What’s more, some of them are idiotic enough to print those comments and their bizarre interpretation of them and think that people will actually agree with them. That’s what happened in a piece titled, “Lauren Boebert thinks people will start eating dogs if America controls guns.”

Rep.Lauren Boebert (R-CO) believes an assault weapons ban in the US will cause people to eat dogs.

In an interview with Newsmax’s Sebastian Gorka, Boebert spoke about how she challenged Democratic politician Beto O’Rourke after he hinted that assault-style weapons should be outlawed.

“If the citizenry in America is disarmed, then we are no longer citizens,” she said in a video before the conversation took a turn for the doggone strange.

“We are subjects. You know, here in America, we have gourmet treats for puppies. We have these amazing groomers for dogs. In Venezuela, they eat the dogs, and it started because they don’t have firearms,” Boebert said.

Yes, because comparing heavily gun-controlled Venezuela where they faced the kinds of problems that involved eating pretty much any kind of animal they could find–including zoo animals and yes, dogs–and saying they ended up that way because of gun control is exactly the same as saying gun control automatically leads to that.

See, I note how the headline talks about “controlling” guns and Boebert is explicitly talking about a disarmed population. Those aren’t the same things, though “controlling” firearms is the first step toward that disarmament.

A single gun control law won’t lead to that outcome necessarily, of course, and we see most of Europe with tougher gun laws than us and a lack of canine-based cuisine.

But Boebert wasn’t claiming that it would, either.

It’s very clear that she’s simply noting that Venezuelans couldn’t resist the very governmental actions that led to their woes. They were disarmed and as a result, they were incapable of fighting back against a socialist government that drove their economy into the ground so badly that yes, people eat dogs.

It’s not difficult to understand what she’s saying. Boebert speaks plainly and without excessively large words, making her comments accessible to the masses.

What takes really effort is to completely misrepresent what she said in such a way.

But then again, Boebert continues to trigger people. They look for the least charitable reading of any pro-gun comment she makes in an effort to paint her as either an idiot, insane, or both.

She’s not wrong, though. Not at all.

Venezuela has all the resources it needs to be a wealthy, developed nation. Instead, though, they’re having issues just putting food on the table for even the majority of people. The reason for that is their government, a government that disarmed the population and then began going deeper and deeper down a hole knowing full well that the populace would be unable to resist.

Tons of Venezuelans want to change their government. They just can’t do anything about it because they didn’t have Second Amendment protections.

The anti-gun media and activists can try and manipulate Boebert’s comments, dumbing them down until they seem ridiculous, but that’s really just a straw man. They know what she means and, for all I know, more or less agree that a disarmed population is what’s required to institute a socialist state. They just like that idea and so it’s in their interest to misrepresent her comments.

For others, it’s not that they can’t understand what Boebert says, it’s that they can’t bother to even listen to her.