Progressives truly are amazing creatures. Amazing in their audacity, they arrogance, and in many aspects their ignorance. A progressive always knows better than you, you are always inferior, and as such they believe they can lie to you, and you will just believe it. They think that you will just lay down and allow them to erode away at your humanity little by little. One such example, and probably one of the best, has to do with our right to own and bear arms, and the progressive’s desire to take that right away from you.
When it comes to gun control, progressives rarely argue hard facts, they prefer to engage in the realm of feelings, emotions, vagaries of perception. The say guns are dangerous, that guns are the problem, that guns need to be controlled. They tells us that if we just allowed them to limit our right to defend ourselves, we would all be safer. When evidence is put forward showing the failings of their arguments, they choose to start an emotional blood bath. They call you a monster, say you want to kill children, ask you if your precious gun is worth the lives of little school children. Of course this is an easy argument to when, you just keep dragging them back into the realm of facts, truth, the world we live in known as reality.
However, every now and again a progressive comes forth that tries to make a factual argument, that attempts to use their superior intelligence to confound the ignorant public, and show us the error of our ways. They step up onto the national stage and show us just how ignorant they truly are. They make claims that AR-15’s are military grade rifles, not based upon how they operate or are made, but rather based upon how they look. They make claims that it can easily be modified into a full auto machine gun, which any firearm enthusiast can tell you is a laughable notion. They make outrageous claims about lethality, and rates of fire, that any sentient being possessing common sense can see through. They call magazines clips, and clips magazines. I even heard one progressive actually say that if we ban 30 round magazines now, that will lead to their eventual removal from the market. The reason being, that eventually they would all be used. This individual was completely ignorant to the fact that magazines can be reloaded. I could probably write a book on the foolish things said by Diane Feinstein alone surrounding our right to defend ourselves.
As comical as all of these attempts to coerce us into submission have been, they all pale in comparison to the one that I just saw. Kevin de Leon California State Senator from Los Angeles made a fool of himself and his constituents when he stood in front of the cameras and attempt to promote his legislation requiring background checks for people who build their own firearms. When first I saw this video I about fell out of my chair, there was no way anyone could be this stupid, this had to be a well put together joke. Something I needed this morning. However it hurt my soul when I found out that it was not a joke, Kevin de Leon actually said these things.
In the video Kevin de Leon held in his hands a confiscated homemade fully automatic firearm. Referring to this firearm he says “This is a ghost gun. This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.” So why is this statement made by a politician no one has ever heard of, the greatest example of progressive audacity in recent history? The answer lies in the fact that here is a man who is trying to regulate something he has no clue about. Here is a man who is completely ignorant of firearms, yet his arrogance convinces him that with his more evolved thought processes will cover up for any failings in his firearm knowledge. Rednecks deal with guns, an educated man like himself will make short work of these uncivilized relics.
Allow me to explain. There is a lot of terminology in the world of firearms, terminology that is important to use if you are going to convince people you know what you are talking about. It is like any subject, if you use the right words, you can make yourself appear smart. It is hard to convince people you know how to repair the problem with their car, if you use phrases like “the thing-a-ma-bob on your air scoop thing is broken, please pay me $500”. Unfortunately using the terminology only works if you know what it means. The first term he used was correct, a Ghost Gun is a firearm that does not have a serial number, or was homemade. The gun he held in his hand was a valid example of a Ghost Gun. However, after this point the ignorance of Kevin de Leon poured from his mouth like water over Niagara Falls.
Mr. de Leon said, “this right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip….” I am going to pause right there, because I just can’t get past this comment. I grew up around guns, so it is easy for me to tell the difference between someone who knows about firearms, and someone who is pretending to. For those of you who do not have a large knowledge base about firearms, allow me to explain why this statement brings tears to my eyes. When someone makes a reference to a caliber, what they are describing is the width of the bullet. There is no such thing as a .30-caliber clip, I assume that Kevin de Leon was trying to say 30 round clip. This little hiccup could easily be attributed to nerves, a slip of the tongue, however, there is more wrong with this statement than just a little verbal slip. Kevin de Leon said “.30-caliber clip” even if he was trying to make reference to a 30 round clip, his terminology still betrays his ignorance of firearm mechanics. To those unfamiliar with firearms, the term magazine and clip are interchangeable. However, there is a major difference. A clip is a device that holds ammunition together, but it does not feed ammunition into the firearm. A magazine on the other hand stores ammunition, much like a clip, however it has a spring that helps feed ammunition into the firearm. Some firearms do utilize a “clip” such as the M1 Garand, but the one in this video clearly is a magazine fed firearm.
Continuing along with our examination of the firearm terminology that Kevin de Leon attempted to use in this statement. The Senator referenced the rate of fire of the firearm in question then said, “Thirty magazine clip in half a second”. We will address the rate of fire referenced here in a moment, for now I would like to focus on the terminology used. A magazine is a container that feeds ammunition into a firearm. A clip is a container that holds the ammunition. There is no such thing as a magazine clip. It does not exist.
Moving on, I would like to examine one of the claims made in Kevin de Leon’s statement. He made a comment on firearms rate of fire. He claimed that the firearm in his hands had the ability to “disperse with 30 bullets within half a second”. 30 bullets in half a second that works out to 60 bullets a second, 3600 rounds a minute. The MG-42, also known as Hitler’s Buzz Saw had a rate of fire of 1,200 rounds per minute. The 30 millimeter avenger cannon mounted on the A10 Warthog has a rate of fire of 4200 rounds per minute. So Senator Kevin de Leon is claiming that this homemade submachine gun, has a greater rate of fire than one of the deadliest machineguns of World War II, and is within striking distance of out pacing one of the fastest firearms in the world. To me something just does not seem to add up.
Here is a link to the MG-42 being fired. Remember according to the Senator the ghost gun he was holding has a superior rate of fire to this firearm.
Here is a link to the A10 firing its cannon. A weapon that the Senator claims the ghost gun he was holding is almost on par with.
Now it would be easy for me to go into the facts of this issue, very easy. The plain and simple fact is that the gun that Senator Kevin de Leon was holding was fully automatic, and it is all but illegal for citizens to own one of those firearms to begin with. To own a fully automatic firearm a citizen must have a class three license, which requires a background check to acquire. So new legislation requiring that anyone trying to make a gun like the one he has in his hands have a background check is pointless. It is illegal for the average citizen to have one, even if it is home made. So there is already a law that can be used to prosecute people making them. However there is a far greater issue here.
We can argue until the cows come home about our right to defend ourselves, and the reasons the progressives feel they should be allowed to take it from us. But that would be missing the bigger picture. This little clip strikes at the very core of the progressive mindset. Here is a man who is completely ignorant to firearms. He could not be bothered to learn the terminology, understand the items he will be discussing. He went on television and made a mockery of himself, and those whom he represents. Here is a man who knows nothing about firearms, yet he is trying to regulate them. He is trying to restrict those of us who do. This is something that lays at the core of the progressive mindset. They know better. They always think that they know better than the people who are “below” them. The progressives in the Carter and Clinton administrations thought they knew better than the banks when it came to making home loans, and started dictating how lending agencies had to conduct business. What did we get, the subprime loan crisis. President Obama thought that he knew better than the automakers about how to build cars. What did we get, bond holders screwed out of their money to make union pensions whole, General Motors going bankrupt despite government intervention, and a 10 billion dollar lose when the government finally relinquished control of the company. President Obama knew more than insurance companies, and he dictated how they were to operate, and for this arrogance we received the obamacare failure. Now they are trying to say they know better when it comes to fire arms, and our right to defend ourselves? How many examples of progressive arrogance, laced with an arsenic coating of ignorance, do we need before we start seeing them for the failures that they are, before we stop listening to them?
I just cannot help but be amazed at the fact that this man went in front of TV cameras and thought that he had a winning argument, that he could pull this illusion off. If you are going to try and convince people to give up one of their fundamental rights, to allow the government to limit rights given from God, and denied to the government, I would think the least you could do would be to at least make a decent attempt. I know nothing about fashion, not a thing. I have a black shirt dress shirt, black dress pants, and a silver tie, and that rounds out my “formal wear”. I don’t know why that is okay, why it is acceptable. My sister said it was, and it has worked sense high school. Because of my ignorance, I do not stick my nose into the world of fashion. I would never dream of trying to dictate to people about fashion. However, if I felt that fashion needed to be controlled by the government because of its mental effects on young women, and I was given a chance to do something about it you had better believe that I would take that chance. The difference here is that I accept that I am ignorant of fashion, and I would take the time to learn just what it was that I was talking about. It is clear to me that Senator Kevin de Leon did not feel the need to learn about firearms, to learn about the industry, the terminology, the actual pieces themselves. If he had, he would not have made such a fool of himself in front of millions of people. He is a progressive, and he is trying to achieve one of the progressive’s dreams of eliminating firearms from the people’s hands. They have been working at this goal for decades, slowly striping away at our liberties, step by step. The senator walked in front of those cameras and tried to regurgitate decades of talking points in a couple minutes, without a clue of what any of it meant.
I had to fight back tears when I first saw this clip, as I said I could not believe that someone actually made this comment on television. Normally the progressives are better at masking their ignorance, using emotions to fill in the gaps in their arguments created by the absence of any supporting facts. When I found out it was real, blood squirted from my eyes. It never ceases to amaze me the arrogance of progressives. They are trying to pass legislation, to regulate, to control something they know absolutely nothing about. They hate it because they were told to. They are marching to orders without a moment’s hesitation, or thought of why. That is what makes them so dangerous. They meddle with things they cannot possibly hope to comprehend, or control. That is what has led to the stagnation of the United States of America under President Obama’s failed economic policies. That is what led to the collapse of the housing market via programs started by Carter, and expanded by Clinton. This is what will collapse our health care system under obamacare. The arrogance of progressives is enough to cause your blood to boil. The ignorance of progressives is enough to make you feel pity for them. This is just another example of progressive audacity at its finest.