Rep. Jan Schakowsky wants a federal ban on handguns?

[alp227]

This latest "government about to take your guns" video is trending on YouTube right now:

The interviewer (Jason Mattera) is a pretty shady guy himself who regularly posts videos of him doing surprise interviews with Democratic politicians.

However, the fact that Jan Schakowsky actually suggested the federal government may go after handguns after the assault weapons is quite worrisome. And I think 45 seconds or a minute in this video there was something edited out.

[Bjorn Against]

1. Good for her, handguns kill more than any other type of weapon

[alp227]

2. What about self defense or rec shooting? N/t

[Bjorn Against]

3. The stats show far more people are killed by their own gun than use it in self defense

And I think people can find a form of recreational activity that is not so deadly.

[alp227]

4. But what about the second amendment?

Do you seriously support a national BAN on all firearms?

[Bjorn Against]

5. The second amendment is based on 18th century technology

18th century technology possessed by a well regulated militia. I don't think we need a ban on all firearms, I have no problem with people owning muskets. I can live with hunting rifles and shotguns as well even though I am not particularly fond of them. I don't think people should own handguns or assault rifles that are designed for killing people however.

[Oakenshield]

6. You know what I have to say about Recreational Shooting?

Your stupid hobby of shooting cans and paper silhouettes should not take precedence over the safety of the American people. Or any people for that matter. As for "self defense", you do know people who carry guns are 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens?

[alp227]

7. Why should safe gun owners lose THEIR constitutional rights

for the sake of safety? I don't target shoot, but a hell of a lot of other liberals/democrats (including thom hartmann) do. Schakowsky's position might as well lose the democrats the rural vote.

And maybe the likelihood to be shot/a crime victim is probably WHY people carry in self defense?

[Loudly]

8. Guns as solution to guns is my favorite absurdity.

But only because it is so self evidently absurd.

The trap it sets for us is diabolical in how it robs us of freedom and security while it purports to do just the opposite.

[Oakenshield]

9. They should lose that right for a number of reasons.

1. I don't care if nine out of ten people use their firearms in a responsible fashion, when all it takes is one irresponsible or insane person to go into a theater or a shopping mall and kill dozens of people.


2. Democrats haven't had the rural vote in ages. Small town America breeds small minded people.


3. Did you even read the statistic? If you carry a gun, you're odds of being shot or killed is four times higher than a unarmed citizen. Just look at how much gun violence there is in Texas, and see how peaceful it gets when more guns are added into the equation.

[alp227]

10. Rebuttals:

1. That's what background checks are for. They could've prevented the Va Tech or Aurora shooters from getting their guns.

2. Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill, Al Franken, and other small state/heartland Democrats have enough trouble getting votes, imagine them voting for assault weapons ban.

3. I did read your stat. And of course somebody who finds self in a violent community will want to arm up. And what choice does an unarmed person have if burglarized or mugged? And does that stat take in account an armed perpetrator who targets victim?

[Oakenshield]

11. Rebuttal

1. Except anyone can get a gun at a gunshow/convention without a background check. And even WITH background checks, that still wouldn't have stopped the sandy hook massacre. That's why irresponsible gun owners are just as dangerous.

2. It would still be the right thing to do, regardless of political inconvenience.

3. The unarmed person, despite losing valuables in a hypothetical mugging is still more likely to survive the encounter than a person armed with a gun. There's nothing else to debate. In 2010 Britain had only 58 firearm related murders, whereas in America there was a staggering 9,960. But Britain is 1/5 the size of the USA you might argue, well even adjusting the population disparity, britain still has only 290. The problem here is the gun. Something so dangerous should not be so easy to obtain. If at all.

[midnight]

12. I wish she would ban poverty instead....Or Drones, or war....