State Rep. Lisa Subeck (courtesy lisasubeck.com)

“A Democratic-proposed gun ban would prohibit some of the most highly-rated hunting rifles and shotguns, ban most pistols, and require Wisconsin residents who owned so-called ‘semiautomatic assault weapons’ to turn their guns in to the government,” mediatrackers.org reports. “State Rep. Lisa Subeck [above] and three other Democrat state lawmakers are proposing a sweeping ban on rifles, shotguns and pistols they deem dangerous because they are ‘designed to kill large numbers of people quickly.'” OK, it’s a proposed law. A piece of legislation that doesn’t have a ghost of a chance of passing in the Eat Cheese or Die state legislature. But think carefully about this . . .

If a majority of residents in not one, not two, but three separate Wisconsin voting districts didn’t support this proposed gun grab, it would have never seen the light of day. In other words, there are plenty of people who want to take – as in confiscate and destroy – your guns.

So when the President of the United States addressed the nation after the Umpqua Community College spree killing and [once again] pronounced “nobody wants to take your guns,” he was lying. There are people in the Badger State who do and put it out there for all the world to see. Are we to assume that they are alone in this desire to disarm the civilian population? We are not. To do so would be extremely foolhardy.

“Gun safety” advocates are not normally this obvious. To be fair, that may be because Rep Subeck is an idiot. Her bill’s wording is so bad it’s hard to know if we should apply Hanlon’s Razor (never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity).

The way the draft legislation defines “semiautomatic assault rifle” (a term that’s somewhat redundant), dozens of different gun types would be banned. State Rep. Cody Horlacher (R), also an attorney, reviewed the proposal and told Media Trackers the definition of a banned rifle “is so broad, anything could fall into” it . . .

When it comes to shotguns, the proposed ban would make it illegal for a Wisconsin hunter to own some of the most highly rated Turkey hunting shotguns. In fact, four of Game & Fish Magazine’s top ten shotguns for Turkey hunting would be specifically banned.

Most semiautomatic pistols also appear to be off-limits if the proposal ever becomes law – a nearly impossible prospect at this point with the legislature controlled by Republicans. A loosely worded prohibition on pistols with, “a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel, and that permits the user to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned” would make iconic handguns like the 1911, or popular pistols like the entire Glock product line, illegal. Perhaps the only semiautomatic pistol that would be legal would be the Luger, a German World War II relic.

“Even though a semiautomatic pistol slide is not designed for the purpose of being held by the nontrigger hand, particularly while the firearm is being fired, it could be argued that a slide still meets the criteria for inclusion under this provision,” Konopacki wrote in his letter to Rep. Craig. “Arguments could be made both ways here, and it is impossible to predict with certainty how a court construing this phrase would do so.”

Make no mistake. Whether or not this non-starter law is deliberate or an unintentional mask slip, “gun safety” advocates believe that Americans are safest without guns. Period. That is their ultimate goal.

Any and all gun control legislation short of confiscation is a means to an end, and should be rejected, regardless of any claims of “common sense safety measures” or feigned respect for our Second Amendment protections. In short, they really do want to take your guns. One way or another.

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

87 COMMENTS

  1. “Nobody wants to take your guns away.”

    I can see some pissed off cheese heads that would simply say.
    FOAD.

    Who and how would this be enforced? NY has over 80% non compliance rate, as well as CT.

    I hope WI voters remember what will happen if these tyrannical collectivists get the majority back.

    I miss tar and feathering.
    Sigh

    • Non- compliance = rebellion. If 80% is the number it doesn’t look good for the anti Americans.

    • As I call Wisconsin my home state, all I can say is “Molon Labe”

      You can push stuff like this through in states like California and New York, because the voter base is largely urban and Democrat. States like Wisconsin, the voter base is largely rural, and Republican or Democrat, legislation like this fails because the local populace owns firearms. Even my Democrat friends are calling BS on this one.

      I hate to profile a certain type of person, but Rep. Lisa Subeck fits the profile of a power hungry, wants to step on your rights, Democrat from a Democrat power base. Next thing you know she will be getting money from Bloomberg, etc. Good effing luck trying to ram this crap down our throats here in Wisconsin. People are starting to smarten up, see through the bullshit, and thats on both sides of the political fence.

  2. “The way the draft legislation defines “semiautomatic assault rifle” (a term that’s somewhat redundant)”

    Isn’t it oxymoronic (rather than redundant)?

    • Given that, by definition, an assault rifle is capable of fully automatic fire, I believe the term needed here is self-contradictory, since by definition a semi-automatic rifle cannot be an assault rifle.

      • An oxymoron is a self-contradictory set of words… hence, my use of the label, “oxymoronic.” 🙂 (for the same reasons you find it self-contradictory)

        • An oxymoron generally comes with a serving of irony. Examples: jumbo shrimp, Great Depression, alone together, only choice, and short wait.

          So no to the above examples. They are self-contradictory phrases, but not oxymorons.

      • Given that by definition an assault rifle is a firearm with a rifled barrel as coined by King George .
        ………Headline should have been ………..” Wisconsin ‘ Gun Safety ‘ Advocates Want A Revolution “

      • That all said… I do not believe it is any accident that the gun-grabbers conflate the terms. It is very much intentional.

  3. It’s a good thing TTAG has a policy of no ad-hominem attacks.

    Because just by looking at her picture…

  4. A note for mediatrackers: “semiautomatic assault rifle” is not redundant. It’s an oxymoron.

      • ox·y·mo·ron
        ˌäksəˈmôrˌän/
        noun
        noun: oxymoron; plural noun: oxymorons

        a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction

    • I find the term a blatant stupidity, and a way to inflame the desire for control of the progressive herd. The time is drawing nigh where it will behoove us to thin the herd fairly significantly.

  5. Yet another anti-constitutional, progressive, statist who needs to be voted into the unemployment line.

  6. Confirmation some elected representatives are that stupid. Is her constituency that stupid as well?

  7. “A Democratic-proposed gun ban…”

    I’m confused. “Nobody wants to(*) take your guns.”

    So, if the ban applies to guns currently in use (by type – define some kinds of guns as “bad guns”)… how they gonna get rid of the bad ones? If the ban does not apply to kinds guns in use … what’s the point?

    (*) Be careful of the lawyer speak. In using this quite I hesitated because “Nobody is talking about taking your guns.” “Nobody wants to take your guns.” “Nobody is gonna take your guns.” Blah, blah, blah.

    So, indeed they are not “talking about” “taking” “your” guns. That’s just a natural and inevitable consequence of what they are talking about, and the text of the legislation.

    The trick here is don’t get tangled up in parsing subtleties of the weasel-words – you hearing me, Dr. Carson?(**) – but stick to the inevitable, obvious conclusion from what they said.(***) “OK, so you do this, and a bunch of guns out there go away … so, how isn’t this “taking?””0

    (**) I express no opinion on his various positions, validity as a candidate, qualifications for the presidency, etc. The casual mention in passing in his memoir of a possible trajectory into West Point, is absolutely not misleading. He didn’t say those words to eliminate all possible “mis”interpretation under the most hostile possible reading. DON’T ACCEPT THE PREMISE OF THE ARGUMENT. EVER.

    (***) It’s even got a name these days: “undulating lie.” Something that obviously, clearly, and in use means unequivocally one things, yet can be claimed through contortion of language to mean another, after the fact, if need be.

    “Undulating lies” don’t help with communication – which is the turf to stand on. “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” to use one example. And doctors are shuttering practices, joining group practices, changing their terms, networks are contracting so “your doctor” is no longer included in the “coverage”, the service mix that was OK with you & your doctor is no longer OK, so your doc or you bail on the relationship, etc. etc. etc.

    Dear trolls:
    It’s only reasonable for people to suspect that “If you like your guns, you can keep your guns.”(****) should be understood the way “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” turned out.

    (****) Or whatever misleading variation is in use at the moment. “Nobody wants to take your guns.” OK, but later, you can complete the thought: “Nobody wants to take your guns, but sadly that’s the only way to do whatever it is we think is worth doing at any price … as we now know (… for the children!)”

    So, go ahead and call me whatever name floats your boat at the moment. If that’s all you got…

    • “A Democratic-proposed gun ban…”

      dem·o·crat·ic

      adjective: of, relating to, or supporting democracy or its principles.

      How is a gun ban “supporting democracy or its principles”???

      Moreover: isn’t interesting that a bunch of LibSocs use an adjective as a proper noun: “Democratic Party” — `cause they are _anything_ except “democratic.”

      Moreover; could you imagine a “Republicanic Party”?

      • ‘… could you imagine a “Republicanic Party?”‘

        Are you a republi-can, or a republi-can’t? Quentin’s publicist wants to know.

        • Oh, for bog’s sake, I just realized I made that “republi-can” crack replying to “Juanito.”

          Dude, I didn’t even notice. (Dude? I’m going to go with “dude.”) I just got hooked on the chance to reference Quentin’s recent stepping in it w/ the anti-cop folks with a call out to that movie. I’m just putting this together with your handle this instant – sometimes I’m slow. My awareness was full of the Quentin-tweaking. Of course, if something subconscious or subliminal is going on in my brain, I wouldn’t know.

          That said, feel free to make all the anglo / hetero / male / Englishman / Scotsman / Irish / German / and especially American jokes you like. Some of them are quite hilarious.

          And if anybody’s got a way to add a German into the classic English / Irish / Scots joke about flies in drinks, I’d love to hear it & get my whole semi-remote heritage in one whack.

        • said krauter takes all (four now) wet flies and proclaims “marinated flies perfect for the bugwurst.”

      • “A Democratic-proposed gun ban…”

        …

        How is a gun ban “supporting democracy or its principles”???

        I think you’ve hit on something, Juanito. (<- ref to the writer of the message I'm replying to, include because of the sometime comment sequence mangling.)

        Call them out on anything they propose in terms of "supporting democracy or its principles?" How *is* a gun ban "supporting democracy or its principles?" etc.

        That's got legs. (<- colloquial expression about having endurance and broad applicability. Just keeps going. Neither gender-specific nor about hot-pants or etc. Despite the ZZ Top song. That was about something else.)

        So much of what these folks propose is internally so inconsistent that it's completely frakking insane. (The good folk singer, the Honerable Mr. Sanders is FWIW at least mostly self-consistent. He's a democratic socialist, he says. Yep. That's where he comes from every time.)

        And about the language…

        That "democratic" is no accident. They're the party of doing things by popular vote – says so right on the label – so, whatever they propose must be popular. The mangle implies that the measure has already been approved – democratically!, by the people! – before a vote ever happens. Of course if that's true, anybody opposing what they are doing must be … un-democratic. Against the will of the people. It's all baked in.

        Do you think any of that implication-baggage is an accident? Most of them are useful idiots. The people doing the message-crafting are not. (Do not get me started on The Stupid Party. I'm non-partisan. That said, the republican party in the US is so relentlessly bad at messaging, one wonders whether they've been forever infiltrated, Philby-style. They're dumb enough. It could be.)

      • Actually, that’s a mid characterization the like to use to give a false impression of their beliefs. The correct name and usage is, “The Democrat Party…”

    • I wonder where they got off on the “barrel shroud” thing. The fact is that every rifle, except for the original Henry, has at least a partial “barrel shroud” (i.e. hand guard). Full wooden hand guards predate the Civil War. So why was it included ion the list of “evil” features? I know that at least one person (famously) had no idea what one was, but the whole crew that wrote the legislation?

    • Barrel shrouds on pistols; they must have had a specific handgun in mind… anyone have an idea what that was?

  10. Well after a long period of not even being able to make “The jump”, or jumping but not able to comment. Windows 10 made the difference. As for what I’ve been able to read and see in the news. Its surprising to see POTG surprised to hear they want to take away the guns. I mean besides during the end of WWII we took lots of ideas and people from the enemies that were and milked them for the info needed to adopt their best ideas for ourselves. Its all about the control. They are going to take the guns away. Its not a matter of if, but when. They’re chipping away at every right we have in the name of safety, mostly theirs. So it should be a 1 issue vote. And we should hand them their asses, often. It is we the people ,right?

    • “Windows 10”
      Today is the first day that I have turned on my pudr, and the Micro Soft ad for me to download W10, didn’t show up!

      • Totally unrelated to guns, but since it was brought up and I do this for a living…

        If you’re sick of the Windows 10 upgrade prompts:
        https://github.com/rn10950/I-Dont-Want-Windows-10/releases

        Download and extract the zip archive for the latest version, run the utility, follow the on-screen instructions and reboot. Repeat if/when it comes back again. The “advanced” option locks windows out of some of its own folders so, in theory, it *can’t* come back-but that also, *theoretically*, has the potential to FUBAR the OS install.

        Emphasis on theoretically. I’ve run it half a dozen times on various machines and I have yet to see it actually happen, the way it’s locking windows update out is reversible, and I don’t believe the system *needs* write access to the folder that it’s locking windows out of. So, although it’s theoretically possible to hose your windows install with the advanced option, I don’t believe it’s a practical risk. That said, you’ve been warned, so don’t whine to me if you don’t back anything up and it sets your machine on fire or photoshops Nancy Pelosi’s face onto all of the pictures of your grandchildren or whatever.

        Also, if you’re considering upgrading to 10 OR already have it and haven’t read up on the data collection it’s doing by default, I’d suggest you read this: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/08/windows-10-doesnt-offer-much-privacy-by-default-heres-how-to-fix-it/ particularly the last sentence in the article, and do some further research about how they’re going to ram black-boxed updates down your throat and what Microsoft’s privacy policy and EULA allows them to do.

        http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/08/microsoft-has-no-plans-to-tell-us-whats-in-windows-patches/ and https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/privacystatement/ would be a good start.

  11. “If a majority of residents in not one, not two, but three separate Wisconsin voting districts didn’t support this proposed gun grab, it would have never seen the light of day.”

    That doesn’t necessarily hold. Polytickans do things all the time that their constituents don’t agree with.

  12. A few words about ad hominem….I try my best to avoid it and keep my peace as best as possible. But some people are just simply impossible, or outright demand and deserve whatever’s coming their way. This lady has got a seriously warped sense of righteousness. What she doesn’t realize (or maybe just doesn’t care) is the way she’s setting women’s rights back. She quite literally asks to be told to go back to the kitchen to make a sandwich. I’m all for universal suffrage, but for the love of God, have a little intelligence! And by the way, that goes double for the people who voted her in.

    That is all.

    Tom

  13. That proscription against barrel shrouds would also take out many newer revolver designs that use shrouded or tensioned barrels.

    • Not just newer revolvers, I have a Dan Wesson 357 from the early 80’s, wish I had the money at that time to get the Pistol Pack. It has a barrel shroud that you can take off to change to different length barrels, oops, with an appropriate size shroud. Not that I would ever grab that shroud when shooting so it’s just a stupid elected official who has no idea what she is talking about.

  16. OK, it’s a nit-pick, but the Luger is more accurately described as a World War I relic. Production started in 1908, nicht wahr?

  18. Must be from Madison, or Milwaukee- “Progressives” (read socialists). Its not about gun control, its about people control for them.

  19. Pass it…see what happens…. Retards…they won’t stop until they push to far and we react…and then, well…

  20. I think that the anti gun crowd is getting desperate, or nearly so.
    They have begun to believe their own lies, and are acting upon them
    as if they were truth. They keep trying to pass the same unconstitutional
    infringements over and over again, and are emotionally disturbed when
    they fail.

    Anger, fear, confusion, befuddlement, all of these emotions are present
    in anti gun people when one or another of their schemes fails once again.
    eventually, this will drive them to truly desperate action.
    They are nearing such with Obama’s executive orders on more than just
    the second amendment front.

    Eventually they may drop all pretense and make an attempt to simply implement
    all or some of the points on their agenda without legislation beyond ” because
    we say so”

    I’ve said before that anyone who wants to take your weapons away is planning to
    do something that will make you use them. Something that is important enough
    to take the initial risk inherent in confiscating them to begin with.

  21. I challenge her to personally go door to door trying to collect all the firearms in this state. I doubt she has the cajones to do it herself. This kind of blatant assault on our freedoms will not be tolerated.

  22. You think she’s stupid?

    You think their dream legislation isn’t so intentionally broad that it specifically bans Glocks, 1911s, etc?

    I don’t believe that “oopsie I had no idea that every single modern pistol has some sort of dust cover or barrel shroud, stupid me guess we shouldn’t ban them” is in any way relative to her intelligence. This is a typical anti play of throw the whole mess at the wall and see what sticks.

    NY SAFE is a perfect example of what happens when it actually DOES stick; not even the supporters have any idea how to execute their ridiculous legislation.

    • What’s the problem with a shroud anyway? How does a pistol with a shroud become some super dangerous thing while one that doesn’t have one is safer?

      This is absurd.

      And yes, it’s the same thing with the SAFE act, a telescoping stock is dangerous? WTAF?

      Why don’t they just say ‘we are banning the guns we don’t like’?

      • If you read the proposal it’s pretty clear what they are after are the AR and AK-type pistols (that are really only “pistols” in the ATF technical-definition sense, IMO). But words matter, especially in laws that carry 6-year prison terms.

  23. I’m gathering the problem with the turkey guns is that they have a pistol grip? The tommy-gun kind, I mean, which is presumably what the legislation addresses. Actually, my understanding is that almost all shotguns have a “pistol-grip stock” as opposed to a “straight stock”.

    • Never mind,I found out–it’s the thumbhole stocks on some of them. Apparently the “pistol grip” on a shotgun doesn’t make it a more-dangerous “assault weapon”, but it does on a rifle. How’s that for “common sense”. You know (but Lisa doesn’t, I guess) that lots of Olympic-style target rifles have those eeeeevil thumbhole stocks, and are semi-auto. Idiots.

  24. When these ignoramus’ stand up and say something like “designed to kill large numbers of people quickly.’” Why doesn’t a knowledgeable representative stand up and skewer these boobs?

  25. I just wish for once to see TTAG readers’ responses to a legislative threat of this type address how we can defeat the very idea that this is a benefit to our society – instead of a pissing contest over semantics or other minutiae. Defeat the fake anti-gun assumptions one by one and win the war when the hoplophobes have no more fabricated “facts” to prop themselves up with.

    • Once they run out of “fabricated facts”–they will just fabricate some more. It’s what they do, and no amount of reason or logic will stop them.

  26. Mark Lee -Pray tell what is YOUR response oh wise one? Mine is to vote republican for a start…but since I live in Cook county,Illinois that doesn’t work too well. Yeah -she’s an ample woman…when she sits around the house she sits AROUND the house. Hi-o!

  27. They do not believe Americans are safer without guns. They know for a fact that Americans are not safer without guns. They also know that the only people that are safer when the law abiding are disarmed are the criminal and the corrupt. They cannot achieve their goal of totalitarian utopia as long as liberty loving people can resist. Forcibly disarming the law abiding means they can more easily kill of those who refuse to comply and accept being ruled over. Kind of like the “Eat 5#it and like it” society in China. Those who comply are allowed the allusion of a certain degree of freedom. But the second they start thinking should have more freedom, the hammer comes down hard

  28. All four of the bill’s sponsors are from the Madison area, a Democratic stronghold in the state. Outside of Milwaukee, Madison, and La Crosse they do not have enough clout to push this bill any which way through the assembly. And it wouldn’t cast a shadow on Gov. Walker’s desk before he would veto it.

  29. The future,

    “So class can you tell me when the second american revolution happened?”

    “It started in Wisconsin,”

  32. If you live in a blue state, you may be part of the problem. If you have a (D) after your name, are a liberal, or a rino, the problem is part-of-you. You are permanently damaged, and you are why this incessant attack on your neighbors will eventually lead them to hunt you and yours.

  33. With the looks of it, if we ban semi autos, we should also ban high capacity snack cake packages. [/snark]

  34. In this state I put my odds of being hit by a drunk or distracted driver much higher than being shot. But, then again I don’t live in Milwaukee.

  35. If anyone did not understand the first time they heard Obama say, “no one is talking about taking your guns” (and every time some anti-gun proponent repeats it) that it was a misdirecting lie, I am sorry it took up to now for this to be clarified for you. It does not matter how obviously ignorant, ill-informed and bumbling these gun control people appear, their objective is, and always has been, exactly to take your guns.
    They cannot do it directly because of the Second Amendment, so they will keep expanding their infringement of our right to keep and bear Arms, little by little, trick by trick, until we are either disarmed or rebel. That is the long-term agenda and people like State Rep Lisa Subeck (D)-WI are merely useful idiots and stooges blindly following the lead of far more intelligent and sinister architects of a larger goal.
    Never forget, the goal is to disarm The People, not just to make us defenseless in our homes and person, but to make us defenseless against the State, so that we can be controlled and Ruled more effectively without the means to resist. Be mistrustful of everything they say and do. There are no “good intentions”. The only “Safety” they are concerned about is to keep themselves Safe from us. That’s key to keep in mind and clearly in the forefront of you thoughts on this matter.
    So, yeah, no one is “talking” about taking your guns, but they are lying, misleading and actively working to disarm you by stealth and slow erosion of you natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear Arms every hour of every day, year-after-year and will never stop. No matter how bumbling and uninformed they appear. It is a ruse to deceive us into under-estimating what they are doing.

  37. I was just reading an article about the some of the antics of the Republicans in our state house and wondering “Why do I vote for these crooked hicks?” Then Rep. Subeck showed up to remind me why.

  38. Lisa Subeck represents the west side of Madison. She lives in cloud cuckoo land.

    • I live in Wisconsin and I saw the legislation as it was sent out to state Legislators en mass via email. (I know this guy, that knows this guy….)

      Anyway, to add a bit more information to the group, Jabba is looking for co-sponsors to her bill. She needs a reply/co-idiot by 11/13/15 or, hopefully, it dies on her desk (or, in her case, possibly a feeding trough).

      Snowball’s chance in hell.

      On the odd chance that somehow the laws of basic physics and thermodynamics have been repealed in Wisconsin (which I’m all but certain the libs are attempting somewhere) and that snowball manages to make it out of committee, pass the Republican-controlled House and Senate, and Governor Walker accidentally signs it thinking it was something actually legal, I have three words (they’ve already been used by another poster, so due credit to the original, but they’re just too good not to repeat)

      Cold. Dead. Hands.

  39. If this happened in Utah I suppose we’d have to change our state gun from the 1911 to something single shot? Maybe a tc encore or something similar? Hahaha

  41. Glad you guys removed my other comment from the first day , it was uncalled for and in poor taste , thanks editors , I sometimes need editing in life , in general . Wish you were here more often .
    God bless !

Comments are closed.