would fight for unconstitutional legislation that would make people more and more defenseless. Even if it only saved one life.

take our poll - story continues below

Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?

  • Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Godfather Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: REVEALED: Internet Censorship of Conservatives Funded by the Chinese Government

That was what the Obama administration was saying during their gun control tour. Everybody should be in favor of more restrictions on gun ownership, because even if such measures saved only one life, that should be reason enough to enact more gun control. Not enacting more gun control means effectively allowing tens of thousands of people, including children, to die in a year’s time.

When these words and arguments were used against Diana DeGette at a press conference where she was voicing her opposition to the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, she didn’t want to answer to her abject hypocrisy. Here was CNS News’ question to DeGette:

 “Many Democrats said…even if [more gun control laws] save one life it will be worth doing. Why not support this bill then, if it undoubtedly will save lives of babies that have been carried throughout 5 months of pregnancy?”

Here was DeGette’s baffling response:

 “Well, this is, this is. … We already have laws in many states of this country. This bill is blatantly unconstitutional. And, and if you look at the perceived—if you look at the stated reason of doing this legislation, the Kermit Gosnell case, that gentleman was convicted of murder and sentenced to life. Any other questions?”

 The CNS News reporter tried to press her for an actual answer, but DeGette interrupted, “No, excuse me. Any other questions?”

So, liberals are in favor of violating the Constitution as long as that violation saves lives. Even if it’s only one life. Unless it’s abortion we’re talking about, in which case 54 million babies can be slaughtered, and any attempt to curtail those deaths is seen as an “unconstitutional” violation of a woman’s “right to choose.” Makes perfect sense.

Previous There Are No Scandals When the Earth is in Danger
Next Obamacare Is Not Even Shovel-Ready; Will It Ever Be?


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.