'Weapons-grade STUPID': Debbie Wasserman Schultz BECLOWNED herself on guns (and CNN didn't blink)

Her name is Debbie and she’s hear to say, she wants to take your “high-capacity, rapid-fire magazines” away!

Debbie Wasserman Schultz on CNN talking about banning "high-capacity, rapid-fire magazines" right now.

— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) March 1, 2018

Say what, now?

pic.twitter.com/tE0QkAIILr

— RBe (@RBPundit) March 1, 2018

Oh, my.

In case this isn't clear, there's no such thing as a "rapid-fire magazine." The magazine has no affect on the rate of fire.

— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) March 1, 2018

Well, no worries. We’re certain CNN set the record straight immediately.

Was she corrected? https://t.co/MYLx07r7wX

— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) March 1, 2018

If there’s one thing CNN hates, it’s an apple being mistaken for a banana.

https://twitter.com/Moj_kobe/status/969267430739533824

Forget it. She’s rolling. Right, CNN?

No.

— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) March 1, 2018

It’d be one thing if this were just Debbie Wasserman Schultz babbling incoherently to herself. But CNN’s giving her a platform to spread her B.S. And there are people out there who will actually believe it.

Is this an option for the “fully semi automatic” @CNN was demonstrating the other day?

— Andrews Dad (@Andrew_Dad) March 1, 2018

What is a "rapid-fire magazine?" Is that for when you want to go, "full semi-automatic?" pic.twitter.com/GIb4uCBgrB

— ?‍☠️ROCK THUNDERPUNCH (@RokThunderpunch) March 1, 2018

And if that's not scary sounding enough wait until she mentions the nuclear-powered chainsaw bayonet attachment! https://t.co/xpKgbYFSZm

— Doug Powers (@ThePowersThatBe) March 1, 2018

Recommended

OOPS, They Did It Again! Dem Politicians Caught Tweeting From the Same Script on Spending Bill

Grateful Calvin

Advertisement

Because why the hell not?

Oh, so an expert. I'll rush on over and listen, then.

— Stu Clark (@stuclark24657) March 1, 2018

https://twitter.com/RobProvince/status/969265533513236480

pic.twitter.com/NxQi9PV2Vd

— Jason Schneider (@LittleGerman12) March 1, 2018

https://twitter.com/dogpoop11/status/969275090033573894

This is why we can't have nice things. https://t.co/qt2KJRQVz4

— Brandon Morse (@TheBrandonMorse) March 1, 2018

At this point I just assume they’re much more concerned with finding catchy terminology rather than technical accuracy.

— Run the Joules (@Twonius) March 1, 2018

That seems like a pretty safe assumption. So maybe we should just save ourselves the headache and let them run with it.

https://twitter.com/WeMeantWell/status/969257207664664577