Thread: The "New" Gun Control ...

I have a liberal friend who keeps insisting "They don't want your handguns ... they will never try to take your handguns ... they just want the "dangerous guns" ...."

Dem Congresswoman - handguns are next, 2nd Amendment doesn't preclude bans
Published by: Robert Laurie on Monday March 11th, 2013

Don’t worry, they’ll find a way around that pesky 2nd Amendment.

Jason Mattera, who's become famous for ambushing lefties with political questions they'd rather not answer, has posted a new video to Youtube this morning. In it, he discusses gun control with U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky. She's a Democrat, representing the Illinois 9th district, and she's no fan of your right to own a firearm.

"We're on a roll now," Schakowsky claims. "We're gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can."

Schakowsky also proudly announces that she's "against handguns. We have in Illinois the...um...Council Against Handguns..something. Yeah. I'm for that."

We're sure the Council Against Handguns Something appreciates her continued support.

More importantly, she admits what conservatives already know: Increased background checks represent little more than a way to stifle all gun ownership, regardless of the specific type of firearm, and - more importantly - her kind of Democrat thinks the 2nd Amendment really doesn't protect much of anything.

When Mattera claims that "We'll never get a handgun ban with the 2nd Amendment as stated," Schakowsky disagrees.

"I don't know that we can't," she says. "There may be an allowance, once again, for communities. I have communities in my district that prohibited handguns within their borders. The rights of municipalities and states to do that is a sensible way to keep people safe."

We won't rehash the painfully obvious "bans don't make you safe" argument. The more interesting point here is that, as always, for left-wing statists like Schakowsky, the rights of communities and municipalities are the primary concern. "Rights of the individual" be damned. Despite the fact that the former appear nowhere in our Constitution, if you're a big government Democrat, they always trump the latter.

Here's the vid, featuring an unusually restrained Mattera.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVz2l...layer_embedded

http://www.caintv.com/dem-congresswoman-handguns-are

When legislators begin to argue that it is better to be raped than to carry a gun, you know we are falling farther and farther away from freedom. Every single Member of Congress needs to know that we will not compromise our Constitutional rights, and we will hold those who do accountable in 2014, 2016, and beyond.



Democrats’ War On Women
Posted on March 10 2013

Logical arguments promoting the Second Amendment do not work for the Left. They cannot back up gun control legislation with facts so they resort to ridiculous opinions about why the freedom to own a gun is a crime. And now, they are perpetuating the “divide and conquer” mentality of the Obama administration by claiming women don’t have the guts, the intelligence, or the strength to defend themselves with a firearm.

Our Second Amendment rights are hanging by a thread, but to hear Democrats talk about it, women should surrender their guns immediately, before somebody gets hurt. The worst comments are coming out of Colorado, where Sen. Jessie Ulibarri suggested that women use ballpoint pens to stab the gunman as he stops to reload. Rep. Paul Rosenthal helpfully suggested the buddy system, or learning judo.

However, over in the Colorado Senate, Evie Hudak seemed to disagree with Rosenthal. As a 25-year-old rape victim stood in front of her and argued that the attack—which occurred on a college campus—would not have occurred had she been able to defend herself with a gun, Senator Hudak said:

“You said that you were a martial arts student, I mean person, experienced in taekwondo, and yet because this individual was so large, was able to overcome you, even with your skills. And chances are that if you had had a gun, then he would have been able to get that from you and possibly use it against you.”

So, darn it all, what is a poor gal to do? If martial arts won’t work, and the attacker is likely to take your gun away from you, how is a little lady supposed to fend off danger?

At State University of New York at Plattsburgh, women are told to use “passive resistance,” such as vomiting, urinating or telling the attacker you are sick. At Oregon State, women are encouraged to say they are sick or pregnant. And the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh tells them to act “emotionally unstable.”

And Colorado Rep. Joe Salazar pointed out that women might not even be able to gauge correctly whether or not they are truly in danger. He said, “Because you just don’t know who you’re going to be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re going to be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around, or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be…”

The Left blames global warming. They blame the NRA. They blame the Second Amendment, and they blame women. They blame everyone for gun violence except the criminals.

The Second Amendment to our Constitution applies to all American citizens, not just the ones the Left deems worthy of its protection.

After Senator Hudak told Ms. Amanda Collins, the rape victim, that statistics were not on her side and her “assault would likely had been worse had she been armed with a gun,” Ms. Collins responded by saying:

“Respectfully, senator, you weren’t there. Had I been carrying concealed, he wouldn’t have known I had my weapon; and I was there. I know without a doubt in my mind at some point I would’ve been able to stop my attack by using my firearm.”

When legislators begin to argue that it is better to be raped than to carry a gun, you know we are falling farther and farther away from freedom. Every single Member of Congress needs to know that we will not compromise our Constitutional rights, and we will hold those who do accountable in 2014, 2016, and beyond.

Demand Congress honors the rights we are guaranteed under the Constitution. Because women like Ms. Collins are lucky; although she suffered a brutal assault, she lived to tell her tale. Another woman was not so lucky: the rapist who attacked Ms. Collins killed her. As that victim’s family mourns their loss, Ms. Collins is forced to fight for the right to defend herself in the face of Senator Hudak’s ignorance.

There is a war on women, indeed.

http://www.conservative-daily.com/20...-war-on-women/

Typical LL :
'What is good for you is not the same for me ...'

California seizes guns from owners - and it might become a national model
Published time: March 12, 2013 17:18

In California, the government is already coming for the guns.

Notwithstanding the Second Amendment, rules and regulations across the United States outline certain restrictions for who can legally possess a firearm. In the state of California, factors such as a felony conviction or a history of mental health issues mean roughly 20,000 gun owners are holding onto their firearms illegally. Slowly but surely, though, Golden State police officers are prying them away. There’s more, though: backers of the program suggest this becomes a nation-wide practice, and are asking the White House to help make it happen.

“Very, very few states have an archive of firearm owners like we have,” Garen Wintemute of the Violence Prevention Research Program tells Bloomberg News. Wintemute helped set up a program on the West Coast that monitors not just licensed gun owners but also watches for any red flags that could be raised after admittance to a mental health institute or a quick stint in the slammer.

Wintemute says that as many as 200,000 people across the United States may no longer be qualified to own firearms, and in California they are making sure that number drops day by day. In one example cited in this week’s Bloomberg report, journalists recall a recent scene where nine California Justice Department agents equipped with 40-caliber Glock pistols and outfitted in bulletproof vests knocked on a suburban residence, requested to speak to a certain gun owner and then walked away with whatever arsenal they could apprehend.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris seized roughly 2,000 weapons last year, reports Bloomberg, as well as 117,000 rounds of ammunition and 11,000 high-capacity magazines. But as concerns escalate about a possible war against the right to bear arms in America, will other states soon follow suite?

In California, some shortcuts are already meaning weapons are being removed from lawful owners. Bloomberg reports cite the example of 48-year-old Lynette Phillips, a California woman who was recently hospitalized for mental illness. When a team of agents went to collect her two registered firearms, they also walked out with one registered to her husband.

“The prohibited person can’t have access to a firearm,” regardless of who the registered owner is, said Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office.

In other cities and towns across the country, Americans are standing up against what many say are unconstitutional attempts to disarm the United States. In New York State, new legislation is making it harder for Americans to purchase firearms, and one provision will provide gun owners with a felony charge if they ignore new registration rules — which is enough on its own to make owning guns illegal. Across the board more states are demanding stricter background checks, but as efforts to remove weapons from the hands of Americans — voluntarily and involuntarily — are ramped up, though, those that disagree are doing what they can to keep their country armed.

In the wake of last year’s massacres in Aurora, Colorado and Newtown, Connecticut — among others — lawmakers and the public at large have called on Americans for a mass disarming. Gun buyback programs are being touted in countless cities, and in California the attorney general is hoping for even more help at getting guns away from their once-lawful owners — Attorney General Harris has asked Vice President Joe Biden for help and has asked state lawmakers to increase the number of agents tasked with collecting weapons up to 33. She also told Mr. Biden that she thought the efforts coming out of California could be a good model of a national program, reports Bloomberg.

Meanwhile, though, others are making sure weapons aren’t being put to waste. Residents in Maine hit the polls this week to vote on a law that would require everyone in the town of Byron to register a high-powered weapon.

"It was never my intention to force anyone to own a gun who doesn't want to. My purpose was to make a statement in support of the Second Amendment,” Head Selectman Anne Simmons-Edmund tells US News & World Report.

"I'm just here because I'd rather see weapons stay with people, rather than turned in to be melted," a man named Joe, who declined to provide his last name, tells the Bainbridge Island Review. "I'm here to exercise the Second Amendment," he added. "Even if I don't get anything, honestly, I'd just rather see people keep them."

http://rt.com/usa/california-gun-program-model-157/

Dianne Feinstein’s ‘assault weapons’ ban stopped by… Harry Reid

By Doug Powers • March 19, 2013 03:08 PM

At some point before too long Senate Dems will have a pow-wow and figure out how to blame the Republicans for this: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-gun-ban-bill/

Sen. Dianne Feinstein emerged from a closed-door meeting with Majority Leader Harry Reid on Monday — but her ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines didn’t.

Mr. Reid turned down her attempt to bring her ban on 157 different weapons and ammunition clips aboard the Democratic Party’s comprehensive gun bill, Politico reported.

“My understanding is it will not be [part of the base bill],” said Mrs. Feinstein, California Democrat. “I would like to [see it moved], but the leader has decided not to do it. … You will have to ask him [why].”

Her bill instead will have to go forth separately or as an amendment — and that means it’s probably not going anywhere.

Feinstein must be wondering why Reid wants to keep it legal to hunt humans.

If you’re tempted to have one fleeting moment of appreciation for Harry Reid because of the above story, don’t. http://twitchy.com/2013/03/19/despic...mpaign=twitter

**Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2013/03/19...eid-feinstein/

See also http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...eam-89046.html


Despicable: Harry Reid suggests sequester is to blame for Marine deaths [video]
Posted at 2:47 pm on March 19, 2013 by Twitchy Staff

Allen West ✔ @AllenWest

@SenatorReid: Disgusted by your attempt to politicize the death of 7 Marines in NV. If you possessed any shred of honor, you’d apologize now

6:26 PM - 19 Mar 13

Is there no limit to how low this cockroach will sink?

Seven Marines were killed during a training exercise in Hawthorne, Nevada. How did our illustrious Senate Majority Leader choose to honor them? By using them as political pawns, of course: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C7LS...ature=youtu.be

Transcript via Real Clear Politics: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...in_nevada.html

As I indicated, it was quite a big explosion. We’ll follow this news very closely. I will do whatever I can going forward to support the United States military and the families of the fallen Marines.

Mr. President, it’s very important we continue training our military, so important. But one of the things in sequester is we cut back in training and maintenance. That’s the way sequester was written. Now, the bill that’s on the floor, we hope to pass today helps that a little bit. At least in the next six months, it allows the military some degree of ability to move things around a little bit. Flexibility, we call it, and that’s good. But we have to be very vigilant. This sequester should go away. We have cut already huge amounts of money in deficit reduction. It’s just not appropriate, Mr. President, that our military can’t train and do the maintenance necessary.

These men and women, our Marines were training there in Hawthorne. And with this sequester, it’s going to cut back. I just hope everyone understands the sacrifices made by our military. They are significant, being away from home, away from families, away from their country.

Twitterers are rightly disgusted:

Christine @cmdeb

Harry Reid: "we don't know what happened....but sequester." What a dick.

6:34 PM - 19 Mar 13

RB @RBPundit

Video evidence that Harry Reid is a disgusting pile of crap, and possibly a pederast. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...in_nevada.html … #tcot #p2

6:30 PM - 19 Mar 13

TexMarine2254 @TexMarine2254

Something tells me that if Harry Reid truly cared about the fallen Marines he and the Senate would have introduced and/or passed a budget.

6:54 PM - 19 Mar 13

Is there no limit to how low this cockroach will sink?

Seven Marines were killed during a training exercise in Hawthorne, Nevada. How did our illustrious Senate Majority Leader choose to honor them? By using them as political pawns, of course:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C7LS...ature=youtu.be

Transcript via Real Clear Politics: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...in_nevada.html

As I indicated, it was quite a big explosion. We’ll follow this news very closely. I will do whatever I can going forward to support the United States military and the families of the fallen Marines.

Mr. President, it’s very important we continue training our military, so important. But one of the things in sequester is we cut back in training and maintenance. That’s the way sequester was written. Now, the bill that’s on the floor, we hope to pass today helps that a little bit. At least in the next six months, it allows the military some degree of ability to move things around a little bit. Flexibility, we call it, and that’s good. But we have to be very vigilant. This sequester should go away. We have cut already huge amounts of money in deficit reduction. It’s just not appropriate, Mr. President, that our military can’t train and do the maintenance necessary.

These men and women, our Marines were training there in Hawthorne. And with this sequester, it’s going to cut back. I just hope everyone understands the sacrifices made by our military. They are significant, being away from home, away from families, away from their country.

Twitterers are rightly disgusted:

According to NewsBusters, NBC military correspondent Jim Miklaszewski reported this afternoon that a Marine official “considers this nothing but pure political posturing on the backs of these dead Marines.”

Piers Morgan must be thrilled that he’s finally found his perfect grave-dancing partner. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-fi...ester-politics


http://twitchy.com/2013/03/19/despic...mpaign=twitter

Video of Miklaszewski’s report is available here. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...d_marines.html

.Landmark gun bills signed in Colorado
By IVAN MORENO | Associated Press – 1 hr 44 mins ago.

DENVER (AP) — The governor of Colorado signed bills Wednesday that put sweeping new restrictions on sales of firearms and ammunition in a state with a pioneer tradition of gun ownership and self-reliance. The bills thrust Colorado into the national spotlight as a potential test of how far the country might be willing to go with new gun restrictions after the horror of mass killings at an Aurora movie theater and a Connecticut elementary school.

The approval by Gov. John Hickenlooper came exactly eight months after dozens of people were shot at the theater, and the day after the executive director of the state Corrections Department was shot and killed at his home.

The bills require background checks for private and online gun sales and ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds. Two ballot measures have already been proposed to try to undo the restrictions.

At the signing ceremony, Hickenlooper was surrounded by lawmakers who sponsored the bills. He looked around with a solemn expression before signing a measure requiring buyers to pay fees for background checks. Each time he signed a bill, applause erupted from lawmakers and their guests, who included Jane Dougherty, whose sister was killed in the attack at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn.; Sandy Phillips, whose daughter was killed in Aurora; and Tom Mauser, whose son was killed in the 1999 Columbine shooting in Colorado.

Phillips, who lost daughter Jessica Ghawi, reminded Hickenlooper that it was the eight-month anniversary of the theater rampage. "You've given us a real gift today," she told the governor.

Later, Phillips added: "Thank you so much. You're leading the entire country."

Dougherty thanked Hickenlooper with tears in her eyes. Mauser also expressed gratitude. "I knew it would be a long haul," he said. "But I had faith in the people of Colorado."

Democratic Rep. Rhonda Fields, who represents the district that includes the theater, said the governor had signed "common-sense legislation that reduces gun violence in our communities by keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, domestic violence offenders and the seriously mentally ill."

The shootings led Hickenlooper and other state Democrats to take on the issue of gun control. They succeeded while members of their party stumbled in other states. Washington state's Democrat-controlled House failed this month to pass a universal background check bill. A bill requiring background checks at gun shows in New Mexico also stalled in that Democrat-led Legislature. The measures signed by Hickenlooper were the centerpieces of a package of gun bills introduced this session in Colorado.

Under the laws, gun sales and transfers between private parties and purchases conducted online will be subjected to background checks. Ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds will be banned and subject to criminal penalties. Both bills take effect July 1.

Lawmakers debated firearms proposals after the Columbine High School shooting, and began requiring background checks for buyers at gun shows. But nothing they did then was as sweeping as the proposals they took up this year.

Republicans have warned that voters will punish Hickenlooper and other Democrats who voted in favor of the measures. "I'm telling you, they have overreached, and there are going to be electoral consequences," said Republican Sen. Greg Brophy.

Republicans have said limiting magazine sizes will drive jobs from the state, and ultimately won't prevent criminals from getting larger magazines in other states.

One Colorado-based manufacturer of ammunition magazines disclosed plans to relocate because of the new restrictions.

Some county sheriffs opposed the new background checks, arguing the move is unenforceable and endangers Second Amendment rights.

http://news.yahoo.com/landmark-gun-b...155246049.html

His "Super PAC" is called INDEPENDENCE USA, but he is the only contributor to it...

Does anyone else see something wrong with this???

Gov. Cuomo: Our gun law permitted something that doesn’t exist, so we’re asking you to pretend it does anyway
By Doug Powers • March 21, 2013 03:37 PM

In late January New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a new, hastily constructed gun control bill. http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/us/new-york-gun-bill Naturally, oversights have been discovered http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/17/cu...hool-shootings and those who passed the law also apparently didn’t want to bias themselves by actually learning about the subject they were legislating before voting on it: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ont-exist.html

In January Gov. Andrew Cuomo managed to pass one of the strictest gun control laws in the country, but now he’s making it somewhat less restrictive. While law, which goes into effect on April 15, would have banned the sale of magazines that hold more than seven rounds of ammunition, the governor announced on Wednesday that he’s working with legislators to make purchasing 10-round magazines legal in New York. “There is no such thing as a seven-bullet magazine,” Cuomo explained. “That doesn’t exist. So you really have no practical option.”

That one paragraph demonstrates why Cuomo should now be the last person to continue recommending “practical options,” but of course he didn’t see it that way. So what’s the fix? “New York gun owners, please pretend your ten bullet magazine only holds seven bullets”: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ont-exist.html

Cuomo downplayed the revision, saying it merely addresses a few “ambiguities” and “grammatical errors.” The law passed in January includes an exemption for the use of 10-round magazines at firing ranges and in competitions, but buying the magazines is banned. The new language will allow 10-round magazines to continue to be sold in New York, but it will be illegal to load more than seven rounds into those magazines.

And if this doesn’t work out, Cuomo may add a “Fife provision” to the law. Gun owners would still be required to load no more than seven bullets into their ten bullet magazines but they could apply for a separate permit to carry the other three bullets in their shirt pockets.

Somewhere a lightbulb just went off over Michael Bloomberg’s head to make his proposal “less restrictive”: You can have your 24 ounce cup — you just can’t put more than 16 ounces of soda in it.

Note: Jacob Sullum at Reason.com points out that seven round magazines do in fact exist, but they’re not standard. http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/21/cu...-gun-magazines

**Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2013/03/21/gov-cuomo-gun-law/

March 21, 2013Gun Nuts In New York

The NY Times strains herocially to keep a straight face while explaining that in New York, the gun nuts were on the other side of the aisle:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/ny...=nyregion&_r=0

New York Governor Favors Easing Newly Passed Gun Law

By THOMAS KAPLAN and DANNY HAKIM

ALBANY — In the wake of the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn., Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York pushed through the State Legislature gun control measures that included not only a tougher assault weapons ban but also a tighter restriction on the maximum legal capacity of gun magazines.

But after weeks of criticism from gun owners, Mr. Cuomo said on Wednesday that he would seek to ease the restriction, which he said had proved unworkable even before it was scheduled to take effect on April 15.

They had to pass the bill to see what was in it.

And what was in it was as ludicrous as the proposed "solution":

The gun-control law, approved in January, banned the sale of magazines that hold more than seven rounds of ammunition. But, Mr. Cuomo said Wednesday, seven-round magazines are not widely manufactured. And, although the new gun law provided an exemption for the use of 10-round magazines at firing ranges and competitions, it did not provide a legal way for gun owners to purchase such magazines.

As a result, he said, he and legislative leaders were negotiating language that would continue to allow the sale of magazines holding up to 10 rounds, but still forbid New Yorkers from loading more than 7 rounds into those magazines. “There is no such thing as a seven-bullet magazine,” Mr. Cuomo said at a news conference. “That doesn’t exist. So you really have no practical option.”

So if a worried homeowner sleeps with ten bullets in the magazine of her bedside Glock she would be in violation of the revised law. Of course, if an intruder burst in with a ten round magazine, the concerned resident would only know whether the assailant was in compliance with the new gun law if he only managed seven shots without reloading. Do we feel safer yet?

I guess that if New York cops are allowed to continue their stop and fisk tactics that ten bullets in a ten bullet magazine will become an available criminal for aggressive prosecutors looking for excuses to bust guys they want to bust anyway.

But how this new law could possibly deter an Aurora type spree killer loading up for his big event is beyond me

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/mai...-new-york.html