Skip to content
About these ads

Iowa Democrat calls for retroactive gun ban and confiscation

January 9, 2013

 The push to implement new control laws has been growing ever since the Sandy Hook massacre as the gun grabbers finally have a crisis which they feel they can use to do things they wouldn’t otherwise be able to do. Rahm Emanuel must be smiling from Chicago.

  Last week we saw the state of Illinois put forth a bill which would have banned most weapons in the state and yesterday Governor Cuomo announced he would be introducing new sweeping gun control legislation in the state of New York.

  And then of course there is the federal effort which appears to be led by Dianne Feinstein. If Dianne Feinstein has her way most handguns would be banned and those who already own them would be subjected to registering and fingerprinting as if we were criminals.

  Now we have a state congressman in Iowa who wants to ban semi-automatic weapons in the state and make the ban retroactive complete with a confiscation effort.

  Here is what Democrat Iowa State representative Dan Muhlbauer had to say about semi-automatic weapons in  a semi-coherent manner:

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

With all these shootings going on we have to start making radical changes and radical choices from what we’ve done in the past

  We need to get them off the streets illegally? Quite an interesting little slip of the tongue there, don’t you think? He is openly talking about banning semi-automatic weapons and confiscating them from law abiding citizens because he apparently believes the second amendment is about hunting and not about self defense.

  Again I have to wonder if these people even understand what a semi-automatic weapon is so here is a simple explanation  you pull the trigger and you fire a shot, you pull the trigger again and you fire another shot, etc. In other words, most guns are semi-automatic weapons. This isn’t about gun control at this point, it is about gun confiscation and Dan Muhlbauer isn’t the first person we have heard speaking like this in recent days.

About these ads
13 Comments leave one →
  1. MaddMedic permalink
    January 9, 2013 8:11 am

    Reblogged this on Freedom Is Just Another Word….

    Like

    • January 10, 2013 8:13 am

      Thank you again!

      Like

  2. January 9, 2013 12:08 pm

    “We can’t have those running around out here. Those are not hunting weapons.”

    For some reason I can’t find any reference to “hunting” in the Second Amendment.

    Twenty six people lost their lives to a madman at the Sandy Hook School. Among those killed were twenty little children and the school Principal who tried to stop the madman. I wonder how many of the parents of the children that died wish that Principal had been armed?

    Like

    • betrayed2013 permalink
      January 9, 2013 1:55 pm

      How many parents wish it was impossible for a nut case to get his hands on assault weapons?

      Like

      • January 9, 2013 7:42 pm

        I don’t think there is anyone here who believes that convicted felons or those with a mental health history should be allowed to carry guns. Adam Lanza clearly had a history of mental problems and shouldn’t have been around guns, his mother was an irresponsible gun owner and she paid with her life because of it, sadly so did those children. This is a massacre which should have been avoided but punishing responsible law abiding citizens is not the answer.

        Like

    • January 9, 2013 7:39 pm

      The left is constantly trying to make the second amendment argument a debate on hunting when clearly the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting and they are doing it on purpose in order to win support for assaulting the second amendment.

      Like

      • Jean permalink
        January 10, 2013 12:35 pm

        Disagree {sarcasm}: The second amendmend DEFINITELY applies to hunting: It’s soon to be open season on traitors…

        Making a list…
        Checkin’ it twice…
        Gonna find out who’s naughty
        or nice…

        Ammo Klaus is coming…
        To YOUR Town…. :-D

        Like

  3. January 9, 2013 2:00 pm

    So pretty much a 38 detective special with a cylinder or a 9mm with a clip are “semi-automatic” in their mindset? That is scarey, if they think that ALL weapons would be labeled as such except maybe a pump action shotgun? These idiots are going to get more people killed if they start taking away our protection! And, no Jim, I don’t believe that the Second Amendment has anything about “hunting only”, in it. Maybe we can get Nancy Pelosi to look over the Second for us, she seems to be right on top of things. I knew they were going to fast track ALL the gun laws they can get away with, I am lookin for my great state of Illinois to fall first…we have such progress already in Chicago and look how well it has worked out for us!

    Like

    • January 9, 2013 7:45 pm

      All weapons with the possible exception of older revolvers as rifles such as a pump action shotguns would basically be banned if Feinstein has her way. And this is reasonable gun control?
      As far as Pelosi being on top of things, she missed the provision in Obamacare which bans the registration of lawful gun owners and their weapons, didn’t she? I just put a post up about this.

      Like

      • January 9, 2013 8:10 pm

        Of course you knew I was being facetious when I mentioned Pelosi!!! Harry Reid really messed up didn’t he? Guess he was not thinking ahead.

        Like

      • January 9, 2013 8:22 pm

        Apparently he is saying he has “evolved” on this issue, where have we heard that before? And yes I did know you were being facetious!

        Like

  4. January 11, 2013 12:34 pm

    Well, I guess we all know that there’s an awful long way between an item’s being introduced in a legislature and passage. For example, apparently the very first item introduced in the House in the 113th Congress is a measure (introduced by Michelle Bachmann) to repeal PPACA – as if last session’s 33 such attempts didn’t teach them anything.

    Mr. Muhlbauer can bloviate all he wants, but he’ll never get his proposal passed by the Iowa legislature or signed by its Governor; I’d be surprised if it ever made it to the full house. All he’s doing is contributing to the hysteria and promoting more gun sales.

    One of the reasons the 2nd Amendment was enacted was to allow the rapid formation of an armed militia (“regulated,” back then, had a somewhat broader meaning than it does today, and included the concept of “equipped”) to deal with situation that today are pretty much not going to happen – organized Indian attacks or invasions from other countries – remember, they didn’t have radar or satellites back then.

    And of course, the weapons that people kept in their homes were pretty much the same weapons available to the standing army. So the concept of a citizen militia made a great deal of sense, much more than it does today.

    But the right to bear arms still exists, no question about that. The real question the gun manufacturers and its various handmaidens should be asking is this: shouldn’t we be insisting that people have the ability to bear arms that would be effective in repelling such an invasion – and thus also effective in overthrowing an oppressive or tyrannical government, if it ever came to that? Arms like machine guns, grenades, and rocket launchers?

    I think the reason they’re not pushing that issue is simple. Even though it’s the logical ideological stance to take, the gun manufacturers aren’t in the busy of promoting liberty and the Republic, they’re in the business of making money, in this case by manufacturing an extremely durable product that rarely requires replacement. They’re not manufacturing machine guns and rocket launchers for the domestic market, and it would be costly to retool to meet the demands of such a market. Thus, they have to continually give people the incentive to add to their arsenals. And they might actually be concerned about the consequences of people buying LAWS rockets and the like. No, they manufacture mostly rifles and handguns. That’s where the money is, and that’s where people need to be convinced their rights are being threatened.

    Take good care, and may God bless us all!

    TGY

    Like

  5. January 12, 2013 2:34 pm

    The term, assault weapon , when used in the context of assault weapon laws refers primarily (but not exclusively) to semi-automatic firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle that is fully automatic. Actually possessing the operational features, such as ‘full-auto’, changes the classification from assault weapons to Title II weapons . Merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms , when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again. They do not fire automatically like a machine gun. Rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,397 other followers

%d bloggers like this: