A short video from Minnesota (which has been pulled from YouTube since the writing of this article) spotlights shameful behavior by elected Democrats, supposedly interested in conducting a “national conversation on guns.”
At a meeting, two firearms experts came forward to speak, bringing with them two common Ruger 10/22 rifles that had been cleared by security. The purpose of their presentation was to explain how the gun-control laws currently being proposed would outlaw only a gun’s cosmetic features while not affecting the functionality of the firearms in any measurable way in terms of rate of fire and accuracy.
In the video, DFL legislators simply arise and exit without explanation. They avoid learning details from the presentation about the very firearms they seek to legislate out of existence.
Rob Doar, one of the experts speaking, felt insulted. He responded on Twitter:
I’m insulted that House Pub Safety Cmte members would walk while I educated them on the shortfalls of the bill #HF241 #mnleg #mngunhearings
— Rob Doar (@robdoar) February 6, 2013
@johncroman @julienelsonkare they all walked out together quietlyin the middle of my testimony.
— Rob Doar (@robdoar) February 7, 2013
It certainly does appear that elected officials left the room to avoid expert testimony that would have better educated them about the issues they intended to legislate on.
Would DFL Rep. Debra Hilstrom exit during expert testimony about restrictions to your freedom of speech? It would be disrespectful to the expert called forth to testify, and her constituents would likely chastise her for arrogance. Would DFL Rep. Shannon Savick simply walk away from a minister, rabbi, or imam speaking about threats to the freedom of religion? Would DFL Rep. Erik Simonson flee the room while a bridge engineer testifies that a law under discussion would leave roads less safe? Would DFL Rep. Dan Schoen bolt if a doctor testified that certain medical procedures actually pose more risk to the patient than the disease itself? Would DFL Rep. Linda Slocum leave a room in another situation to avoid a challenge to her preexisting opinion?
We must now assume they all would after witnessing this exit. They may as well have stuck their fingers in their ears.
- U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein sweeps a room full of her supporters with a magazine in, safety off and in the fully automatic position, chamber closed, and finger on the trigger of an AK-47.
Democrats claim a desire for a “national conversation” about the role of firearms in our society, but this display stated a preference for an emotional, callous argument. They claim to care about reducing gun violence, but faced with the prospect of learning about the firearms they would ban, the intent of the Founders, which guns they would want us to have, and the actual impact of broad laws they would pass, they refused to participate.
In the video, DFL Rep. and committee chair Michael Paymar proudly expresses a contempt for hearing the facts in a technical presentation.
We have also witnessed demagoguery, with claims of a desire to want “weapons of war off the streets” per President Obama — a blatant falsehood. Military firearms are not featured in a single one of the laws proposed nationwide, as selective-fire and fully automatic firearms have been heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934. They have also been banned from future manufacture for the general public since the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act became law in 1986.
These Democrats in the video, and other nationally prominent Democrats including the president, have not demonstrated a desire for a “national conversation.” They have instead demonstrably lied to constituents and bullied gun-rights advocates.
The demonstration in Minnesota was worth listening to; I will repeat the details here.
The Ruger 10/22 rifle pictured below — possibly the single most popular rimfire rifle in the United States for hunters, plinkers, and target shooters — would be fine to own under the proposed legislation:
- Factory standard Ruger 10/22
But if one were to remove the wood stock and replace it with one made of black plastic, as done below, it would be banned as an “assault weapon”:
- Top: the same basic Ruger 10/22 from above has had its wood stock removed and then placed into Archangel plastic stock furniture for the 10/22, with a plastic replica of a military M7 bayonet. This is now an “assault weapon.” Bottom: the plastic Archangel furniture, sans actual Ruger 10/22.
Taking that same common Ruger 10/22 and putting it into this Tapco stock …
- Tapco Intrafuse stock for the Ruger 10/22
… also would qualify the plinking/hunting/target rifle as an “assualt weapon” according to Democratic gun-control advocates at the state and national level.
The barrel is unchanged. The trigger and action are the same. The firearm’s cartridges are the same. The gun shoots no faster. It doesn’t shoot with more power. The only real base enhancement offered by these aftermarket stocks is that they are adjustable, so that they can be lengthened or shortened by a few inches so that people of varying proportions can shoot comfortably.
Do Democrats simply wish to disarm unusually short or tall people? Will this save lives?
The 10/22 is just one example of hundreds that the firearms experts in Minnesota could have chosen to present to the shameless DFL legislators: the M1A .308 rifle (the most popular centerfire rifle sold in the United States), the AR-15, or various other shotguns, handguns, and rifles could have been utilized to make the exact same case.
A rational person should question the competence of these legislators and their commitment to reason, but they don’t seem to be available for discussion.
Also read:
Join the conversation as a VIP Member