Image 01 Image 03

DNC Platform Committee Member Doesn’t Think Anyone Should Own a Gun

DNC Platform Committee Member Doesn’t Think Anyone Should Own a Gun

“Nothing is ever solved when you have a gun in your hand.”

Bonnie Schaefer, a member of the Democratic Party’s platform committee, recently said that, in her opinion, no one should own a gun. As you absorb this story, bear in mind that her statement wasn’t caught on a hidden camera. This was said plainly and openly as if she was opining on her favorite kind of music.

Aaron Kliegman reported at the Washington Free Beacon:

DNC Platform Committee Member Doesn’t Think ‘Anyone Should Have a Gun’

A member of the Democratic National Committee’s Platform Committee said at a planning event Wednesday that she does not believe anyone in the United States should own a gun.

“I really don’t personally think anyone should have a gun,” Bonnie Schaefer, former Claire’s Stores CEO and North Carolina resort and spa owner, said. “I mean that’s just my own philosophy.”

Schaefer proceeded to argue that nothing good can come from having guns available to the public.

“Nothing is ever solved when you have a gun in your hand, except the worst possible scenario,” she added.

Schaefer’s comments came during a discussion about gun violence in relation to the Democratic Party’s 2016 platform at the Mid-Atlantic Democratic Platform Forum in Washington, D.C.

Watch the video:

One has to wonder if Ms. Schaefer’s opinion extends to the Secret Service members who routinely protect politicians while armed with guns or the armed guards who protect the Democratic Party’s many celebrity donors.

While we’re on the subject, let’s not discount the position of the presumptive Democratic nominee.

John R. Lott writes at FOX News:

Four ways Hillary Clinton will work to end gun ownership as president

On Sunday, Hillary Clinton just couldn’t bring herself to say on ABC’s “This Week” that Americans have an individual right to own guns. But it didn’t stop her from denying Donald Trump’s claim that she wants to abolish the Second Amendment. Clinton accused Trump of making “outright fabrications, accusing me of something that is absolutely untrue.”

From changing the Supreme Court to make it possible to again ban guns in the United States to making it more costly to own guns, I predict that a President Hillary Clinton will do four things to either ban guns or at least reduce gun ownership, especially for poor people:

1. Sunday, George Stephanopoulos pushed Clinton twice on whether people have a right to own guns on ABC News’ “This Week”: “But that’s not what I asked. I said do you believe that their conclusion that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right?” Clinton could only say: “If it is a constitutional right…”

But to anyone familiar with the Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment, Clinton clearly indicated that she would appoint Supreme Court Justices who will allow gun bans.

Do read the whole thing.

Hillary may not be able to abolish the Second Amendment, but she can make it near to impossible for average Americans to buy and own guns.

Featured image via YouTube.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Sure, Lady…show us how it’s done and have your armed security disarm first.

Prove it works and maybe we will consider it.

inspectorudy | June 9, 2016 at 5:21 pm

There are two morons in this article. One the bimbo on the DNC platform committee and of course, hillary. If either one had a magic wand that would do away with all guns with one sweep of it, they would make all guns disappear instantly. The problem for their way of thinking, “No one has a gun”, is that is impossible to ever verify that all guns are gone. As long as one evil person owns a gun then every citizen is at risk. The second thing this shows is that hillary has zero respect for the SCOTUS. Just like with obama it is only a nuisance that can be overcome with activist judges. Liberals do not see this as a flaw but a sign of leadership.

    rabidfox in reply to inspectorudy. | June 9, 2016 at 6:40 pm

    Like Mexico couldn’t do a reverse Fast and Furious to arm their invasion force (illegal Mexicans).

    Milhouse in reply to inspectorudy. | June 10, 2016 at 3:05 pm

    The problem for their way of thinking, “No one has a gun”, is that is impossible to ever verify that all guns are gone. As long as one evil person owns a gun then every citizen is at risk.

    I’m afraid you’ve fallen into a fallacy too. While it’s true that we could never stop bad guys from having guns, even if we could, we shouldn’t. A world with guns, even if some of them are in the wrong hands, is better than a world without any guns at all. If we could destroy every gun in the world, and make sure none are ever made again, it would be a terrible idea, because guns, in the hands of decent people, make the world a safer place. Of course ideally only decent people would have access to guns, and bad people wouldn’t, but unfortunately that’s impossible to achieve. The price of good people having guns is that, however hard we try to prevent it, some bad people will have them as well, and that price is worth paying.

    The key to your fallacy (and it is a common one) is the unconscious assumption that no guns = no crime. But of course to state that is to refute it. In a world without guns criminals would prey on people with other weapons, or with their bare hands, and those people would need to defend themselves — and guns are the best defense. Guns are more useful as defensive weapons than as offensive ones.

    The main reason for this is that criminals as a class tend to be fit and strong, while victims as a class tend to be unfit and weak. That’s because criminals choose themselves, and also choose their victims, not the other way around.

“Nothing is ever solved when you have a gun in your hand.”

Except, of course, it provides credible support to the following statements:
No, I don’t want you to rape me.
I would prefer to keep my car/wallet/rings please.
Yes, that is a large knife, but I would like you to go away now.
Stay out of my house.

    DaveGinOly in reply to georgfelis. | June 9, 2016 at 9:22 pm

    Let’s make Ms. Schaefer the star of a thought experiment!

    Sweeping gun control is passed. All guns are confiscated. And it works; even criminals can’t get guns.

    Some months later, Ms. Schaefer is walking through a deserted parking facility late at night after working overtime at the office. She’s confronted by three hoodlums (they’ve learned there’s safety in numbers when they don’t have guns) brandishing rather large knives. Does she feel safe because they don’t have guns? Glad that the government took guns away from everyone? What do you think her last thought is more likely to be – “I’m glad they don’t have guns,” or “Wish I had a gun”?

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Xenomethean | June 9, 2016 at 5:57 pm

They must first disarm the people in order to control them. They know nothing of guns and they only believe in science and numbers when it favors them. An armed society has less crime. A gun-controlled society has lots of crime, example: Chicago, Detroit, and California. Since when do criminals follow the law to get a gun? They don’t, gun control only works on law abiding citizens. We need to protect ourselves but the Left takes self-defense as a threat to their existence, it is because they need more victims to tell their lies to to get more votes. Who in their right mind would give up their only means of self-defense because someone on capital hill said so? How are they going to enforce theses laws without potential loses to law enforcement? The Left thinks that their demented world view is perfect but it is not and they refuse to let go of it and accept reality for what it truly is.

I can think of nothing…no single thing…that would more surely bring about a revolt.

Even if it was what Glenn Reynolds calls “middle-class anarchy”, or what some call “Irish democracy”.

I know in Texas, that dog won’t hunt.

Hundred of thousands of young men,with guns defeated Germany in 1945. If not for them, we would be speaking German and about 75 years into a thousand years Reich!

    DaveGinOly in reply to Romey. | June 9, 2016 at 9:48 pm

    Obama is lifting the arms embargo on Vietnam. Guess he has ill will towards them and expects that shortly after receiving US arms they’ll all kill themselves with them.

The California legislature just passed a law to exempt legislatures from gun laws, including concealed carry. The mind of the liberal.

    4fun in reply to puhiawa. | June 9, 2016 at 6:37 pm

    The California state Senate voted 28-8 Wednesday to exempt itself from the pointless gun-control laws that apply to the rest of the populace. Legislators apparently think they alone are worthy to pack heat on the streets for personal protection, and the masses ought to wait until the police arrive.

    This is just one of many bills Golden State politicians used this legislative session to set themselves apart from the little people, the ones who pay their inflated salaries. Annual compensation for legislators averages about $140,000, not counting luxurious perks such as taxpayer-funded cars and free gasoline. By comparison, the average Californian earns $50,000 a year, and the unemployment rate is 11.9 percent – far above the national average. Exact salaries for state assemblymen and senators are obscured by the use of a “per diem” payment scheme that shelters a significant chunk of income from taxation.

      DaveGinOly in reply to 4fun. | June 9, 2016 at 9:51 pm

      They’ve effectively granted themselves a “title of nobility.” What is the nobility but a class of people who have government-sanctioned rights and privileges that aren’t available to the common people?

      Where the Constitution bars “titles of nobility,” it bars the establishment of such a class, and not merely the titles that go with it.


No one should own “a gun.”

Most of us own 8 or more.

    Ragspierre in reply to Andy. | June 9, 2016 at 7:15 pm

    All my guns were tragically stolen.

    Really. Terrible loss…

      That horrible canoe accident… The cleaning kit? I keep that for sentimental value.

        Arminius in reply to Rusty Bill. | June 9, 2016 at 10:44 pm

        That cleaning kit is no laughing matter. There are parts of the Philippines where every Pinoy owns an illegal gun. It is always an AK. It has to be because no one has any proper cleaning or maintenance supplies. Nor would they touch them if they were available.

        They call the M-16 the Armalite in the P.I. They concede it may have some advantages. As long as you’re a rich American or a member of an armed forces unit with a supply of adequate cleaning and maintenance supplies to keep the delicate thing in working order.

        But if you’re hiding the fact you have an illegal weapon you can’t tip your hand to the cops that you have one by using the right stuff even if you can find it. An AK will keep running with an occasional wipedown with tranny fluid, motor oil, liquid wrench, whatever you have on hand that will not attract police or police informant attention.

        Besides, there are children to feed.

        I’ve thought about my time in the third world a lot during the Obama years. There are a lot of lessons to be learned from the many good people who suffer and endure there.

          Sian in reply to Arminius. | June 9, 2016 at 11:13 pm

          The “Armalite’ in its current form isn’t so finicky and requires little maintenance. A little motor oil, a stick, a scrap of t-shirt, you’ll do just fine.

“Nothing is ever solved when you have a gun in your hand, except the worst possible scenario,” she added.

The “worst possible scenario” is just what you will encounter in parts of Chicago.

The “worst possible scenario” is just what you will encounter when Ruling Class tyranny decides for you.

The “worst possible scenario” is just what you will encounter when Ruling Class hubris says the Constitution is not for you, that what you value is stupid and worthless.

The “worst possible scenario” for the DNC: our civil disobedience.

    So nobody should own a gun unless they ‘need’ one, according to her. Sounds fair. Whenever I need one, I go out and get one. I’m certain if she needs one, she’ll go buy one too. Where I object is when she defines ‘need’ for anybody but herself.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go finish off the last of the strawberries in the fridge. Wonderful thing, need.

Wow, she’s so wrong in so many ways.

Ignorant or willfully ignorant?

The data is clear that having a gun in your hand gives you options you don’t have when you only have air in your hand.

The only reason someone wants to take your gun from you is to gain a power over you that they wouldn’t have otherwise. Be it criminal or tyrant, their desire is exactly the same.

    Sanddog in reply to profshadow. | June 9, 2016 at 8:14 pm

    I’m leaning towards evil myself. Any person who wants total control over the populace can’t be trusted with even the slightest bit of power.

    DaveGinOly in reply to profshadow. | June 9, 2016 at 9:53 pm

    In a situation like this, “willfully ignorant” is practically indistinguishable from malicious.

“Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.” – Oleg Volk

Nothing is ever solved when you have a gun in your hand.

That’s why police and the military don’t carry them.

    DaveGinOly in reply to malclave. | June 9, 2016 at 10:01 pm

    Everyone knows that there are few problems that can’t be solved by the judicious use of a little C4. Beats guns hands down.

      Heh. I’ve been saying that for decades: “There is no problem in the course of human experience that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives.”

I’m glad the left is finally upfront about the whole idea that rights are granted by government to the masses and they can be taken away if they can get some political hack on the court to claim that the plain language of the constitution is vague and uncertain.

It just makes things easier when their totalitarian impulses are on full display.

I think it’s time for a divorce. All the States should tell the Fed’s to get bent. We’ll keep our tax money and our safety.

    DaveGinOly in reply to redbirdacres. | June 9, 2016 at 10:07 pm

    That is how the US will break up, or at least be diminished. Sooner or later, one state or another will takes its ball and go home. There won’t be any shooting; federal authorities will be politely invited to leave, failing that they will simply be ignored. There will be negotiations over the surrender of federal enclaves withing the former state. During those negotiations, the US government will be permitted to feed and support its personnel within those enclaves (some of them military bases), but will not be allowed to reinforce them or supply them with additional weapons, ammunitions, or fuels (the latter except as absolutely necessary for the survival of the people in the enclave).

    After the first state goes, others will be emboldened to follow. Some will leave in blocks that will re-constitute themselves as new nations, and they will enter into alliances and treaties with those former states that left the union before them.

    It will happen.

But on the last day he seemed to be trying to find out what we had learned. One girl told him bluntly: “My mother says that violence never settles anything.”

“So?” Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. “I’m sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn’t your mother tell them so? Or why don’t you?”

They had tangled before — since you couldn’t flunk the course, it wasn’t necessary to keep Mr. Dubois buttered up. She said shrilly, “You’re making fun of me! Everybody knows that Carthage was destroyed!”

“You seemed to be unaware of it,” he said grimly. “Since you do know it, wouldn’t you say that violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly? However, I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea — a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that ‘violence never settles anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.”

– Starship Troopers, Robert A. Heinlein

    openeyes in reply to Rusty Bill. | June 10, 2016 at 4:22 am

    Truly classic!
    That book should be read by every teenager. I wouldn’t make it a high school requirement because that would give the BoE a chance to twist it’s message (like the movie did).

nordic_prince | June 9, 2016 at 9:01 pm

In my opinion, no liberal progressive should ever hold public office, seeing as how they are mentally deficient, unstable, and incompetent. Nothing good can come from having liberal progressives in public office. Nothing is ever solved when you have a liberal progressive in public office, except the worst possible scenario.

So there, Ms. Schaeffer. And I bet there are more people who agree with me than with you ~

First, they disarmed the babies, and the “good Americans” approved the rite.

kimberwarrior45 | June 10, 2016 at 4:52 am

Let me translate her quote “Nothing is ever solved when you have the ability to resist what I want you to do” for your and society’s good of course.

* SIGH* … Folks I think it is long past time to devide the nation at the Mississippi … Give the left everything East of it and then allow natural selection to run its course… I suspect it wont be very long before the liberal’s go the way of the big lizards much more quickly however as it seems they seem to choose that path that quickens their journey into the fossil record