Dem Rep. Jan Schakowsky: I’m not so sure we can’t ban handguns entirely

posted at 2:26 pm on March 11, 2013 by Allahpundit

In which Jason Mattera discovers Schakowsky’s Nixonian side. Watching this reminded me of the videos that circulated during the ObamaCare debate of high-profile liberals confessing publicly that single-payer is the ultimate goal of universal health care. In both cases, they’re pushing regulations that are less ambitious than they’d prefer because they’ve concluded that only an incrementalist approach can get them to their final destination. Then I remembered: Schakowsky was one of the people in the ObamaCare videos too. No matter how dark your suspicions are of the Democrats’ true agenda, there she is, happy to confirm on camera that you’re dead right. Note to Jason M.: Next time you see her, ask her what she thinks about the possibility of Obama firing drone missiles at American citizens sitting in a cafe. I’m almost afraid to see how she’d answer.

Nice to see everyone on the same page, though, in acknowledging that banning “assault weapons” won’t do much and thus any serious gun-grabber has to be looking at handguns. (Note Bloomy’s bit about that in the second clip below, via the Weekly Standard.) Is it feasible, though? I’m thinking … no:

gal

That’s from a Gallup poll taken just two weeks after the Sandy Hook massacre, when you’d expect the backlash to gun rights to be at its zenith. Interestingly, despite a leftward trend to many other issues over the last few years, support for the basic right to own a gun keeps going up, up, up. Which is not to say there’s no reason to worry: We’re one conservative Supreme Court retirement away from the Heller decision on the Second Amendment being reversed, which would once again give blue jurisdictions the power to ban guns outright. But, barring a dramatic reversal in poll trends, you’ll never see a national ban. Even now, red-state Democrats are sweating over Obama’s relatively minor gun-control push; a Senate deal on expanded background checks, the most overwhelmingly popular element of the gun-control agenda, just collapsed. The real potential battleground in the future, I think, is over semiautomatics. Could Democrats build support for a ban on those, or some of those, if they’re careful in their rhetoric to respect the right to own a revolver or, a la Shotgun Joe Biden, a 12-gauge? Better question: Given the Schakowsky-types in the caucus, would anyone on the fence be stupid enough to give them the benefit of the doubt on that?



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I think someone’s looking for a you-know-what.

/1861-1865

Ward Cleaver on March 11, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Sure, they’ll just keep on using the Scam on ‘Assault Weapons’.

It’s an arbitrary definition so it can define any gun or weapon for that matter.

Galt2009 on March 11, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Damn the Constitution, Full speed ahead!

RSbrewer on March 11, 2013 at 2:32 PM

She’s always dumber than cows, with deep apologiese to cows.

However, it’s the aim of commies.

Goebbels orgasms a lot. These fools enable his Utopian dreams, beyond what he ever could.

Schadenfreude on March 11, 2013 at 2:32 PM

So, Slow Joe, I can own a 12 gauge shotgun, just not a SEMI-AUTOMATIC shotgun.

Right.

The idiocy of the legislators on this subject knows no bounds.

Tenwheeler on March 11, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Hypocrites unite

Trending

Schadenfreude on March 11, 2013 at 2:33 PM

ATTACK JASON MATTERA IN 5…4…3…

Go to hell shakowski.

tom daschle concerned on March 11, 2013 at 2:34 PM

So, apparently we’re paranoid for believing that they want to do what they say.

CDeb on March 11, 2013 at 2:34 PM

I think someone’s looking for a you-know-what.

/1861-1865

Ward Cleaver on March 11, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Nah, they’re just looking to incrementally disarm those they politically oppose and when they get around to confiscating our 401K’s, they’ll just sneer and say what are you going to do about it?

Galt2009 on March 11, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Gd the leftards, always, everywhere.

Schadenfreude on March 11, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Sure, they’ll just keep on using the Scam on ‘Assault Weapons’.

It’s an arbitrary definition so it can define any gun or weapon for that matter.

Galt2009 on March 11, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Exactly right. Any gun, or any object for that matter, used in an assault against someone could be defined as an “assault weapon”.

bgibbs1000 on March 11, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Given the Schakowsky-types in the caucus, would anyone on the fence be stupid enough to give them the benefit of the doubt on that?

Categorically, ‘yes’, there are plenty of people stupid enough to give them the benefit of the doubt on that.

Midas on March 11, 2013 at 2:36 PM

In 2008 I had the misfortune of living in that ‘rhymes with hawts’ district. It’s a combination of lefty college students(Loyola), VERY radical muzzies, and a few orthodox Jews. The Jews tend to vote republican. Did I mention that Jan’s a you-know-what?

annoyinglittletwerp on March 11, 2013 at 2:37 PM

No not gonna happen Shackowski, wouldn’t be prudent.

jake49 on March 11, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Gun Regulation. Nice if it ever worked.

Do these people ever check the homicide rate in places like Jamaica?

It is like Chicago. And check their gun laws.

Thugs there know the horrible penalty for having a gun. Assuming that you are lucky enough to get arrested.

I was assured that the cops just kill you if you are a criminal and have a gun.

Since I mentioned one of my American Jamaican friends on the Sunday Talk Show — Jeb Bush thread, that was ignored, too.

IlikedAUH2O on March 11, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Schakowsky just validated a conspiracy theory.

darwin on March 11, 2013 at 2:38 PM

I remember Jan S. she is a Chicago pol, her office was in those tea party videos. Her husband went to prison for bank fraud. She must be a real moral authority.

Husband’s bank fraud and tax evasion convictions

On March 11, 2004, Schakowsky’s husband, lobbyist Robert Creamer, the executive director of the Illinois Public Action Fund, was indicted in federal court on 16 counts of bank fraud involving three alleged check-kiting schemes in the mid-1990s, leading several banks to experience shortfalls of at least $2.3 million.[19] In August 2005, Creamer pleaded guilty to one count of failure to collect withholding tax, and bank fraud for writing checks with insufficient funds. All of the money was repaid. Schakowsky was not accused of any wrongdoing.[20] Schakowsky served on the organization’s board during the time the crimes occurred,[21] and Schakowsky signed the IRS filings along with her husband.[22

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Schakowsky

Fleuries on March 11, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Eventually, they’ll start going after bolt-action hunting rifles with scopes, calling them “sniper rifles.”

CurtZHP on March 11, 2013 at 2:39 PM

We’re almost certainly going to end up with single-payer, because Obamacare is designed to fail with no way to return. But I don’t think they can take a sideways approach to ban all guns.

The Rogue Tomato on March 11, 2013 at 2:39 PM

I’m beginning to think we need to level Chicago and start over again. Clearly there is something in the water there that makes people get a god complex.

Happy Nomad on March 11, 2013 at 2:40 PM

How about a ban on spending $181,000 a year to study the effects that cocaine has on the sex lives of Japanese quail, Jan?

Resist We Much on March 11, 2013 at 2:40 PM

You lot in IL deserve whatever comes your way.

Unbelievable that you have no one better than this communist to represent you.

Millions have died so some rag like this can wipe her arse with the constitution.

acyl72 on March 11, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Yeah, and when someone opens fire the whittle lib won’t have a scary gun to defend themselves. See how well that works.

Idiots.

RDE2010 on March 11, 2013 at 2:42 PM

And liberals were so sure that tossing money at the poor would end poverty.

Pffft!

when these liberals get EVERY last gun from gangbangers in Chicago, maybe I’ll entertain their silliness a few seconds.

Then I’ll return to reality.

Liam on March 11, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Has this bimbo ever actually READ the Constitution?

easyt65 on March 11, 2013 at 2:42 PM

She’s a vile, contemptuous pig, with my apologies to pigs of course.

Like most liberals, their aversion to guns will make them easy to dispatch when the proverbial SHTF. First to go…

Polish Rifle on March 11, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Indeed – leftists embrace Nixon, again.

Schadenfreude on March 11, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Also, I think EBT cards are scary and they murder my pocket many months over. Can I get those banned? TIA

RDE2010 on March 11, 2013 at 2:43 PM

It’s a combination of lefty college students(Loyola), VERY radical muzzies, and a few orthodox Jews. The Jews tend to vote republican. Did I mention that Jan’s a you-know-what?

annoyinglittletwerp on March 11, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Radical muzzie? Loyola’s oldest college student? What? ;0

Happy Nomad on March 11, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Has this bimbo ever actually READ the Constitution?

easyt65 on March 11, 2013 at 2:42 PM

She doesn’t need to. She has armed guards protecting her.

Liam on March 11, 2013 at 2:43 PM

They are about to achieve gun control anyway. Tried to buy any ammo lately?

bgibbs1000 on March 11, 2013 at 2:44 PM

The Supreme Court could be replaced tomorrow by retired members of the Soviet Politboro and it wouldn’t make any difference to me. Supreme court justices cannot change the plain meaning and even plainer intent of the 2nd Amendment by judicial fiat. Well, okay, they can, but unless and until the 2nd Amendment is revised or removed by the lawful employment of one of the two mechanisms provided for content revision or removal in the Constitution, I’ve resolved to give them nothing, ever.

So yes, Rep. Schakowsky, you can theoretically ban handguns. You can theoretically ban all firearms everywhere. Now comes the tricky part: enforce it. Come and take them.

troyriser_gopftw on March 11, 2013 at 2:45 PM

That wasn’t even gonzo journalism, Mattera asked a very simple question, very politely, and got her unvarnished answer.

Tater Salad on March 11, 2013 at 2:45 PM

BTW, For all those who say how wonderful the country was back in the good old days look at the early years of that poll. Also remember white south in 1930s thought FDR and his socialist policies were just wonderful.

So the point is not all things are as bad as it seems right now for conservatives and libertarians. We just have to figure out how to make the alliance work and get our own house in order.

William Eaton on March 11, 2013 at 2:46 PM

In 2008 I had the misfortune of living in that ‘rhymes with hawts’ district. It’s a combination of lefty college students(Loyola), VERY radical muzzies, and a few orthodox Jews. The Jews tend to vote republican. Did I mention that Jan’s a you-know-what?

annoyinglittletwerp on March 11, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Every time I see a picture of that lady I think… “I’ll get you my pretty and your little dog too!!” I technically live in her district but I’m still registered to vote at my parents so I just say that Congressman Randy is my Congresscritter.

(And yes, the people of Evanston are that brain dead that they’d vote for that idiot and this includes the Jews.)

Illinidiva on March 11, 2013 at 2:46 PM

My take:

Liberals coddle criminals, especially cop-killers

Liberals want to ban guns from the law-abiding, while doing nothing about crime

I have come to the obvious conclusion

Liam on March 11, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Sure, they’ll just keep on using the Scam on ‘Assault Weapons’.

It’s an arbitrary definition so it can define any gun or weapon for that matter.

Galt2009 on March 11, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Exactly right. Any gun, or any object for that matter, used in an assault against someone could be defined as an “assault weapon”.

bgibbs1000 on March 11, 2013 at 2:36 PM

One only need take a look at the Definition:

Definition of WEAPON
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weapon

1: something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy

Examples of WEAPON
Assault with a deadly weapon

Origin of WEAPON
Middle English wepen, from Old English wǣpen; akin to Old High German wāffan weapon, Old Norse vāpn
First Known Use: before 12th century

Other Weapons and Explosives Terms
automatic, carbine, cudgel, muzzle, rapier

Ask a Gun grabber to define the difference between that term and the ‘Arms’ in the Constitution – they won’t be able to.

That’s best way to expose the Scam on ‘Assault Weapons’ for what it truly is – a Way to deprive the people of the right of self-defense from Criminals and Tyrants.

Galt2009 on March 11, 2013 at 2:48 PM

They are about to achieve gun control anyway. Tried to buy any ammo lately?

bgibbs1000 on March 11, 2013 at 2:44 PM

To use a term liberals hate against them: “No, you’re not.”

Liam on March 11, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Notice how Schakowsky is all of a sudden a “States and Municipalities” right proponent?

Why all of a sudden, Federal Laws and SCOTUS rulings are second-rate and the states can fight back in the usurpation of their sovereign rights, huh, Ms.Patriot?

Opposite Day on March 11, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Illinidiva on March 11, 2013 at 2:46 PM

We lived off of Devon/Hoyne-across from Miseracordia(sp?)- from August ’08-Jan ’09. That area was unreal!

annoyinglittletwerp on March 11, 2013 at 2:50 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on March 11, 2013 at 2:37 PM

I guess she is a Democrat.

IlikedAUH2O on March 11, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Jan, Jan, Jan … well, bless your heart. Darlin’, you could no more effectively ban handguns than you could effectively ban stupid people, if you know what I mean … and I don’t don’t think that you do.

M240H on March 11, 2013 at 2:51 PM

The confiscation of weapons won’t happen, immediately. They’ll continue to send out feelers – to try to gauge what they might be able to get away with. But, they’ll be slow, methodical.

They’ll keep indoctrinating the public school children – reminding them that, should they draw a gun or point a finger – they will be punished.

They’ll take their time … they’ll make more Americans dependent on them … they’ll keep working the children …

and then it WILL happen.

They WILL ban firearms.

The majority of Americans WILL approve it.

We WILL be made criminals, for invoking our erstwhile, Second Amendment rights …

and they WILL come.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 11, 2013 at 2:52 PM

They are about to achieve gun control anyway. Tried to buy any ammo lately?

bgibbs1000 on March 11, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Yup – got 3 baxes of 7.62 Tulammo yesterday, and 3 on Saturday. Got a case of 7.62 (Russian made zonc-coated casing) a week ago along with 2 boxes of 9mm and 100 rounds of .223 (also zinc casing). All at fairly reasonable prices – far less than at the gun shows. Ya just gotta know where to go – small places most people don’t know about.

dentarthurdent on March 11, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Like most liberals, their aversion to guns will make them easy to dispatch when the proverbial SHTF. First to go…

Not the elites, they’ll be in their safe locations protected by the armed guards. You might be surprised to see liberal low-info aversion to guns vanish when the SHTF and they lose their free stuff from a bankrupt government and want to come after your stuff. Of course to the well armed conservative, it’ll be more difficult for them to survive to seize your stuff.

Lefists are, of course, extremely averse to gun owning conservatives who oppose the leftist agenda. Those conservatives pose a potential threat to the establishment of the leftist utopia to come. Guns should only be in the hands of government controlled by the left, and the exempted elite. Much better to control the unarmed populace.

hawkeye54 on March 11, 2013 at 2:54 PM

3 baxesboxes

Darn fat fingers….

dentarthurdent on March 11, 2013 at 2:54 PM

I think someone’s looking for a you-know-what.

/1861-1865

Ward Cleaver on March 11, 2013 at 2:28 PM

I’d venture to guess that, maybe, 5% of the American voters know the meaning of the referenced time period.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 11, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Key section from Scalia’s opinion in Heller:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” (citations omitted).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

The government cannot prevent use from carrying weapons that would be useful in a militia — but that restriction only refers to lawful weapons in common use today. However, the government can prohibit dangerous and unusual weapons, possibly including M-16 — even if those are the types of weapons that would be useful in the formation of a militia. Get it?

An AR-15 is certainly in common use, but is it dangerous and unusual? Are 20 round magazines? If liberal jurisdictions like California are able to violate the Constitution by outlawing rifles with interchangeable magazines with more than seven rounds long enough, then any uncrippled version of these weapons might become over time “dangerous and unusual”. It seems Scalia was being intentionally vague to leave open the door to exceptions that swallow the rule.

tommylotto on March 11, 2013 at 2:55 PM

We lived off of Devon/Hoyne-across from Miseracordia(sp?)- from August ’08-Jan ’09. That area was unreal!

annoyinglittletwerp on March 11, 2013 at 2:50 PM

I lived up the street in Rogers Park. I bet you have a lovely Sari collection.

tom daschle concerned on March 11, 2013 at 2:56 PM

Now for all you people who sat home last Nov.Saying there not a dimes worth of difference between the Dem’s and the Republicans.We have only ourself to blame for letting these socialist,Marxist come to power.

logman1 on March 11, 2013 at 2:57 PM

tom daschle concerned on March 11, 2013 at 2:56 PM

Nope. I spent a lot of time in the Jewish neighborhood. My husband spent a lot of time ‘muzzling’ me so that i wouldn’t get the carp smacked out out of me by the local jihadists.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 11, 2013 at 2:58 PM

democrat leaders are just Communists plain and simple.

PappyD61 on March 11, 2013 at 3:03 PM

everything should be a utility…….EXCEPT their power!!

PappyD61 on March 11, 2013 at 3:04 PM

In 2008 I had the misfortune of living in that ‘rhymes with hawts’ district.
annoyinglittletwerp on March 11, 2013 at 2:37 PM

hmmmmm. think. think. think.
snot’s?

egmont on March 11, 2013 at 3:04 PM

and they WILL come.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 11, 2013 at 2:52 PM

They will … because the left never, never, never, ever stops. Any review of history will prove that out.

I also get the sense they WANT to provoke something so they can have an excuse to use force.

darwin on March 11, 2013 at 3:04 PM

Their goal is a totalitarian regime.

For our own good, of course.

MTF on March 11, 2013 at 3:05 PM

We WILL be made criminals, for invoking our erstwhile, Second Amendment rights …

and they WILL come.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 11, 2013 at 2:52 PM

I don’t know who they’re going to get to collect them. As a man who fires a belt-fed weapon from a moving helicopter as one of his professional duties, I know that I and most every other serviceman/guardsman will not only refuse that order but …

And don’t mention Katrina, I was there. The confiscation was a very limited, quickly reversed misadventure initiated by local police rightly fearful of operating in some areas.

M240H on March 11, 2013 at 3:06 PM

democrat leaders are just Communists plain and simple.

PappyD61 on March 11, 2013 at 3:03 PM

As are 60% of their Party.

The other 40% are simply State dependent, illiterates – who can’t spell, “Corpseman,” let alone “Liberty.”

OhEssYouCowboys on March 11, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Dem Rep. Jan Schakowsky: I’m not so sure we can’t ban handguns entirely

Sure, Jan – and you’re gonna start in your own backyard of Chicago, right?

Thought so.

F**king idiot.

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on March 11, 2013 at 3:07 PM

dentarthurdent on March 11, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Just had you pegged from Boston … no worries

OneFreeMan on March 11, 2013 at 3:12 PM

Is it feasible, though? I’m thinking … no:

CNN poll: Majority now oppose ObamaCare

sharrukin on March 11, 2013 at 3:14 PM

And don’t mention Katrina, I was there. The confiscation was a very limited, quickly reversed misadventure initiated by local police rightly fearful of operating in some areas.

M240H on March 11, 2013 at 3:06 PM

You mean those Second and Fourth Amendment violations, which actions had to be LEGISLATED against, so as to be prohibited, in the future?

At what point will the State use the term, “rightly fearful,” in its efforts to disarm the People – for the welfare and good of the People?

Those who believe it can’t happen, here, will be the foundation for it happening, here.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 11, 2013 at 3:15 PM

So, apparently we’re paranoid for believing that they want to do what they say.

CDeb on March 11, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Liberals apply this same logic to Islam, North Korea and Iran.

Just because they SAY something doesn’t indicate that they MEAN anything.

Washington Nearsider on March 11, 2013 at 3:17 PM

M240H on March 11, 2013 at 3:06 PM

P.S. Allow me to re-post that part of my post which you omitted:

The confiscation of weapons won’t happen, immediately. They’ll continue to send out feelers – to try to gauge what they might be able to get away with. But, they’ll be slow, methodical.

They’ll keep indoctrinating the public school children – reminding them that, should they draw a gun or point a finger – they will be punished.

They’ll take their time … they’ll make more Americans dependent on them … they’ll keep working the children …

and then it WILL happen.

They WILL ban firearms.

The majority of Americans WILL approve it.

There is your answer.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 11, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Now for all you people who sat home last Nov.Saying there not a dimes worth of difference between the Dem’s and the Republicans.We have only ourself to blame for letting these socialist,Marxist come to power.

logman1 on March 11, 2013 at 2:57 PM

(Gov. Romney’s news release, 7/1/2004)

“In a move that will help keep the streets and neighborhoods of Massachusetts safe, Governor Mitt Romney today signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban…”

(2002 C-SPAN2 Gubernatorial debate)

“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,” he said. “I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”

(Gov. Romney’s news release, 7/1/2004)

Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

sharrukin on March 11, 2013 at 3:21 PM

CNN poll: Majority now oppose ObamaCare

sharrukin on March 11, 2013 at 3:14 PM

LOL @ CNN. When did a majority ever support it?

Anyone else hear overwhelming groans from fellow Americans doing their taxes? All the employees at my local H&R Block hate it. Many of their customers could be heard groaning about it too.

jawkneemusic on March 11, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Another possible use for an AR15?

jawkneemusic on March 11, 2013 at 3:29 PM

CNN poll: Majority now oppose ObamaCare

sharrukin on March 11, 2013 at 3:14 PM

LOL @ CNN. When did a majority ever support it?

jawkneemusic on March 11, 2013 at 3:25 PM

And they did not care. That is why I don’t find the polls on gun control as assuring as some do. Those in Washington may try to push through gun control as they tried to push the Bush amnesty, Obamacare, the GOP amnesty again, and perhaps now a sweeping gun control bill.

sharrukin on March 11, 2013 at 3:30 PM

I love liberals, they talk so casually of turning tens of millions of law abiding citizens into criminals, as if it meant nothing just so they get their fantasy.

EFF them all.

clippermiami on March 11, 2013 at 3:31 PM

But, barring a dramatic reversal in poll trends, you’ll never see a national ban.

They don’t need a national ban. They’re going state by state. And they’re relentless. They’re getting next to zero pushback from the GOP. Front door, back door through ammo taxes, side door — they will NEVER stop until, at best, bans are in place, or at the very least owning or exercising right of possession and use is a stigma and a pain and a cost beyond bearing.

rrpjr on March 11, 2013 at 3:38 PM

There is your answer.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 11, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Ah. Sorry. I see your point; I did knee-jerk that one. I’ve heard that I’m coming for the guns a few too many times …

M240H on March 11, 2013 at 3:43 PM

they will NEVER stop until, at best, bans are in place, or at the very least owning or exercising right of possession and use is a stigma and a pain and a cost beyond bearing.

rrpjr on March 11, 2013 at 3:38 PM

I think this is where they can win.

Washington Nearsider on March 11, 2013 at 3:44 PM

I’m not so sure we can’t ban handguns entirely

Has someone asked Chitcago’s bestest and brightest if banning the robbing of banks has stopped the robbing of banks?

MNHawk on March 11, 2013 at 3:50 PM

I understand that to save money – the President’s Secret Service detail is being replaced by Joe Biden with a shotgun.

besser tot als rot on March 11, 2013 at 3:52 PM

And don’t mention Katrina, I was there. The confiscation was a very limited, quickly reversed misadventure initiated by local police rightly fearful of operating in some areas.

M240H on March 11, 2013 at 3:06 PM

You were there. Good for you. How many people resisted when told to hand over their guns? None you say? You would be correct.

How many people involved in these illegal confiscations ever paid any kind of a price for their clearly unconstitutional actions? None you say again? Again you would be correct.

Don’t even try to hold up what happened during Katrina as some kind of pro-gun victory. They did what they did. And they got away with it. What on earth would keep them from ever trying it again?

Oh, and weren’t there some national guard troops involved in that as well?

runawayyyy on March 11, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Dem Rep. Jan Schakowsky: I’m not so sure we can’t ban handguns entirely

Of course they can ban guns or anything else for that matter. Just put a 100% tax on handguns where the “tax” is the handgun itself, so you can buy a handgun but you’ll not get it because the tax is the handgun.

The chief constitutional traitor, Chief Justice John Roberts, will sail the said “tax” through the Supreme Court and it will be the law of the land.

RJL on March 11, 2013 at 3:54 PM

CNN poll: Majority now oppose ObamaCare

sharrukin on March 11, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Whats that sampling look like ?

I bet 100% who will not have to pay the new “tax” are 100% in favor of it.

And what about the exempted ruling government class and the corrupt unions take on it ? Were they polled as well?

Where is Angryed when you need him most.

FlaMurph on March 11, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Ah. Sorry. I see your point; I did knee-jerk that one. I’ve heard that I’m coming for the guns a few too many times …

M240H on March 11, 2013 at 3:43 PM

My posts weren’t directed at you, or at those who are like you, who would refuse to carry out any disarmament of the People.

My point was that the mindset of Americans will be changed … slowly … inexorably … surely … and that there will come a time when we will be the enemy of the People, we will be the criminals … and we will have to be dealt with, simply because we believe in the Second Amendment.

We will be the class-enemy equivalent of the Kulaks, in Ukraine – during Stalinist times.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 11, 2013 at 3:54 PM

I won’t give gun controllers the benefit of the doubt on anything. However, I will give them the benefit of the undoubtable. By the way, you do know that there are semi-automatic shotguns available for sale. They run from about $500 to $1500. They can also put more weight of metal downrange in 10 seconds than any semi-automatic rifle on the market (and you don’t need to worry about accuracy.).

Old Country Boy on March 11, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Next time you see her, ask her what she thinks about the possibility of Obama firing drone missiles at American citizens sitting in a cafe. I’m almost afraid to see how she’d answer.

I asked her. Here’s what she said: “I’m totally fine with our president firing drone missiles at American citizens on American soil. As for due process . . . what’s that? President Obama is soooooo dreamy and smart — he went to Harvard, you know, which proves he’s way smarter than you. I trust him completely. I’m sure he would not murder any Americans who didn’t totally deserve it.

AZCoyote on March 11, 2013 at 3:58 PM

But it’s okay to kill babies.

John the Libertarian on March 11, 2013 at 4:04 PM

runawayyyy on March 11, 2013 at 3:52 PM

It’s not the insane politicos I’m worried about. It’s my neighbors who think they’re safer if I’m disarmed. It’s they who give the nutballs in office the power to dictate how I should be allowed to protect myself (or not, as the case may be).

Trust the people if you like. They’ve proven time and time again they can’t be trusted to defend, or even care about, their own liberty.

runawayyyy on March 11, 2013 at 3:25 PM

[from another thread]

I am in complete agreement with this, and thought I’d post it, here.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 11, 2013 at 4:04 PM

DC HELLER and DC MILLER, as well as several other court cases says you can’t.

How about that you slimebag?

Anyone who votes to ban a constitutional protection should be charged with treason.

TX-96 on March 11, 2013 at 4:05 PM

And don’t mention Katrina, I was there. The confiscation was a very limited, quickly reversed misadventure initiated by local police rightly fearful of operating in some areas.

M240H on March 11, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Sorry, but that’s horse crap. It wasn’t just local law enforcement stealing citizen’s arms, law enforcement came from all over to get in on it.

For further information, read The Great New Orleans Gun Grab.

ShadowsPawn on March 11, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Just had you pegged from Boston … no worries

OneFreeMan on March 11, 2013 at 3:12 PM

Ayuh – shoa sounds that way….
I actually did grow up mostly in Mass and Maine. No accent after 30 years in Colorado, but it does slip out sometimes – even through my fingahs…..
But I don’t pahk my cah in the yahd no moah…

dentarthurdent on March 11, 2013 at 4:06 PM

But it’s okay to kill babies.

John the Libertarian on March 11, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Ain’t no Second Amendment, in the womb, either.

Statists want us unarmed. And they are above nothing to make it happen.

It’s a necessary part of their Utopia.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 11, 2013 at 4:07 PM

So far I think we have heard just about every Gestapo type tactic these fools can think of and all they have done is totally drain the supply lines, raise the cost of ammo, harden our resolve, and further divide the country. They have long ago left common sense behind and now have nothing left but non-sense to salve their impotence. Our firearms are much more than personal property to most of us and the route they are taking is only making us raise the premium and the conditions for what we are willing to do to keep them.

fourdeucer on March 11, 2013 at 4:12 PM

Statists want us unarmed. And they are above nothing to make it happen.
OhEssYouCowboys on March 11, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Actually – I’d say there’s nothing BELOW them…..
But, grammatically speaking, that may be the same thing…..

dentarthurdent on March 11, 2013 at 4:13 PM

dentarthurdent on March 11, 2013 at 4:13 PM

I likened it to them stooping to the lowest levels to get what they demand. Thus, they are above nothing.

Either way – we’re agreed on them.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 11, 2013 at 4:18 PM

This is actually a pretty good idea, I mean people weren’t being murdered before guns were invented.

Bishop on March 11, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Don’t even try to hold up what happened during Katrina as some kind of pro-gun victory. They did what they did. And they got away with it. What on earth would keep them from ever trying it again?

Oh, and weren’t there some national guard troops involved in that as well?

runawayyyy on March 11, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Sorry, but that’s horse crap. It wasn’t just local law enforcement stealing citizen’s arms, law enforcement came from all over to get in on it.

For further information, read The Great New Orleans Gun Grab.

ShadowsPawn on March 11, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Aaaand what was the final outcome of that unconstitutional action? They didn’t get away with it. A nation was outraged. As were the 10,000+ other servicemen, LEO’s, and other responders there. But hey, I’m sure the Alex Joneses of the world know more about it than those who were there.

M240H on March 11, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Aaaand what was the final outcome of that unconstitutional action? They didn’t get away with it. A nation was outraged. As were the 10,000+ other servicemen, LEO’s, and other responders there. But hey, I’m sure the Alex Joneses of the world know more about it than those who were there.

M240H on March 11, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Have all the confiscated weapons been returned yet? As I recall, at the two year mark few of the weapons had been returned to their owners.

RJL on March 11, 2013 at 4:27 PM

They didn’t get away with it.

Who went to jail?

A nation was outraged.

Actually most people don’t even know it happened.

As were the 10,000+ other servicemen, LEO’s, and other responders there. But hey, I’m sure the Alex Joneses of the world know more about it than those who were there.

M240H on March 11, 2013 at 4:21 PM

How many of those weapons were ever returned?

http://www.americanthinker.com/video/2013/01/nra_flashback_the_untold_story_of_gun_confiscation_after_katrina.html

New Orleans gun owners are showing up at these trailers, with serial numbers of their firearms, expecting Mayor Nagin and his band of anti-gunners to respect the Federal courts. They are met by stony-eyed bureaucrats who say serial numbers aren’t enough–and that gun owners now need PROOF OF PURCHASE of these firearms.

How many of those gun owners do you think had original receipts for those firearms? And even if they did, how many do you think could find those receipts in the wreckage of a hurricane?

sharrukin on March 11, 2013 at 4:28 PM

The flaw in the Lib/Prog/Marxist/Commie logic is this….
They think they can do this, little by little; but there is a LINE which can’t be crossed.
A large body of citizens take the Constitution literally.
There are about 800,000 of them, armed.
There are about 3 million Oathkeepers, willing to shoot at someone who says “that part of the Constitution is void”, and tries to enforce that idea.
Screw Scalia and the rest of SCOTUS…we can read and the Constitution is not a “Living Document”.
Should they start an effort to disarm us, our numbers will only grow, as well as our supply of “dangerous weapons”. Our best source of weapons will be from our dead enemies….as in all wars.
About 50% of the armed military will join our side, openly, and bring their weapons with them.
We will fight an insurgent war, using the tactics learned in the Sandbox. We will create chaos.
We will employ Bill Clinton’s Serb Rules of Engagement.
Every Lib/Prog/Marxist/Commie and their families will be targets.
Do you know of any Blue state that can supply its own food, fuel, or toilet paper.
Oblabla, greatest gun/ammo salesman in the history of the country. They really didn’t think we were buying that stuff for shooting squirrels, did they?
Si vis pacem, para bellum
III/0317

dirtengineer on March 11, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Aaaand what was the final outcome of that unconstitutional action? They didn’t get away with it. A nation was outraged. As were the 10,000+ other servicemen, LEO’s, and other responders there. But hey, I’m sure the Alex Joneses of the world know more about it than those who were there.

M240H on March 11, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Well, they did in fact get away with it for a short period of time. Which is the problem we’re facing – what happens when they try again? What would the result have been if someone had actually put up a fight over having their guns taken? For that matter, DID anyone resist? Were those actually the people we heard about getting shot and killed?
What will the cover story be when they try again and the confiscators get shot – and/or they kill the innocent “gun clinger” who won’t give up his guns? How many innocent gun owners will be declared in the news as “psychos threatening people”, or “child molesters”, or something else – anything so the rest of public responds with “oh well, he asked for it” or “he deserved it”.

dentarthurdent on March 11, 2013 at 4:36 PM

I wouldn’t trust any of those a-holes.

GarandFan on March 11, 2013 at 4:42 PM

What will the cover story be when they try again and the confiscators get shot – and/or they kill the innocent “gun clinger” who won’t give up his guns? How many innocent gun owners will be declared in the news as “psychos threatening people”, or “child molesters”, or something else – anything so the rest of public responds with “oh well, he asked for it” or “he deserved it”.

dentarthurdent on March 11, 2013 at 4:36 PM

And how many law abiding gun owners will, again, simply hand over their firearms?

OhEssYouCowboys on March 11, 2013 at 4:42 PM

According to the article below, it took an NRA lawsuit and over three years before New Orleans finally agreed to return all the weapons to the owners.

NRA to settle suit over Katrina gun seizures
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-08-nra-katrina_N.htm

RJL on March 11, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Schadkowsky has never been the sharpest knife in the drawer, and now that she’s channeling Tricky Dick….
Just Wow!
Btw, if the report about Nixon’s wish to ban handguns reported by the Times is true (a very big assumption that), just another reason to regret ever voting for the man.

Another Drew on March 11, 2013 at 4:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 2