Apparently it's not just out of context. It's entirely falsified.
@Berntley, if you all are interested in seeing an idiot politician actually say stupid things about guns:
It's painfully cringe but it's CA so it's to be expected
@Berntley, but she's pretty damn close to being this stupid about guns.
@big freedom, I wouldn't know. I just know there's no use in propagating false information for either side.
@Berntley, "no use" really? I think the elections have proven that there are many 'useful idiots' on both sides. They will literally believe anything good about their side, and anything bad about the other side.
@big freedom, all pol has been doing for the last year is banking on that. It has created the most spicy memes this election season
@big freedom, Exactly. And I'm saying that they shouldn't, and that spreading nonsense like this doesn't help the situation, because it keeps people from being able to discern the truth. Especially when something like this gets popular, because then it makes it dang near impossible to try looking up the truth. If you were to look up this woman's name and "gun control", you'd probably five ten pages showing this "quote" before you'd find one offered any real information. This creates a great platform for people who thrive on false narrative, because right now, Trump could probably suggest that Hilary eats babies, and the conservatives believe it.
@Berntley, you mean like pol could plant an entirely falsified document with some shjtlibs that the FBI eventually got ahold of thus leading to CNN publishing a fake story about Trump paying prostitutes to pee on a bed in Russia?
@RustyFapwagon, exactly like that. Please don't make the mistake of thinking that I consider one side to be innocent over the other. Disparity amongst a two party system is how we got to be in this mess in the first place. There is maybe a fraction of a percent of the people on the hill who aren't just outright jackals.
@Berntley, left leaning institutions have been doing this for so long it quite literally lost them the election. The right does it occasionally and I'll be the first one to say it, but the left does it so much the completely delegitimized the entire American news media because guys on the Internet could post anything and as long as it was routed through the proper channels it'd make national news.
@RustyFapwagon, It has to be recognized as an equal situation. There's no discrepancy significant enough to out one side over the other. What cost us the election this time around was not spreading a false narrative. It was literal backstabbing behavior. Hillary railroaded the only viable opponent, because it had to be her or nobody, and it was never going to be her, because, characteristically enough, she represented a perpetuation of the same system, and that's clearly not what the people wanted. Trump was able to capitalize that, and now we're stuck with an administration that has since coined the phrase "alternative facts" to represent the willful misrepresentation or outright falsification of information to fit one's own agenda.
@Berntley, it's not even remotely an equal situation. Implying that the right does that even close to as much as the left is totally baseless
@RustyFapwagon, Exactly why we're in this situation.
@RustyFapwagon, watched it. The speaker clearly makes some mistakes, but you dismiss valid concerns because he fails to use correct terminology. A ghost gun refers to one that is difficult to trace, because it lacks a serial number or is homemade. His quoted rate of fire is also overstated, he
misuses the term magazine, and he confuses caliber with capacity.
@abecedarian, that doesn't negate the valid concerns. Anti-aging control advocates are quick to mock him, and deliberately disregard his intention to avoid having a meaningful discussion.
@abecedarian, because if you're that uneducated on basic terms and function you're incapable of a more complex understanding of why people own firearms and what should/shouldn't be allowed.
I'm well aware of what a ghost gun is. And I'm also aware of how insanely difficult effective guns are to make/purchase illegally. This guy has no valid argument. Just a narrative to peddle.
@RustyFapwagon, so why do people own firearms that are untraceable, with rapid-fire capability?
@abecedarian, take SBRs for example. People act like because a rifle has a sub-16" barrel is is now this super dangerous thing. But I can buy an AR15 pistol and throw a shockwave brace on it and that's fine.
That's a great example of someone not knowing anything about guns making laws that make no sense. It's embarrassing.
@abecedarian, very few do. Besides 80% lowers which I'm going to venture you don't even know exist. Those are completely legal but require skill to make into firearms and they can never be transferred. Almost every other "untraceable" gun is smuggled in from Mexico or SA
@RustyFapwagon, did you mean SBRs? You are the stickler for correct terminology, I would expect more precision.
@abecedarian, SA = South America if that's what you're referring to. I'm drinking dude. If my phone autocorrects something then that's what it is. I promise I know more about firearms then you lol
@Berntley, snopes lost its credibility along time ago. They have been proven wrong and to have lied on lots of topics.
@Hurricanedave , I wasn't aware. I just remember reading that same line and thinking "surely not". If anybody else would like to do their own fact checking, by all means. I'm not really defending her, just providing the information I came across.
@abecedarian, The real issue here is the intentional manipulation of voters using scary and confusing words. He doesn't have to be correct, he just has to scare enough people to get their panicked votes. When talking about ghost guns and 30 round magazines(which are standard capacity btw), De Leon is speaking about a small subset of rifles which make up a tiny fraction of gun murders. He is speaking about ar-15 type rifles which are already heavily regulated in California due to their scary appearance and prevalence in tv/films. According to data gathered by the FBI in 2013, there were a total of 285 murders in the entire US where a rifle was used. That is ALL rifles, not just the small subset of rifles de Leon was speaking about. More people die rolling out of bed each year. You have to wonder, do these politicians not know the facts/statistics, or do they just not care? Funny stuff lol
@abecedarian, honest questions:
how many untraceable, rapid-fire guns are used in murders in US annually? What specific law would prevent those murders?
If it's already illegal to own that weapon, how is another (completely unenforceable) redundant law going to help?
@big freedom, question for you. Why a travel ban on seven Muslim countries when there have been zero attacks in US by refugees? Why build a wall that will cost millions for each mile, which will not work but will help smugglers? Both unreasonable. A ban on dangerous and unnecessary weapons is entirely reasonable. But gun advocates will not tolerate the slightest bit of restraint.
@abecedarian, there is absolutely no reason for a travel ban on refugees. It was a "well something needs to be done, and this is something - therefore this needs to be done" type of gesture.
But that is dodging the question. I never once said that a travel ban was either effective or logical.
What specific regulation would you pass regarding already illegal guns? And what effect would that legislation bring? Which crimes would that legislation have prevented?
These are the questions anti-gun people are never able to answer. "We need common sense regulations" that's just greeting card sentimentality.
I want the specific regulation, and it's effects, before we make a law that strips away any right.
@big freedom, I've got a good one.
Mandatory extra 5 years for a felon in possession of a gun during a crime.
Oh wait. They tried that and it worked but got shouted down by libs as "racist" because lots of minorities got arrested for committing crimes with illegally possessed weapons
@abecedarian, restraint isn't reasonable. Very rarely are rifles like the gun in question used in ANY type of crime. The only thing removal of rights does is make it so that people are incapable of defending themselves
@abecedarian, still waiting on those legislations that you would like to pass, that will then be enforced at gun point by people who can kill you if you disobey.
More laws will DEFINITELY solve the problem. We just need smart people, like you, to tell us which laws we need to have the government protect us.
@RustyFapwagon, but it doesn't matter if the rifles are actually used in a crime or not. They look scary, that's what's important!
If we pass a no "bad things law" all the bad things will be outlawed and all of our problems will be solved by our big beautiful government.
@big freedom, next time you meet a shjtlib and talk to them about guns ask them what the term "fully semiautomatic" (as coined by the autistic giant CNN) means. The response is always hilarious. Especially when you tell them most handguns are "fully" semiautomatic.
@RustyFapwagon, "next time"? I live in the ridiculous shîtlib People's Republic of California (at least for now). The actual conversations are so hilariously moronic it makes me want to check out completely.
@big freedom, Jesus I don't know how you do that. Good luck with your new bullet button loophole removal.
Move to AZ. Lower cost of living, shjtload of jobs, loosest gun laws in the nations.
@RustyFapwagon, what loophole removal? I just figured out how to get around that!
@big freedom, good shjt. I knew someone would. But I'm going to keep slapping 75rd drums into my AKs
@RustyFapwagon, meh, I'm not clever enough to figure it out on my own. They sell them on Amazon Magmagnet.
@big freedom, just move to AZ man. There are jobs everywhere here. Seriously the area is blowing up and property is cheap for the time being. The laws are awesome. 5 hours from the beach and 5 hours from the mountains. Every NFA item you could want, carry whatever you want. AZ is best state.
Surely taken out of context , right????
Is... is... this real?
@darthsexy, No, its from a satire website
Fun fact. One town in the US (forgot where) had a 95% gun ownership. Crime was at an all time low at that point.
@Strider1321, and the town only had 20 people in it too!
@Donald Drumpf, I feel like that probably had more to do with it than the guns. Can't really rob a bloke when you go to his house for dinner every other Tuesday. Or visit his shop. Or go to her hospital..
@TheCruzanator, tons of gun owners in AZ and some of the loosest carry laws in the country. Very low gun crime aside from a couple small areas.
It's almost like the bad guys are afraid to get shot
@Strider1321, check out Swiss gun laws and crime rates.
@Strider1321, Isn't there a town (probably in Texas) where it's the law that everyone has to own a gun? I'm not sure if it's literally 'everyone' or 'everyone over a certain age', so there may be newborn babies getting a gun license stapled to their birth certificate.....
@Nellybert , most states you cannot own a long gun (rifles and shotguns) until 18 and cannot own handguns or NFA items (suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, AOWs, etc) until 21. I'm not aware of any law forcing someone to purchase a firearm but it wouldn't surprise me if a smaller county had something like that on the books that wasn't enforced.
@big freedom, yep everyone was a gun, everyone has to serve 3 years in the military, and all ammo is owned by the gov't. Still they have super low crime rates.
@Nellybert , also with the exception of some really shjtty states you don't need a gun license.
@RustyFapwagon, I Googled it - usual sort of a half-truth being swept up in misinformation. There are five towns in the US (one of which is in Texas) which have passed some form of law/city ordinance that says something along the lines of that the head of each household should own a gun.
@Nellybert , I doubt it's enforced but like i said it doesn't surprise me that they exist.
Well, if everybody was armed, then he would put his gun down cause everybody would shoot him (there was an awesome gif but I can't find it, the one where the guy walks into a bar and everybody points there gun at him. Please leave the pic id of you know what it is). Well, unless he's one of the "kill as many as I can then kill myself" kind of gunmen.
@Petersquatch, most gunmen usually kill themselves after anyways so they probably wouldn't care (at least ones who do mass shootings)
@Charlemagne, lots of them kill themselves when they get confronted. They want soft targets which is why they pick gun free zones
Being stupid is like being dead, it's only difficult for everyone else.
Then again this is coming from the same kind of people who said "You have to pass a law to find out what's in it."
@Sexy Homunculus, depends. If you mean the same people who made this up then yes. If you mean it as a jab at a political group. Then I need to point out the one you belong to appearently will believe anything.
@Seohn, I had no idea libertarians believe everything they hear. But since you're a random dude/dudette/Apache helicopter on the internet then yea I guess I have to believe anything you say
@Sexy Homunculus, you do know that quote is entirely fake right? So saying "coming from the same people as X" is entirely irrelevant
@Charlemagne, I get that the quote in this pic is fake, but seeing how anti-gun Feinstein and Pelosi are it wouldn't surprise me if this was real. And while Pelosi's actual quote was "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it" it doesn't change the fact that that's terrible logic and a really stupid thing to say
@Sexy Homunculus, my point was that people who bash the same political party without ever saying anything bad about the one they belong to are gulliable. It's entirely relivent because no party is perfect. In fact the party system is the very reason things in the US are the way they are.
She's a liberal, they aren't known for being realistic, or logical.
@smartstu, and Trumps not known for understanding technology and reality. But hey. He supports removing net nuetraility. Because you know. So it's not about companies paying for a fast or slow access to their internet costumers.
Because according to those wanting to remove net neutrality businesses and containers will have a choice of fast or faster connections. The word slow doesn't apply to the fast connection. Because if we call it fast it's not really slow. Even though the rest of us know it's slower compared to the faster connection.
As much as I'd like to think Feinstein would have believed this... it's not true. Snopes helps.
@Mark Twains ghost, She does believe that though. Lefty's have also suggested that women pee their pants to thwart a rapist by ruining his libido in lieu of owning a weapon.
@smartstu, In the debate between 9mm or pee as a means of defense I'm gonna have to go with 9mm.
If it was .32 ACP I might choose pee
@RustyFapwagon, I'd choose the pee too. Probably piss them off slightly less than the .32acp.
Wtf is this from. I must research the context!
@nepheal, it wasn't even said
@nepheal, not real. But if you want to watch a liberal make an ass of himself youtube "Kevin DeLeon idiot ghost gun" that is real and horribly funny.
I don't even know what to say to that.....