We are sure there are those out there that still believe the assault weapons bill is all about those type of guns. However, in the following piece, Jason Mattera gets a leader of the Democratic Party to admit that this is "just the beginning." If that does not chill your bones, nothing will.
There is a movement to confiscate all guns. This is not hyperbole, it is not paranoia, ask Representative Jan Schakowsky from Illinois. She wants to get rid of all guns! Whether the reporter was devious in obtaining the admission or not, it does tell us her real feelings!
Be warned, they are coming for your guns, your ammunition and your freedom and they will not stop until they have it all!
Conservative Tom
DEM REP. ON CANDID CAMERA ADMITS: ‘ASSAULT WEAPONS’ BAN JUST THE BEGINNING, HANDGUN BAN MAY BE POSSIBLE
Photo Credit: Jason Mattera/YouTube
A new video released by conservative activist Jason Mattera will surely have gun rights advocates up in arms. In an exchange with Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) that was caught on camera last month but only released Monday, the Democratic politician spoke openly about her gun control views, noting that current proposals are only the beginning.
Perhaps the most contentious portion of the dialogue, which purportedly took place at a women’s rights rally, is the section in which she seems to indicate that a much larger push against firearms could inevitably take aim at handguns.
At the beginning of the exchange, Mattera identifies himself but tells Schakowsky that he “appreciated her remarks” (he does not indicate his conservative worldview and she appears not to recognize him). Considering these tactics, his introduction potentially gained her trust, leading the congresswoman to candidly share her views. He also repeatedly addressed her using “we” and it appears as though Schakowsky doesn’t realize she’s being recorded.
“I was wondering, is it time we have a serious conversation not just about assault rifles, but about handguns as well?,” Mattera asked.
“Well, that’s why if we have universal background checks, that will effect every single kind of weapon,” she replied. “The Brady Campaign thinks that of all the things that have been suggested, this may actually be the thing that does the most to prevent gun violence.”
The congressional leader went on to say that there is a “moment of opportunity” and that political leaders are “going to push as hard as we can and as far as we can.” When Mattera then noted that most gun deaths are the result of handguns and questioned why addressing those type of firearms isn’t currently on the table, Schakowsky was candid, later adding that she’s personally opposed to handguns.
“We’re not going to be able to win that — not now,” she said. “But background checks I think are going to, you know, address any kind of weapon.”
Mattera, again, pushed handguns as a point of conversation, noting that a full-throttle ban could never be secured, considering the Second Amendment’s current wording.
“I don’t know. I don’t know that we can’t,” Schakowsky said, going on to note that some municipalities in her district have banned handguns, seemingly driving home the point that there is support among select cohorts for more restrictive measures in this arena. ”I don’t think it’s precluded.”
Watch the video, below:
It should be noted that Mattera used a number of misleading tactics in speaking with Schakowsky. In addition to telling her that he appreciated her words, he also used “we” when discussing the chances of achieving a handgun ban (i.e. “We’ll never get a handgun ban with the Second Amendment as stated”). These measures were seemingly used to gain her trust and to make a foray into the conversation. We should also note the video is edited.
Since its inception, TheBlaze has maintained that reporters — especially conservative ones — should not rely upon these mechanisms for retrieving information, as they are misleading tools that do not allow for an ethical and robust pursuit for truth. That said, we do feel a responsibility to report on controversial comments made by public figures.
"Justice Scalia was emphatic that the right to possess a gun is not absolute," Posner said. "All that is clear is that an absolute ban on possessing a pistol is unconstitutional. The other restrictions a government might want to impose are up for grabs."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/11/illinois-concealed-carry-_n_2278114.html
-----------
I also read the Scalia opinion, and I interpret it the same way as Posner. Note that the Illinois law , which Schakowsky was talking about and favors, was struck down by the court. It was a ban on carrying a concealed pistol in public, NOT a ban on owning a pistol. A federal absolute ban on owning a pistol would be unconstitutional on the face of it, as Scalia opinion -- and all prior Supreme Court opinions -- affirm. They are NOT coming for all your guns, and I will have a good laugh at the end of next summer when it doesn't happen. $20 bet?
--David
What the Constitution says and what previous courts have ruled means nothing anymore. Justice Roberts has been compromised and you will start seeing that as rulings start coming out.
ReplyDeleteScalia will be on the losing side from now on, so anything that he says cannot relied upon as Court sentiment. Sotomayor, Kagen are not thoughtful jurists and will vote for increased government control anytime they can. They do not believe in the Constitution and view it as an antique, a memory of other times.
You also have to listen to what Shakowsky said in the interview. She said it was not the right time NOW, but that this was the FIRST step.
It probably will not happen in the next year or so, but it will. You can count on that. No bet because the timeline is unreliable.
However, if there were a new Justice or two appointed and they were of the same thinking as Obama, it will happen then.
Roberts joined with Scalia's opinion in the Heller case. Enough said.
ReplyDeleteSchakowsky is crazy if she thinks there is going to be a federal ban on carrying a concealed pistol anytime before she is dead and buried. The Second Amendment says "bear arms." That means have them with you. Besides, what use are arms to a militia if you can't take them out of your house! If the Illinois law even gets to the Supreme Court, I am sure the SC will uphold the decision of the federal court. Moreover, I will remind you again that this law was only a ban on carrying concealed weapons, not a ban on owning a handgun.
As for the time-line for the $20 bet, I will give you any time-line out to January, 2017 for this, or any of your other Obama conspiracy theories. You won't take any of them.
--David
This decision was before he was flipped for the Obamacare decision. He is now going to vote with Obama on most every decision.
ReplyDeleteThe Illinois decision will be 5-4 to support the law. Roberts will vote to support the law if not now definitely when the two new Justices are appointed. Gun control is on its way.
Okay, we shall see. You and I are going to keep track of Roberts decisions in future cases. We will have an empirical record. I am looking forward to posting the results here.
ReplyDelete-- David
Clapper v. Amnesty International
ReplyDeleteThis is my first report on our Roberts tracking project. This was a recent 5-4 decision with Roberts joining with Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy. Dissents were filed by all the liberal justices.
It was on a topic near and dear to your heart: warrantless wire-tapping of phone conversations and emails from American citizens to anyone overseas. Speaking personally, I suspect that my calls to Turkey and Kyrgyzstan have been tapped, but I have no way to prove it. It is a catch-22. Alito, et. al. opinion is that, if I can't prove they tapped me, I have no standing to sue the government for tapping my calls. Nice!
--David
You miss the most important part of the decision and Obama. He wants to have this right, not necessarily for foreign citizens, but for Americans. So it is in his interests to have this ruling go the way it went.
ReplyDeleteIf you read the case it was about the FISA court and that to get the opportunity to wire tap someone from outside the US, they had to get the approval from the court.
As far as wiretapping your calls, why are you calling Turkey and Kyrgzstan? Unless you are a russian spy, why are you calling?
Why do you think I miss that point? It was Americans who filed the suit. The warrantless wiretapping began under Bush and continued under Obama. Roberts didn't vote with the conservatives because he loves Obama. He voted with them because he is a conservative. He voted with them when Bush was president, too.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, this is my first report on Roberts who remained with the conservative branch of the Supreme Court in this 5-4 decision.
(I call to Turkey and Kyrgystan because I have friends there. I will be going to Turkey for a couple weeks at the end of April.)
--David