“Iowa lawmaker calls for retroactive gun ban, confiscation of semi-automatic weapons”
In an interview with the Daily Times Herald in Caroll, Iowa, state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer said governments should start confiscating semi-automatic rifles and other firearms.
Muhlbauer, a Democrat from the western Iowa town of Manilla, is a cattleman and farmer. The newspaper reported that he owns a .410 shotgun, a .22 rifle and a .22 pistol.
“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.”
— Right and wrong. Semi-automatic rifles can be used just fine for hunting. Though typically they are less powerful than larger-game hunting rifles, which tend to use more powerful rounds. All of which is beside the point, because the 2nd Amendment was never meant as a permission slip from some Iowa douche to allow you to go hunting. It was instead meant explicitly as a check on Iowa douches who would presume to tell you what you can and cannot use to protect yourself against the kinds of Iowa douches who lurch toward tyranny and try to take away a natural right by the stroke of their douche pens.
The legislative history and notes on the second amendment — along with a host of quotes from the founders and framers who’d just fought off an oppressive British military to gain independence and who wildly distrusted centralized authority and standing armies — are clear and indisputable. So is it really to much to ask that demand that our elected officials sworn to uphold the Constitution have to prove they’ve read the fucking thing first? Here, let me help out Rep Douche:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Again: the militia is defined in the USC and many state constitutions. And between the “ready militia” and the “reserve militia” it subsumes all the citizenry, including children. That is, the people. Whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As it says right there in the text.
Nowhere is the text is there any mention of what one needs to hunt with. Although allow me to put this bluntly: the subtext of the amendment, insofar as it deals with hunting at all, is referring to the ability to put down oppressive rulers. Would-be tyrants who by force may try to subjugate free citizens.
And if what you are fighting is other humans aiming to oppress you — many of them armed by the government with automatic or semi-automatic weapons — you damn sure can, and in fact must, “have those running around out here.” Otherwise, you live in a police state, and you can no longer claim to be a free man.
“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.”
Actually, what there are too many of is laws and lawmakers — particularly those lawmakers who believe winning some local election gives them the force of law to steal the property others have labored for, and in so doing, simultaneously taking away a natural right.
Rep. Dan Muhlbauer believes there are too many guns. So what? Me, I believe there aren’t enough stocks, and too few instances of tarring and feathering.
Were I an Iowan in this douche’s district, I’d be calling for his resignation. Along with declaring my independence from his representation. Politicians who don’t follow the Constitution are violating the public trust. And so they are impostors. Who have no claim to authority over free men and women.