Daily Caller
Iowa lawmaker calls for retroactive gun ban, confiscation of semi-automatic weapons
“We cannot have big guns out here as far as the big guns that are out here, the semi-automatics and all of them,” Muhlbauer told the newspaper during a December 19 audiotaped interview. “We can’t have those running around out here. Those are not hunting weapons.”
“We should ban those in Iowa,” he said, adding that such a ban should be applied retroactively.
“We need to get them off the streets — illegally — and even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,” Muhlbauer told the Daily Times Herald. “We can’t have those out there. Because if they’re out there they’re just going to get circulated around to the wrong people. Those guns should not be in the public’s hands. There are just too many guns.”
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
We’re letting them set the hunting narrative.
blatantblue on January 9, 2013 at 5:01 PM
I called a few long island gun stores. ill be picking up an additional AR this weekend.
blatantblue on January 9, 2013 at 5:01 PM
Said the beta who cries over soap opera characters.
Of course ol’ Ban Happy won’t volunteer to do the confiscating himself, oh no, he’ll just hang back at headquarters and work the clipboard.
Bishop on January 9, 2013 at 5:08 PM
If he is so gung-ho, let him lead the confiscation posse.
cozmo on January 9, 2013 at 5:09 PM
this type of thing doesn’t end well for a lot of people.
bannor on January 9, 2013 at 5:11 PM
Hmmm… Muhlbauer… that’s a German name, isn’t it?
yubley on January 9, 2013 at 5:14 PM
Dude is mad. Look at those comments. Just a little excited.
CW on January 9, 2013 at 5:14 PM
Ace has a post up where he speculates that, 25 years after the first “assault weapon” bans, liberals still don’t even know the most basic details about guns not because they’re stupid, but because their ignorance is carefully cultivated to enhance their self-image as part of the elite who don’t need to know anything about guns to write gun laws any more than they need to know how car engines work to drive a Rolls Royce. That’s what little people do, worry about details. They’re Big Picture people and don’t have to explain why an AR-15 is a deadly menace and more powerful than a deer rifle, but a Ruger Mini-14 is not.
Likewise, the Constitution is for little people and is just a speed bump on the elite’s road to Liberal Utopia.
(Oh, wait, didn’t Obama already use that term?)
Socratease on January 9, 2013 at 5:15 PM
The idea that the next AWB will grandfather anything already owned, is ludicrous.
It will be hand them in or fight with them time.
Rebar on January 9, 2013 at 5:17 PM
‘Toon of the Day: Which One Should Be Banned?
Resist We Much on January 9, 2013 at 5:18 PM
In a more rational world, a pro-gun rights/pro-abortion legislator would — in response — call for a retroactive abortion on Iowa state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer …
ShainS on January 9, 2013 at 5:21 PM
Someone on FNC should be booking this fool for a Piers Morgan/Alex Jones-esque bit of theater. But they won’t. Probably wouldn’t please Rupert.
Karl on January 9, 2013 at 5:22 PM
So much for the false ‘Hey, no one is coming after your guns meme’.
The Oppressives aren’t even keeping the mask on anymore – they’ve thrown it away.
Gun Control Kills People
Chip on January 9, 2013 at 5:24 PM
A question for Allah Pundit and Ed, if either of you are reading this thread: I recognize and respect this blog’s policy on restricting to some degree “r3volution” or s3cession talk on these threads, but do you think you should revisit that policy given the utterly dangerous and extreme language coming out of our politicians? Every day there seems to be a new story posted on HA about a politician who has said something that‘s so offensive, declarative, derogatory, and delusional concerning gun owners and those who love the Constitution. They’re printing the names and addresses of gun owners, they’re endangering whole communities and families, they’re calling for state goons to steal what I’ve bought, and yet I still have to spell “r3volution” and “s3cession” with numbers! And even then, both of you have entered into a few threads to “tamp down” the chest thumping by some on those threads. All that is understandable, but everyday I feel like only one side is getting away with the threatening and violent language, while those who’ve been minding their own business, raising our families, and trying to hang on to our rights are restricted in how we discuss the issue. Can there be an internal review of your “moderation” policy? Is that even possible? Or can you suggest a way to discuss the real violent ends that this is rapidly approaching that would be acceptable? Because a legislator cannot get away with saying something that would’ve stirred our founding fathers to violence without at least a verbal, yet firm, push back, in order to make politicians aware of the fire they’re playing with. Thoughts?
Weight of Glory on January 9, 2013 at 5:27 PM
i agree
blatantblue on January 9, 2013 at 5:29 PM
Can a person who says this be allowed to hold political office? I’m not even a gun owner and I’m horrified by the ignorance.
HitNRun on January 9, 2013 at 5:30 PM
As someone who has been threatened with banning for using the “S” word…
+1.
Rebar on January 9, 2013 at 5:32 PM
The 2nd is NOT about hunting!
This can not be emphasized enough.
Washington Nearsider on January 9, 2013 at 5:36 PM
Molon Labe
Stu Gotts on January 9, 2013 at 5:37 PM
Again, let me clarify, I don’t want you to allow people to simply log on and level threats to policy makers with impunity. That’s so counter productive and dangerous (and I think illegal), but it’s just as dangerous as what this fool politician is saying. What the Left is advocating right now, in many circles, will sadly have violent results. I don’t want for HA to become a place filled with Alex Jones types. But over at ACE, they’ve posted some very well thought out stories about what a gun confiscation scenario would actually look like, and it wouldn‘t be pretty for anyone and would more than likely irrevocably tear this nation asunder. I think it was an article by Bob Owens or something. It seems like that kind of discussion is discouraged here (again I completely understand why) but the discussion has to be had. Again, Thoughts?
Weight of Glory on January 9, 2013 at 5:37 PM
The goal is to get acceptance on some form of sensible / balanced / reasonable gun control by proposing BS like this again & again. This would not be acceptable but a lesser form might be by comparison.
roy_batty on January 9, 2013 at 5:46 PM
Um, dude. You don’t get to decide what we can and can’t have out there. The Second Amendment is clear.
If you want to shoot for a Constitutional amendment, then be my guest. Give it a shot. My guess is you’ll be wide of the mark by a country mile.
Damn, I’m sick of these people who think that emotions trump the Constitution. That includes many of our lawmakers, who forget within the hour of their oath what they’re sworn to uphold.
hillbillyjim on January 9, 2013 at 5:50 PM
“Those are not hunting weapons.”
1. You are incorrect.
2. Were you correct, so fxxxing what? The 2nd Amendment says not one word about hunting, and all of you deceitful grabbers know this.
hillbillyjim on January 9, 2013 at 5:51 PM
So he’s a cattleman and rancher who owns a .410 and a couple of .22s, but can’t distinguish between “semiautomatics” and machine guns.
Now, I could form a low opinion of his intelligence, but that might not be fair. He might just be a demagogue.
tom on January 9, 2013 at 6:30 PM
Any legislation that gets through Congress will be watered way down from what they would like to push through.
There are two real dangers, though. One is executive orders that don’t have to get past Congress. The other is if they get some legislation through that the president can further “interpret” with executive orders to put some teeth into the anti-gun provisions that were watered down.
The biggest threat right now is the White House. Congress needs to be very careful with any legislation they pass to keep the president from taking it much further than they intended.
tom on January 9, 2013 at 6:37 PM
I feel sorry for all LEOS and FLEAS.
tom daschle concerned on January 9, 2013 at 6:40 PM
So do I. Their families can and will be used as leverage to make them follow orders, bank on it.
MelonCollie on January 9, 2013 at 7:29 PM