Nancy Pelosi is…well, I think the preferred term these days is “special.” How “special” is she? The leading Democrat in the House of Representatives used the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise as evidence that the Hearing Protection Act needs to die.

Seriously.

From Breitbart:

As Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) was welcomed back to Congress on September 28, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) pointed to the attack–in which a progressive shot Scalise–and argued that suppressors ought not be deregulated.

It must be noted that a suppressor was not used when the attacker opened fire in Congressional baseball players on June 14.

According to Roll Call, Pelosi said the GOP has placed suppressor deregulation “under the facade that it’s for hunters.” She then regurgitated the same false, leftist narrative that the result of suppressor regulation would be silenced, undetectable guns.

She mentioned the shooting of Scalise and said, “If you can hear, you can run.” In other words, if the gun makes sound then you can flee the gunman.

As was noted over at Breitbart, suppressors are not silencers. There’s still noise. In fact, in the vast majority cases, there’s still sufficient noise to warn people something is up.

However, I have to applaud her creativity. After all, the whole, “We need to keep this firearm-related item controlled because of deranged progressives” is a novel and somewhat compelling reason. I’m sure the tendency of some progressives to embrace violence at the drop of the hat, even if they have to drop the hat themselves, adds to that particularly compelling narrative.

Of course, all most of us are going to do is point and laugh. Next, she’ll be talking 30-round magazine clips and shooting a shotgun through the door.

It’s always funny how people who know absolutely nothing about the topic of firearms feel so qualified to pontificate on that same topic. Almost invariably, those who support gun control are those most likely to spout nonsense about guns. They’re the ones who pass laws establishing evil features for assault rifles, but then not even know the purpose of those same features. (Anyone remember a certain congresswoman not being able to say what a barrel shroud does? Hint: It’s not a “shoulder thing that goes up.”)

It’s impossible for lawmakers to be experts on everything. I get that. However, it behooves them to at least become educated on the bills they’re considering, and not just the biased reports of groups dedicated to denying law-abiding citizens their basic civil rights. Maybe actually getting some experience with the device, perhaps?

No, watching spy movies with their uber-quiet silencers–the kind that doesn’t seem to exist in real life–doesn’t count.

Suppressors are a safety device that minimizes damage to the shooter’s hearing, but many weapons will need hearing protection even with the suppressors. However, as someone who has had an earplug work lose at the range, I can tell you that a suppressor would have still made a difference.

Do you know what else would make a difference? Politicians like Nancy Pelosi keeping their mouth shut if they can’t speak intelligently on a given subject.