As Twitchy reported, Sen. Dianne Feinstein admitted today that the Democrats’ ultimate goal is to “dry up the supply of weapons,” Second Amendment be damned. Sen. Dick Durbin followed up on that statement with another one just as vile:

Call us crazy, Senator, but last time we checked, the Second Amendment was part of the Constitution. We the people have a right to defend ourselves.

Indeed.

Seems to us that Sen. Durbin and the Democrats are the ones experiencing the issues with conscience. How else to explain their rabid desire to thwart our constitutional rights?

  • Peyton

    If the Republicans can capitalize on this, it might be the move that wins the senate back.

    • MotherGoos3

      You’re dreaming. My RINOs are perfect examples of how the Repubs have abandoned their principles – both of them will probably vote for gun control

      • $29561723

        True. Northeastern Republicans are nothing but useless lumps of imitation crabmeat.Chris Christie, Peter King, Scott Brown, etc. etc. Worthless.

    • leftwingthom

      Yeah too bad republicans screw up EVERYTHING. 😀

      • WisconsinPatriot

        AWWWWW, bless your heart.

      • J.N. Ashby

        Such as?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Marcy-Cook/1001619613 Marcy Cook

    Well Durbin baby it is unconscionable that you are trying to take away our constitutional rights.

  • Steve_J

    If the Second Amendment isn’t an issue of the Constituion then neither is the First or any of the rest. Why doesn’t Durbin go for a walking tour of Chicago?

    • JeffDeWitt

      Without his armed guards!

    • GaryTheBrave

      “Why doesn’t Durbin go for a walking tour of Chicago?”

      At night.

      • Steve_J

        Even better.

    • 1SkepticalChick

      Carrying a purse or briefcase.

    • 1SkepticalChick

      Carrying a purse or briefcase.

    • Ken Alan Draper

      may I suggest the South Side?

  • pairadimes

    In an earlier era in this country, Democrats and Republicans alike would have widely regarded people like Durbin and Feinstein as traitors, eager to overturn the Constitution in favor of advancing government control over American citizens. Today, our moral ambiguity and media-stoked fears permit these demagogues to threaten our freedoms, while the low information voters shout ‘Yeah!’ from the comfort of their SNAP-funded Cheetos bags. This is a recipe for disaster.

  • Mike Miller

    He wasn’t quoted as saying it “wasn’t an issue of the Constitution,” but that “This isn’t *just* a matter of the Constitution” (my asterisks). In other words, he is admitting that it’s a Constitutional issue, but he wants to take it beyond that, which is foolish.

    • Cold War Grunt

      The problem is that it is just a matter of the constitution, at least until the 2nd amendment is repealed. And, let me wish you good luck with that …
      Law trumps feelings, every day of the week.

  • carla5731

    In Durbin’s defense, he also thought illegal immigrants could become president so the Constitution really isn’t his strong suit.

  • Kevin Krom

    I’d like to remind these dolts that trashing the Constitution means they’re also shredding the basis for any authority and power that they have. If they break the contract, we don’t have to uphold our end.

    • carla5731

      Yep. They’re undermining their own authority but aren’t smart enough to realize it because they don’t understand the mechanics of the law.

      • Garth Haycock

        I think they do understand. They’re just relying on the fact that far too many citizens don’t understand the mechanics of the law.

      • Mapache

        They understand, they just don’t care!

        • carla5731

          It’s our job to make them care. I tell everyone who supports amnesty for illegal immigrants that if the federal government believes their laws are just a suggestion, then I will treat them that way too. Following the illegals’ lead, I should be able to do whatever is necessary to secure the health and well-being of my family regardless of federal legislation. If enough people adopt this perspective, the government can no longer effectively administrate the law. It’s worked before (prohibition is an example) and can work again.

      • Mapache

        They understand, they just don’t care!

    • JINNASH

      Bingo

  • LibertysSon

    It’s not that our Liberal friends don’t know anything. It’s just so much of what they know just isn’t true.

    • Garth Haycock

      Thumbs up for a Mark Twain reference.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Thomas-Collins/100000220517250 Thomas Collins

      …credit RR

  • therantinggeek

    Cue the posts from the Left to defend Sens. Durbin and Feinstein in 5, 4, 3…

    • Garth Haycock

      Let ’em try. It’s indefensible.

  • Larry C.

    I have voted fot Senator Durbin in the past. That may come to an end. I will be calling his office as well as Mark Kirk.

  • larry

    Sen. Durbin shows that he is one ignorant human being. This says volumes about the people who vote for this loser!

  • ceemack

    As if Dick Durbin would know anything about “conscience”.

  • xsnipe

    It is about the constitution, it is about the rights of individuals… it is about individual freedom and liberty in this country… it is about self defense from a tyrannical government or a perpetrator from causing us harm. Sporting use and hunting are secondary to the founders’ intent.

    The hypocrisy of the pro assault weapon ban supporters never ceases to amaze me… in United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of a lower court that found Miller guilty of possession and interstate transport of a sawed-off shotgun finding that it was “not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” Now, the pro assault weapon ban supporters want to ban weapons and ammunition delivery devices that too closely resemble their military counterpart. This begs the question of which are we allowed under the second amendment… weapons that are part of ordinary military equipment or those that are not? Apparently it doesn’t matter to the elitists or they are ignorant of the facts and case law surrounding the issue… my suspicion would be the latter.

    Supporters of this pending assault weapon ban legislation have argued that we have law enforcement agencies and their related infrastructure to protect us from those who would do us harm. They either fail to consider or do not know that in Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), it was held that “a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.” This case was cited as part of the 112th Congress in H. R. 2252 (June 21, 2011). Yet the assault weapon ban supporters believe that it is perfectly acceptable to allow citizens to become the prey of these scofflaws without the means to protect and defend themselves, their families or property. No offense to any law enforcement professional or agency, but police work is more often than not reactive to a given situation or crime.

    Our elitist leaders have no desire to understand or become educated on the intent, content or context of the Second Amendment because they know their beliefs and philosophies will not stand up under the information garnered from such an endeavor.

  • StormsOfAugust

    Dick Dick Dick….you’ve lost your head!!!

  • $35072932

    What’s wrong Dick?

    People not buying the arbitrarily defined “Assault Weapon” Shtick?

    They are also realizing the purpose of the Constitution and the 2nd amendment is a barrier against tyranny.
    (You’ll notice they don’t have any good answers on those two issues).

    Why don’t you just be honest with us all and come out of the closet as being Pro-tyranny.

    http://i816.photobucket.com/albums/zz81/frnullandvoid/Confiscation.png

    • leftwingthom

      So it appears we’re in a no-win situation here. We tighten gun laws, and that makes us a “dictatorship”. On the other hand, we let people run amok with guns and more innocent children get killed. And you’re all OK with this? I thought you people were pro-life.

      • Zanshi

        Of course you would say that. You don’t want to hold yourself personally responsible for the consequences of being a moron!

      • sixbravothree

        If you weren’t too busy teaching five year olds to put condoms on bananas you’d realize that you signed on to protect those kids when you mandated that the state teach them instead of their parents. How you do it doesn’t matter to me,that’s your problem,but you ain’t doing it by taking away MY means of protecting my children, and that’s a fact.

        Ever hear of the Indian monkey trap? Indians put a tasty betel nut in a box with a little hole big enough for a monkey to stick his paw in,but not big enough to retract it with the nut in his hand. Stupid monkey sits there all day without turning loose of the nut.

        That’s you.

        You grabbed up as much stuff as you could from the rest of us,you thieving imbeciles, now you’re whining because you can’t carry or protect your ill-gotten gains.

        Drop the nut, you stupid monkey. Protecting our children is our job in the first place,not yours. Get out of our way and WE’LL do the job that you incompetent limp-***k a-holes can’t,won’t,or just want to whine about doing until we give you more of our stuff and rights that you have no right to.

        Here’s what I’m ok with. I’m ok with the fact that self-preservation and personal safety,naturally, falls on each individual alone, or on their family and friends when they are too young,too old, or physically unable to do that job. That responsibility does not, and SHOULD not, accrue to the wider society because when 1 person is responsible for the safety of not only himself but two or more other individuals who are physically capable of looking after themselves but refuse to out of cowardice or laziness or stupidity ,society as a whole is LESS safe,not more.

        You keep trying to put it off on us that people are getting hurt and killed. You’re the ones who are transferring the responsibility of your personal safety off onto others,thereby ensuring that there aren’t enough cops to protect every person who might be in danger. Now you’re trying to limit the amount of law-abiding citizens who could help too by taking their guns away. If you were on top of your own safety, maybe you’d be in a position to protect someone else,like a child who can’t defend himself, too.Not that you would. You’re a coward, which is why you don’t want to be responsible for yourself in the first place.

        100 years ago, AN OLD WOMAN would be embarrassed to admit that she had to call the cops to protect her from some two-bit hoods. You’re, presumably, a grown man, I feel embarrassed on your behalf.

      • therantinggeek

        Of course we’re in a no-win situation. Tighten gun control laws, and it’s almost a safe bet the only ones left with firearms are the military, law enforcement officials, and of course, the criminals. Oh wait, I nearly forgot. Unless the UK has completely changed things, only their military are allowed to possess *any* type of firearm. A constable? Nope. The UK has stricter gun control laws on the books compared to the US, and look at THEIR murder rate.

        Didn’t the City of Chicago try something similar? Care to look up what the murder rate is there?

        On the other hand, your argument of “people running amok with guns” is a bit of a stretch. You’d be surprised at how many people are actually law-abiding citizens, compared to the genuine nutcases out there whom are hell-bent on causing pain and destruction in our society. And, for the record, I fall into that “pro-life” category you tried to make fun of. I’m also “pro-choice”, as in I have a choice on whether or not if I want to defend the lives of my family from those whom would seek to harm them. It’s a real simple “choice”. Pointing the business end of a high-powered rifle or shotgun at someone who invades my home – or trespasses on my property – or threatens my family – tends to send a real strong message.

  • dennylee60

    We should start using the same standard to the press and abortion.

  • Txgirlinnh

    It has everything to do with the constitution you dolt.

  • http://profiles.google.com/sanddog Ms Anonymous

    You’ve got to love it when progressives demonstrate exactly why we have a 2nd amendment right that prohibits the government from disarming the citizens.

  • leftwingthom

    I think you all took what he said out of context. He wasn’t saying it’s not an issue of the Constitution as in the 2nd Amendment isn’t important, he was saying that we can’t use that as our only excuse for turning the other way on gun violence. 2nd Amendment or no 2nd Amendment, something needs to be done about gun violence in this country. But unfortunately this is such a touchy subject with you people that if i even say the word “gun” in your presence you’ll probably tar and feather me.

    • sixbravothree

      “2nd Amendment or no 2nd Amendment, something needs to be done about gun violence in this country. ”

      Hey, as long as we’re ignoring Amendments in order to Do Something™ about gun violence,what say we tell black people that their 15th Amendment right to vote is getting chopped until they stop killing each other in those gang fights that add all those dreadful gun death numbers to the U.S. gun homicide rate?

      It’s just an archaic document that has no relevance in modern society, and besides this language is a little vague, don’t you think?

      “Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
      Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation”

      Still want to ignore Constitutional amendments?

      You’re aware that if it’s ok to deny gun owners their constitutional rights,you haven’t a leg to stand on when declaring that black people have the right to vote or hold office,correct? That document that you’re so keen on shredding is the only thing protecting your liberal ass FROM US. You’d better HOPE your fellow democrats become super-patriots real quick. I’m sure we can find a lib sacred ox or two to gore once constitutional protections become irrelevant to whether or not something can be done in this country.

  • Garth Haycock

    I wonder what part of “shall not be infringed” Durbin doesn’t understand.

  • walterc

    Since he sworn to uphold the Constitution and is blatantly subverting it, he should be impeached/recalled charged with failure to perform the job hired to do forthwith.

  • syvyn11

    What a Richard.

  • TomJB

    Durbin is obviously one of the mistaken who thinks the constitution gives us rights rather than limit those which the government will inevitably try to take away.

  • Lamontyoubigdummy

    …An issue of conscious, not just Constitution

    Well shit, Senator. Why didn’t you say so earlier?

    I’m just a dumb Texan, but if I understand your little “work around” (or “caveat”, as you might say) to The United States Constitution, surely you wouldn’t mind if a handful of us go on and suspend Habeas Corpus for a bit and hang us a passel of abortion doctors? [SPIT]

    It’s an issue of conscious, ya see. Last count is around 55 million unborn dead (give or take a few million). So as you can see…it’s also for the children.

  • Lamontyoubigdummy

    …An issue of conscious, not just Constitution

    Well shit, Senator. Why didn’t you say so earlier?

    I’m just a dumb Texan, but if I understand your little “work around” (or “caveat”, as you might say) to The United States Constitution, surely you wouldn’t mind if a handful of us go on and suspend Habeas Corpus for a bit and hang us a passel of abortion doctors? [SPIT]

    It’s an issue of conscious, ya see. Last count is around 55 million unborn dead (give or take a few million). So as you can see…it’s also for the children.

  • Klaus Flauten

    Don’t gang up on Durbin. Save some for his fellow Illinois Senator, Mark Kirk. I believe he is a rare Republican with a 0 from the NRA.

    http://blogs.suntimes.com/politics/2013/01/heres_how_us_lawmakers_from_illinois_stand_on_gun_control.html

  • Klaus Flauten

    Don’t gang up on Durbin. Save some for his fellow Illinois Senator, Mark Kirk. I believe he is a rare Republican with a 0 from the NRA.

    http://blogs.suntimes.com/politics/2013/01/heres_how_us_lawmakers_from_illinois_stand_on_gun_control.html

  • kbielefe

    Okay, then. How in good conscience can you support placing restrictions on law-abiding citizens that will have little to no effect on the criminals they are defending themselves from?

  • kbielefe

    Okay, then. How in good conscience can you support placing restrictions on law-abiding citizens that will have little to no effect on the criminals they are defending themselves from?

  • regmgr

    He’s from the state with 506 murders in it’s Largest gun controlled city. What else can you expect from an over educated low intelligence political hack.

  • regmgr

    He’s from the state with 506 murders in it’s Largest gun controlled city. What else can you expect from an over educated low intelligence political hack.

  • aebjr

    Actually this insider trading, azzhat is right (partially) for once. Except that the Constitution wholly, is over-arched , by Natural Rights!!

  • aebjr

    Actually this insider trading, azzhat is right (partially) for once. Except that the Constitution wholly, is over-arched , by Natural Rights!!

  • Joe W.

    If not us…WHO?? If not now…WHEN?? It is time for the American People to water the Tree of Liberty by exercising our 1st Amendment Privilege. Load ’em if you got ’em…

  • Joe W.

    If not us…WHO?? If not now…WHEN?? It is time for the American People to water the Tree of Liberty by exercising our 1st Amendment Privilege. Load ’em if you got ’em…

  • Mapache

    If it is an amendment in our Constitution and part of the Bill of Rights, I would think it has something to do with the Constitution. Of course what do I know? I am just a bitter clinger and Durbin is a Senator, a position established in the same Constitution. hmmm?

  • Mapache

    If it is an amendment in our Constitution and part of the Bill of Rights, I would think it has something to do with the Constitution. Of course what do I know? I am just a bitter clinger and Durbin is a Senator, a position established in the same Constitution. hmmm?

  • WVS

    A conservative in our current climate is like a middle-class father who has to explain to his young daughter why she isn’t getting a pony for Christmas. There are all these simplistic, idyllic, pie-in-the-sky visions on the left, and the guy stuck with shooting them down is always going to be unpopular.

    “Daddy, why can’t I have a pony?”
    “Why can’t we get rid of our guns and all just get along?”
    “Why can’t everyone have the same amount of stuff all the time?”
    “Why don’t we just make up with all those people who don’t like us?”
    “And why can’t I have a pony?!”

    The daughter can’t see anything but how pretty that stupid pony is. She can’t see that it’s far too expensive, and wants you to pay for it. She doesn’t understand why there are local rules against it, and wants to ignore them. She just doesn’t hear rational arguments, and when you make them, you’re the bad guy. You’re mean. You’re old-fashioned. But you know what? Until certain factions in our system grow out of idealism and accept reality, someone’s got to be the bad guy. So the GOP should accept being “the party of no”–because they’re saying no to some freaking horrible ideas! And this is one of them.

    • nc

      WVS, I love this. If the Repubs would just counter the endless “Party of No” attacks with, “Sometimes a loving parent must say no to a spoiled child,” it might help their image.

      • SJ’s Dad

        UP TIMES A BILLION!!!!!!!!!!

      • JINNASH

        Bingo. Spoiled brats deserve nothing.

    • Joe

      No pony? No biggie, she is promised more by someone else in her life daily. He will give her a free phone. Free birth control. You don’t need to know about it. She will be taught that you pollute the planet with your SUV and other use of ICE.

      Soon she will be told in school to write down somewhere if her parents have firearms in the house and how they are stored. You won’t need to know about that questioning either. When your young girl goes to her lady doctor he will also ask about firearms in the home and type in the answers on a keyboard directly connected to the IRS and HHS. You won’t need to know about those questions either.

      Want more?

  • WVS

    A conservative in our current climate is like a middle-class father who has to explain to his young daughter why she isn’t getting a pony for Christmas. There are all these simplistic, idyllic, pie-in-the-sky visions on the left, and the guy stuck with shooting them down is always going to be unpopular.

    “Daddy, why can’t I have a pony?”
    “Why can’t we get rid of our guns and all just get along?”
    “Why can’t everyone have the same amount of stuff all the time?”
    “Why don’t we just make up with all those people who don’t like us?”
    “And why can’t I have a pony?!”

    The daughter can’t see anything but how pretty that stupid pony is. She can’t see that it’s far too expensive, and wants you to pay for it. She doesn’t understand why there are local rules against it, and wants to ignore them. She just doesn’t hear rational arguments, and when you make them, you’re the bad guy. You’re mean. You’re old-fashioned. But you know what? Until certain factions in our system grow out of idealism and accept reality, someone’s got to be the bad guy. So the GOP should accept being “the party of no”–because they’re saying no to some freaking horrible ideas! And this is one of them.

  • Joe

    My feelings of exercising my natural right and obligation to change or abolish this form of government when it becomes destructive to its means, is growing since it is only constituted to PROTECT the rights in the document we created to create the government itself.

    Look at your own state Constitution as well as the Declaration of Independence.Here is MAryland’s

    DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.Article 1. That all
    Government of right originates from the People, is founded in compact
    only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole; and they have, at
    all times, the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their Form
    of Government in such manner as they may deem expedient.

    Notice, Article 1, not 10 or 47, ONE! here is the Declaration, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
    deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That
    whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is
    the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
    Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
    powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
    Safety and Happiness. “

    • SJ’s Dad

      Some of the greatest words ever written, but I REALLY love what It goes on to say;
      . . . but when a long train of ABUSES and USURPATIONS (ACA, executive privelege, F&F, no debt ceiling, Benghazi, . . . oh yeah . . . , and attempting to USURP the 2nd Amendment) pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, IT IS THEIR RIGHT, IT IS THEIR DUTY TO THROW-OFF SUCH GOVERNMENTS & to provide new guards for their future security!!!!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Thomas-Collins/100000220517250 Thomas Collins

    At least democrats are no longer pretending that they just have a different “interpretation”.

  • Todd Gehret

    Didn’t he swear an oath to the very same constitution?

    • http://twitter.com/LibertyRanger Liberty Ranger

      Same oath Fienstien shredded. Pitch-forks and torches are gathering for the march. I hear a tree calling for the blood of tyrants and patriots. but will anyone answer the call?

  • Wrightclick

    The Senate’s Wicked Witch of the West has spoken. May the House fall upon her.

    Our right to self preservation and protection pre-dates the Constitution and it is ABOVE Obama’s pay grade.

  • http://twitter.com/LibertyRanger Liberty Ranger

    .@SenatorDurbin: “2nd amendment is issue of conscience”? REALLY???? After your POTUS CRAPPED on Christians Conscience w/ #CondomCare? #TGDN

  • http://twitter.com/KALKAM71 KALKAM

    Nazis were able to exterminate so many people because they were not armed and couldn’t resist.

    He sides with Nazi policy….that’s the “matter of conscience” at hand. Progressives are the enemies of mankind…

  • Dick Beninya

    Traitor!

  • dunst43

    ATF should be a convenience store and not a government agency.

  • BeeKaaay

    Marxists have no working conscience. So how does Durbin know what a conscience is?

  • Mr. Fever Head

    FOR THE CHILDREN!11!!!

  • Goldenah

    Americans should vote for a politician once. Never re-elect these people. It would cure their arrogance overnight. We don’t need lifelong 30 plus year serving Senators or Representatives….