Conservative activist exposes left’s motivation behind universal background checks

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

Conservative activist Jason Mattera released a new video yesterday of a confrontation he had with Rep. Jan Schakowsky last month that is likely to have Second Amendment supporters outraged.

Before playing the clip, Glenn admitted there was some controversy around TheBlaze office about the video due to the nature of Mattera’s tactics. Jason, known for his ambush videos, pretended to be a “fan” of the congresswoman’s stance on “gun safety” causing her speak openly about her motives for universal background checks and gun control. Jason didn’t tell the congresswoman he was a reporter and taping their exchange, and it’s likely that if he had she would not have been so honest.

Jason approaches Schakowsky following a speech she had just given on gun control. Mattera does identifies himself, but tells Schakowsky that he “appreciated her remarks,” leader her to believe he shares her views.

Watch what happens after that…

After asking the congresswoman, “Is it time we have a serious conversation not just about assault rifles, but handguns as well?” and continues to emphasize that handguns are the leading mechanism for gun deaths, Schakowsky exposes her motives.

“That’s why we have universal background checks,” she says.

She goes on to emphasize that there is a current “moment of opportunity” with gun control and that she, along with her political allies, will continue to “push as hard as we can.”

Glenn noted Schakowsky’s admission that the left is not going to win the argument on handguns with the public, but pointed out that she emphasized “not now”.

“She says ‘at least not now’, so it shows that she is moving towards that,” he points out.

The fight over the Second Amendment is far from over.

  • landofaahs

    the servant is not above the master.  Politicians are public servants.  They should not receive any armed protection private or otherwise.  We the citizens should have more rights than the elitisit pols out there.  Now if the politicians job is too dangerous, then quit and go into another line of work.  Why do you politicians think you’re better than the rest of us?

  • http://www.artinphoenix.com/gallery/grimm snowleopard (cat folk gallery)

    This is the inevitable outcome of our having neglected to keep the politicians reigned in and held  to accounting for all their deeds and crimes. 

    The ultimate goal of the Democrats is to control the people and have power maintained by them in a one-party communist system by the disarming of the people, one step at a time or in one fell swoop if they see the opportunity arise.

  • http://www.artinphoenix.com/gallery/grimm snowleopard (cat folk gallery)

    Agreed, if the politicians do not accept the risks inherit in any leadership job, then they need to quit. 

    On the matter of private protection, I agree to this point – if THEY pay for it out of their own salaries or finances (no government subsidies) then let them have it as any private citizen can. Again, it would be up to them and not the citizens of the land, to provide for their own security.

  • http://www.artinphoenix.com/gallery/grimm snowleopard (cat folk gallery)

    Forgot to add – why do they think they are better than us (all of them to one degree or another)?

    Power is ultimately corrupting given enough time; Politicians demonstrate this with their ability to violate law after law after law and never be disciplined for it.

  • Anonymous

    I think they think they are better than us because they have political power, which they get from people like you and me. You are to blame here too. Now, one doesn’t quit a job because it is too dangerous, but because it is too safe… and boring. And that is commendable  We admire those who take risks. It’s in our nature. Then you say, we have more rights than elitists, well, that’s the kind of thing elitists think and say. We all should have the same rights. There is no absolute servants and masters, we all serve and we all are served by others. Give and take, pull and push, call it what you want, but we need to find it with the Government and its Politicians. Make it work. You know, for an old man you’re pretty naive. To think armed protection should only be granted to those outside the concentration of political power… there’d be murders and stuff. Maybe that’s what you are hoping for: an armed revolution to take them in power down.

  • http://youtu.be/0iRCvDwF26Q Sam Fisher

    Well that is not shocking not one bit. 

  • Anonymous

    This isn’t just a regular woman, this is a person who can vote something into action and she CLEARLY doesn’t even want handguns in the hands of the average citizen.  A bullet is a bullet and quite frankly a handgun is a thousand times easier to assassinate someone with than a rifle.  There is less kick to it and less collateral damage as well.  By the way, there is no such thing as an assault weapon.  If a gun sits in a case and does nothing it hasn’t assaulted anybody.  The universal background checks sounds like a very effective way of making sure Conservatives, Republicans, and Tea Party advocates can’t have a gun.  It also sounds like a good way of allowing anyone who opposes these people to get a gun without red tape involved.  All that would need to happen is for Obama to appoint a new czar to regulate the allocation of guns and ammunition to the citizens.  I give that one about two months.

  • Anonymous

    From my cold dead hands

  • Anonymous

    This has NOTHING to do with guns, it’s all about CONTROL!!!  Wake up America.

  • Anonymous

    I remember as a child my grandmother saying that in her country firearms were registered
    when the communists took over they went to the local police headquarters and got the registration book they went house to house and collected everyone’s gun….. NOT HERE NEVER!  Each person will have to weigh what they are willing to lose when it comes to their freedom…. How much do you value your freedom? Are you willing to submit? Or if it comes down  it resist? Think carefully on this……..

  • greywolfrs

    Gun Control means using both hands.
    This is people control, nothng more.

  • Draxx

    I agree with you snowleopard, they would not need security as much if they were actually doing what the People Want and Not Their Own Agendas That Hurt America…

  • Anonymous

    I agree that this young reporter should have identified himself as this situation did not warrant ambush journalism such as that used to show that Planned Parenthood was actively supporting the rape and virtual imprisonment of underage prostitutes. However, having said that, he got her to reveal something that is actually a very public secret-the universal registration laws that they claim are oh, so benign and well meaning are the key to them identifying who and what guns are out there and she admits that this tool will be the key to making the next step-gun confiscations. Yet, I would bet any amount of money that she would go on MSNBC tomorrow and deny the entire thing. MSNBC would turn it into a bash of conservatives and help her to poo poo the whole thing as typical conservative hysteria on the level of Sarah Palin’s apparent paranoia.

    But it just doesn’t get any clearer than this. If we ever give in, the left will NEVER, not EVER stop pushing. She acts like she’s depressed that the ridiculous 2nd amendment of an even more ridiculous document, the constitution, prohibits the government from just solving all our problems by taking away the one thing that protects us from them, while concomitantly failing to remove guns from the hands of criminals. What, they think that gun confiscation from criminals will be easier than the war on drugs? Who is that stupid? Well, it turns out that they are not stupid, just devious.

    Leftists cannot conceive of a world in which the government is not as thoroughly inculcated into the lives of average Americans as the typical rectal exam. They actually seem bewildered that anyone would value liberty over security and ask us to trust their bogus contention that gun laws stop gun violence.

    I agree with the Landofahhs and SnowLeopard on another point as well. If politicians are in so much danger that they need armed guardians around the clock paid for on our dime, yet they contend that we do not merit the same right, then that protection should be made to mirror exactly the position in which they would place, us, the people. They should have to hold a congressional vote for every security request and would have to demonstrate that they truly “need” security personnel with guns to defend them. Those politicians who cannot adequately demonstrate the required minimal number of credible death threats will not be granted security. After all, they say that nobody’s trying to kill us, and let’s face it, they’re WAY more boring than they think they are. Seriously, who’s ever heard of this woman? Because she’s basically a congressional “nobody”, she shouldn’t be granted security personnel with guns because nobody knows her anyway! I’ll even take it one step back just to be fair. How about we agree to pay for their security personnel on one condition…no guns. After all, they claim that all we have to do is call 911 and instantly, those wishing to do us harm would begin to tremble in fear as the police magically appear to take care of all of our protection needs, thus clearly obviating any rights we have in favor of changing security needs from the time when the 2nd amendment was penned.

    Their side will never stop. Their side cannot afford to let their true plan out there because this issue is so hot button right now that it could feasibly cost them their jobs if they were to clearly voice their intentions publicly. If we give in on even one gun “compromise”, it will never stop. It will be used as legal precedent to inflict the next violation of the constitution on us with neither due process, nor even the opportunity to voice an opinion on the subject, as liberals will simply urge Obama or any liberal politician to circumvent constitutional checks and balances in favor of a political movement that begins with the supplanting of freedom with a nanny state and ends with us defenseless to stop their relentless, evil, all consuming lust for power. We have to get into this fight with a fury that they have never seen before. If they think that we are dangerous now, try taking the guns. For a bunch of “radical peacemakers”, they sure seem willing to emplace laws that would justify violence in pursuit of what they see as a greater good.

  • landofaahs

    Only if I am allowd to be armed and able torotect myself. If I cannot then why should they.

  • landofaahs

    They are self-delusional in that they start to believ their own ad hype.

  • landofaahs

    I fail to see how I am at fault if I deny them the same right of protection they wish to deny me and others. I’m not naive, you are missing the sarcasm. They should not be protected if they deny me that same right. Look at Chicago where the law abiding get shot down. Me thinks you are the naive one.

  • Anonymous

    Has anyone out there heard that the army is selecting sites to start a new civilian drone program. Seems like one more step to dictatorship 

  • Anonymous

    Has anyone out there heard that the army is selecting sites to start a new civilian drone program. Seems like one more step to dictatorship 

  • http://www.facebook.com/angela.rich.313 Angela Rich

    Name one incident that happened in the last “10 yrs that has happened on a massive scale”., that has involved a law abiding citizen with a permit for a gun. These crimes are committed by unstable youths getting there hands on guns, by other means. We must ask ourselves why and how they get there guns. They get them by unlawful means and use them to create mass hysteria. The street guns is what we should be going after. The illegal guns on the street brought in by crimanals to further there agenda. That is what we should be talking about. The illegal guns, but the goverment knows that is impossible so they are seeking to go after law abiding gun owners to appear they are doing something to get the guns off the street. Its a false naritive. Ask yourselves, why do they (the goverment) want the guns? They want the guns because guns give the people power, power to oppose the goverment when they overreach. That was the purpose of our founding fathers. The people have a right to bare arms to take up against the goverment becoming all to powerful.   

  • http://www.facebook.com/angela.rich.313 Angela Rich

    We should be talking about our broken mental health system. Not the legal guns.

  • Matt Driscoll

    Oh I know I am better than you. I have friends, and a significant other, and a job, and a strong, loving family, and a social life, and a healthy body, and healthy hobbies. I don’t think you can say the same for yourself.

  • Anonymous

    Good factual post. We don’t need more laws. There are so many laws on the books at both federal and state levels regarding illegal firearms that adding more would have the unwanted effect of diminishing the ability of prosecutors to bring charges because it gives too many options after the fact and often gun charges are simply dismissed through plea bargaining. Every single law that these politicians are arguing to emplace are laws that would not affect the flow of guns into the hands of criminals one bit. Their sources are not gun stores. They purchase the weapons illegally through other sources. Just ask the Obama administration. They know all about those pipelines since they were the ones supplying military grade weapons to drug cartels in Mexico. As this lady’s statements clearly show, it is the purpose of those who are making laws to remove weapons from the hands of the law abiding Americans. It makes them much more bold and aggressive when it comes to making laws that violate the rights of their fellow citizens in order to consolidate power outside of constitutional boundaries. These laws will only be obeyed by the law abiding. Should they attempt to use them, as she states, to remove weapons from private citizens, at that point, I’ll become the criminal because I’ll not be giving up my rights even if the majority of the fools in this nation want to give their own away.

  • Anonymous

    Matt, don’t forget to add, narcissistic personality disorder, towering egoism, poor genetic material, low IQ. In those categories, I WOULD agree that you have SnowLeopard beat hands down.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_X2NAPSXIXUJPOPPGU6CXVFQFLA Snorri Sturluson

    No surprise. Somehow the image of Janet Napolitano is an SS uniform is frightening in more ways than one. However, for some in the Congress such an image seem justified.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=696080297 Lee Marshall Gibson

    Im guessing your significant other is of the same sex.

  • greywolfrs

    Yeah, that Janet dude would look good in an SS uniform.

  • greywolfrs

    Finestupidity isn’t the brightest bulb in the box.

  • Anonymous

    Materra is a racist, sexist little rat. 
    His “facts” of course are total bullsh**.
    But this doesn’t matter to the 1/2 million brain dead Beck fans.

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.com/cnaff79