IL Dem Proposes Ban on Guns for Kids, Cartoon Mascots

Gunfade

As we learned with TTAG’s reader survey, the vast majority of gun owners take their first shots before the age of 11. Passing down the wonders of shooting sports from one generation to the next is a cherished American tradition, and can lead to a lifelong passion for firearms and the fun and freedom that comes with them. As always seems the case, this is a phenomenon that’s totally foreign to most Democrats. For them, guns are inherently evil and scary…why would anyone ever want to take a child shooting? So this past week, a Democrat — Rep. Robin Kelly from Illinois, to be exact — introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to ban guns designed specifically for children, gun-related clothing for children, and cartoon mascots for gun companies. For the children . . .

The proposed bill, entitled the “Children’s Firearm Marketing Safety Act,” includes the following provisions regarding the marketing and sales of firearms:

(1) A prohibition on the use of cartoon characters to promote firearms and firearm products.

(2) A prohibition on firearm brand name merchandise marketed for children (such as hats, t-shirts, and stuffed animals).

(3) A prohibition on the use of firearm marketing campaigns with the specific intent to appeal to children.

(4) A prohibition on the manufacturing of a gun with colors or designs that are specifically designed with the purpose to appeal to children.

(5) A prohibition on the manufacturing of a gun intended for use by children that does not clearly and conspicuously note the risk posed by the firearm by labeling somewhere visible on the firearm any of the following:
(A) ‘‘Real gun, not a toy.’’.
(B) ‘‘Actual firearm the use of which may result in death or serious bodily injury.’’.
(C) ‘‘Dangerous weapon’’.
(D) Other similar language determined by the Federal Trade Commission.

On the surface, it seems like more of the same “protect the children at all costs!” claptrap that we’ve seen for years. To Democrats, guns are lethal instruments of evil that turn normal citizens into spree killers at the slightest touch, and just like nuclear waste they need to be kept as for away from our progeny as possible.

But there’s a darker, more devious reason for the push to make teaching children how to shoot illegal; killing off the gun culture at its roots. If parents aren’t able to make shooting fun and enjoyable for their kids, there’s less chance those kids will grow up to become the next generation of gun rights advocates.

As Robert is wont to say, culture eats strategy for lunch. Gun rights is winning because of the thriving and expanding gun culture in the United States. It looks like Robin Kelly might be intelligent enough to have figured that out, and may be trying to strike a blow in order to strangle it at its source rather than fighting it face-to-face.

Thankfully, this will never see the light of day in the Republican-controlled house.

comments

  1. avatar Alpo says:

    ::Expletive!::

    ::Ad hominem::

    1. avatar B says:

      Not teaching kids that guns aren’t toys are why you get tragedy’s involving kids finding guns. Dem efforts to stop school gun familiarization programs like Eddie the Eagle and shooting programs get children killed. And I think they know that.

      1. avatar Roscoe says:

        And if kids don’t have opportunities to learn gun safety, they’re more likely to inadvertantly hurt themselves if and when they do handle a gun; more reason for the antis to claim “See, guns must be banned and confiscated”…”for the children”.

      2. avatar Jon says:

        I would say that’s true, since kids will touch anything they can get their hands on. Since parents don’t want their kids to grow up around violence they don’t teach them about things like death, killing, and guns. They don’t teach them what a potentially dangerous thing a gun is. So those kids can end up in a situation where they could possibly pull the trigger on a gun, because they’re curious and don’t listen to people half the time when they say “Don’t go in there” or “don’t touch that.” They need to be taught what a gun is, and why it’s dangerous and they should never touch it. They need to be taught what death is. They should be taught that if they touch it that they could kill someone, and not even god could bring them back to life.

    2. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      Having a go at 1st amendment and second amendment freedoms, and all in one bill. Bravo, Rep. Kelly. You are doing the DNC proud.

  2. avatar DJ9 says:

    Taking a page out of the anti-smoking campaign handbook; that’s how they’ll sell it.

    I don’t smoke, nor do I like smoking, but I told folks that if the anti-smoking game plan was successful, the same tactics would later be used in other areas like guns.

    Now we see that Joe Camel = Elmer Fudd in the ani-gunners’ eyes.

    1. avatar Anon in CT says:

      Although I think the anti-smoking Jihad has been insanely overblown, there is a big difference.

      Smoking done right significantly increases your chances of dying earlier from a smoking-related illness.

      Shooting done right is perfectly safe. Shooting done wrong does carry some risk.

      1. avatar DJ9 says:

        Anon in CT, I agree with your basic premise, but I think you’re missing the big point here.

        For those misguided/stupid/evil folks on the other side of the gun-control/gun-safety argument, there is NO SUCH THING as “Shooting done right”; that’s only for rational folks, and on this subject, they most assuredly aren’t rational.

        Look for them to press this issue — hard.

        1. avatar Tex300BLK says:

          More precisely, for the Anti’s… shooting done right involves a stack of dead bodies.

          Our conceived notion of correct shooting is seen is naive fetishism, or curious obsession and trying to look like something we aren’t. Kind of like people who walk around with a lit cigarette in their mouth but only puffing on it to create the appearance of smoking.

          I still think the anti smoking thing is overplayed. I live in a “clean air” city and we have a smoking ban in all bars or within a certain distance of an open door of a business and other nonsense. Yet every time I go out I have to fight through plumes of cigarette smoke in the bar, people lighting up everywhere (I assume because through some loophole bars are exempted or something (I honestly think the way they try to enforce it is by saying bars cant have ashtrays or something equally asinine). Its not just isolated, I see droves of young people smoking all over the place. So if the goal was eliminating smoking at its roots, they are failing miserably.

      2. avatar Rokurota says:

        I hate smoking. I hate cigarettes. They smell bad, they gum up the air, they give you cancer. But by banning tobacco products for the likely majority of smokers who puff themselves to death, we take cigars, pipes and cigarettes for those who enjoy the occasional smoke. To me, it matters little if something is dangerous — alcohol, sugars, and fats can kill you just as dead if you consume a pack of them a day. Unless something poses a clear, consistent and immediate hazard to public health, bans are a fool’s errand.

  3. avatar Deadeye says:

    The slow march into darkness continues.

  4. avatar former water walker says:

    Yikes…This is MY congressgal. Bought & paid for the midget billionaire bloomie. As in $2000000. I do believe IT is WORSE than the incarcerated Jesse Jackson Jr. Or dumber. And how do you POlice the internet or the Illinois border. Duhhhh…

    1. avatar Avid Reader says:

      Speaking of which, mine was Danny Davis for a while. Then I moved and got Diana DeGette. I moved again and got Jared Polis.

      I really need to think about where I go next time. . .

      1. avatar Coloradogunowner says:

        Actually Jared Polis is pro gunowner rights… he was one of the few Dems to come out against all the nutty state stuff

        http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_22480671/richard-detsch-assault-weapons-does-not-infringe-rights

    2. avatar bontai Joe says:

      “bought and paid for”….. hmmmmmm, I think there is a word for that, but I won’t say it here.

      1. avatar Marcus says:

        Bought and paid for. Literally. On record. You name it.

        ^ 100 points to whoever understands this reference. 😉

  5. avatar RandallOfLegend says:

    I started out with air rifles and pistols. I wonder if those will be affected.

  6. avatar Sam Adams says:

    1. I have never purchased or seen any kids purchase a firearm because of a cartoon character.
    2. Most kids at ranges wear camo or a t-shirt and jeans.
    3. Never seen a commercial by PWS or Savage Arms targeting the kid market lol.
    4. Please stop making pink firearms and camo guns, since there is no way to hydro dip or wrap firearms.
    5. I am sure that most manuals say warning could result in death.

    I am sure if this gets passed they will declare a victory and celebrate.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Go to any Academy or similar store, and you will see plenty of child-sized stuff with the Browning buck logo. Cricket uses a cartoon character logo. As Dirk noted, Eddie Eagle is a “cartoon mascot”. The bill also purports to outlaw youth-sized guns, or at least make their manufacture and sale more costly and difficult. In short, this could cause a lot of mischief, if it had a snowball’s chance in hell of getting anywhere. Thankfully it doesn’t, since at this point there really is a difference between the major parties on gun rights, and the gun-friendlier party controls one house of Congress,

      1. avatar Scrubula says:

        Label them as ‘dwarf size’ or whatever the politically correct term is.
        It’s just a medical condition, totally not for children!

        1. avatar Another Robert says:

          LOL! I have seen some labeled “youth and ladies model”. Maybe just call them “ladies model”?

    2. avatar Tom says:

      It was watching movies that spurred my interest in specific firearms, namely From Russia With Love stirred my interest in owning a Yugoslavian SKS, and the movie Zulu that made me interested in Martini Henry rifles. So this idiot from Illinois would have to ban children from watching movies.

      1. avatar Marcus says:

        I bought my first Mosin the morning after watching “Enemy At The Gates” for the first time. It was a minty 1945(Yes, I know) dated M38 w/ blonde stock, which was stolen about a year later.

  7. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    Nick

    Let me help you out here: Rep. Robin Kelly and intelligent should not be said in same sentence, unless you want to be ridculed. Google her and you will see, she ain’t the sharpest knife in the drawer and only got elected b/c Jesse Jr was going to jail and Bloombefrg funneled $2M into her campaign. She was behind until the midget showed up. She is his, shall we say, political concubine.

    This is about killing the NRA’s Eddie Eagle Program – pure and simple. If they can help demonize cartoons and take away a program focused on gun safety, then they can drive a wedge to claim the NRA is just for gun advocacy. Very clear distinction.

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      I’d say it goes beyond killing the Eddie Eagle program to legislate conditioning kids during their formative years with propaganda that teaches them guns are bad for them, and everyone else.

      1. avatar doesk2 says:

        Leftist propaganda is SOP for grades K-Grad School

  8. avatar Missouri Josh says:

    Lol!

    Watcha got there, Porky!? A Damascus Barrel?

  9. avatar ST says:

    “Gun rights is winning because of the thriving and expanding gun culture in the United States. ”

    Is it? At every level of academic study in public school, hoplophobia is taught with equal vigor to the writing and arithmetic.

    We may be gaining ground now, but we can’t afford to count our chickens just yet. Those kids will grow up to be voters someday.

  10. avatar Don says:

    I didn’t realize until now the double entendre of Elmer Fudd’s flaccid shotgun gag!

    1. avatar Avid Reader says:

      Wait until you get a little older. . .

  11. avatar Another Robert says:

    This is so whacked, I wonder if even the action-deprived moms and the space cadet couple will touch it. All I could think of was 4-H youth shooting, even the Fudds would stick up for that.

  12. avatar JeffR says:

    I am shocked to discover that a nice, fat campaign contribution from Bloomberg could lead to a politician proposing a bill like this. Shocked, I say.

  13. avatar LJM says:

    Hey Nick, while I agree that probably a large majority of Democrats are anti-gun, there are pro-gun Dems here in Illinois… and on the flip side, there are anti-gun Republicans in IL and abroad.

    Lets not paint with too wide a brush, and discredit the Dems that fight FOR gun rights and blindly follow the Repub’s, those of who sometimes are wolves in sheeps clothing.

    1. avatar Reggie says:

      +1

      Were it not for the hard work of some dems in the state legislature I wouldn’t be able to legally carry in my home state.

      I think the anti-2A vibe only becomes prescient for dems once they run for state wide office or need the support of the larger DNC.

    2. avatar Jamie in ND says:

      The vast majority of anti-gun legislation in America is put forth by Democrats. If you own guns & still vote Democrats into office you’re anti-gun by default. You can’t have it both ways!!!

    3. avatar Another Robert says:

      This is referring to proposed Federal law. At that level the “broad brush” is most appropriate.

    4. avatar doesk2 says:

      It is a very safe generalization to say that the average Dem is anti-gun. Generalizations make life a lot easier. If you got other stats to show the opposite, let’s see them.

  14. avatar Accur81 says:

    A ban on Democrats would be far safer for children.

    1. avatar Jamie in ND says:

      Yup.

    2. avatar Roscoe says:

      You’re right; they’d grow up to be more self-reliant, honest, independent thinkers capable of looking out for and advancing themselves in this world.

  15. avatar Nick D says:

    If they really want to take the fun out of guns for kids, they’re going to want to start with something in every home these days: the TV. The TV shows movies and serial shows where bad guys are stopped and problems are solved by men wielding guns. And of course, those same TVs will allow a child to play video games, many of which focus around military action, so the kids get to simulate shooting guns, some of which actually exist. All of these things combined will fascinate a child far more than some little bolt action .22 that the kid will not see unless daddy, or mommy, takes him to a gun store and shows it to them.
    tl;dr this is retarded.
    PS, I have no problem with violence in TV, movies, or games, because without violence these things would probably bore me and I wouldn’t use them.

  16. avatar ThomasR says:

    McCarthy was correct; there really were dedicated communists in film, media and especially the schools. We see the end result of the statist, socialist indoctrination of the young adults coming out of the school system over the last fifty years.

    This is how England went from a gun friendly gun owning culture in the early twentieth century to the Hoplophobic neutered culture of today.

    The statists keep working to create that here.

    1. avatar Jamie in ND says:

      “The statists keep working to create that here.” The Democrats keep working to create that here. There I fixed it for you.

      1. avatar ThomasR says:

        Actually; I said “statists” because that mind set also includes RINO republicans. The Democrats and the Republicans, at the top level; are statist to the core.

        There a few Republicans that are conservative/ constitutionalist, but not many.

        1. avatar Jamie in ND says:

          Roger that.

  17. avatar Roscoe says:

    You wnana make something more desirable, make it illegal – especially with kids.

  18. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    (3) A prohibition on the use of firearm marketing campaigns with the specific intent to appeal to children.

    I have to imagine that would violate the First Amendment right to free speech. Oh, who am I kidding? If the antis are willing to flush the Second Amendment down the toilet, they are willing to flush the First Amendment with it.

    1. avatar DJ9 says:

      Yep. Seen any Joe Camel posters/promo-merchandise lately?

      1. avatar Scrubula says:

        It’s a bit different. Children aren’t supposed to smoke tobacco by law, just as they aren’t supposed to drink. However, there is no ban (yet) on taking your kids out to the range.

        1. avatar DJ9 says:

          Your kids? No. Your son’s/daughter’s best friend? Yes, unless certain circumstances are met:

          – Written permission from the child’s non-felon parent or guardian,
          – permission “slip” in possession of the child at all times, and
          – not in violation of any state or local law.

          18 U.S.C. 922(x)

        2. avatar DJ9 says:

          I should note that the above law applies only to handguns…

          …for now.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      This would be commercial speech which is not accorded anywhere near the same level of protection as private/political speech, and which is in fact highly regulated.

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        Good catch–but if Browning puts that buck head logo on a shirt that says “We support the 2nd Amendment”–voila’! “Political speech”…

  19. avatar ready,fire,aim says:

    Do I hear recall?…this person should not be representing her district

    1. avatar Illinois Minion says:

      Who said she is representing? More like she is ‘presenting’ Bloomie’s concerns.

  20. avatar Shire-man says:

    “Intended” and “specifically” are easy enough to ignore.
    A Cricket has “.22lr” right on it.

    So if passed it does nothing and changes nothing for anybody anywhere. Typical quality legislation.

  21. avatar Great Scot says:

    OMG! I’m A Kid And Enjoy Shooting! OMG!
    Trust me- I’m a short-arse so child-branded guns would be LOVELY- That Remington semi-auto shotgun was a bitch. What’s wrong with cartoons for gun manufacturers (mind you, I’m not sure they’re the right marketing choice, better with a responsible kid (or KJW))? Censorship?
    I often wonder why people try to protect kids more than others, it kind of offends me. I also get told occasionally; “Your opinion doesn’t count because you’re a kid!” It seriously pisses me off. I’m mature for my age, while my 12YO peers laugh at the mere mention of ‘bottom’, I’m debating politics and culture. We’re just slightly less experienced versions of the real deal, so why discriminate? The adults were all kids once.
    I apologise for my rant, I got a little carried away there but I’ll let the rant remain. The bottom line of my little novel there is: Kids don’t get enough respect. So give me some R-E-S-P-E-C-T, or you’ll find out what it means to me!
    Wow. Hormones.

  22. avatar Scrubula says:

    Never mind that selling a gun to a child is illegal…
    Unless they are talking about those 22 year old gangbanger children that MDA wants us to save.

  23. avatar Sean says:

    Hmm I wonder the constitutionality of banning a mascot or cartoon character because of gun related content. Seems that at least that part of bill would be struck down as unconstitutional.

  24. avatar Eric says:

    It sounds like they’re taking Eric Holder’s advice about brainwashing the kids…

  25. avatar Ralph says:

    So, a ban on cartoon characters in gun ads but no ban on cartoon characters in the state legislature?

    Makes perfect sense to me.

    1. avatar Avid Reader says:

      Hard to tell. The last governor was basically a walking caricature, and the current one isn’t called Governor Potato Head for nothing.

  26. avatar Tom says:

    Even if this legislation became law, it would be struck down because its unconstitutional. To prohibit clothing attire based on message would violate the First Amendment. But we know that the gun grabbers also are at war with freedom of speech and expression.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Ummmm….No. The bill does not prohibit kids from WEARING such clothing, it prevents a commercial manufacturer from SELLING it. Big difference.

      1. avatar Daily Beatings says:

        It would still be struck down as unconstitutional. Commercial advertising does have first amendment protection last time I checked. Eugene Volokh breaks down the details on his blog:

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/07/17/federal-bill-to-restrict-the-content-of-gun-advertising/

    2. avatar Illinois Minion says:

      God forbid it becomes law, and ultimately struck down. The schools are still banning clothing based upon their whims.

  27. avatar PeterK says:

    This is the most asinine thing I’ve heard in a long time. And that’s really saying something.

  28. avatar Roy says:

    I’m pretty sure that bill would run afoul of the first amendment in a big way.

  29. avatar JoshuaS says:

    This isn’t a serious work of legislation. Just look at the language. It doesn’t even read like a bill of Congress, but like what some Internet armchair amateur would write.

    Not even worth having a post about.

  30. avatar juliesa says:

    Do they think it’s safer for children to shoot guns that are too large for them? I know they’re just trying to discourage children from shooting at all, but the real world effect of the ban would be to decrease safety for children.

  31. avatar mk10108 says:

    Democrat — Rep. Robin Kelly from Illinois…AT WHAT POINT does this elected representative represent the people who elected him? ANOTHER classic example of shoring walls of a politic castle that neither serves our Constitution nor his constituency. Of all the problems IL has, this ranks the bottom of list and demonstrates low capacity to assess a problem and develop meaningful solutions.

  32. avatar Bruce L. says:

    Guess she forgot about Nerf guns. I think more kids play with Nerf than all other guns combined. (Just a guess, no data) Without banning Nerf guns, water guns, etc kids are going to learn about guns.

    1. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

      Darn right! My son learned his first lessons on both safety and technique on Nerf guns at age 4.

  33. avatar maltwit says:

    So, … Poppa Smurf can’t be a spokesman for, say, IMI if their Desert Eagle is colored pink like My Little Pony?

    Oh, the inhumanity.

  34. avatar Joe R. says:

    They should ban guns designed for kids, the Chinese, FARC, Boko Haram, those Philipino dudes, they make their kids use the real thing. Quit coddling your kids, their enemies don’t suffer the same detriment.

  35. avatar Pseudo says:

    Well this is exceptionally stupid. I’m a liberal who wasn’t brought up on guns but got into them anyway. Nothing is worse than trying to limit exposure to and education about a subject. This is about as dumb as abstinence only sex ed. Not all dems support stupid crap like this.

  36. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    This fascist bill is a good example that Bloomberg and his Bolshevik Donkey Rat buddies are not only out to destroy the 2nd amendment, but all of the others as well. The list includes guns, speech, privacy rights, food and drinks, toys, shirts, cartoons, and the list goes on and on. The fascists dream of a concentration camp from sea to shining sea.

  37. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

    For me this is more evidence that the Anti-2A’s are losing and they know it.

    They are shifting the generational game they have been playing. Trying to scare kids with the “guns are evil” message wasn’t proving effective when the other side could come back not only with their own message, but teach the kids safety and put guns in their hands and teaching them to shoot.

    Basically, this is an effort to gag the other side. This isn’t to ban Elmer Fudd. It is to ban Eddie Eagle. If you cannot control the message, then outlaw the message.

    In that regard, I think this is as much an attack on the 1st Amendment as it is on the 2nd.

  38. avatar Parnell says:

    There are wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Ukraine and now Gaza. The GDP of the country is in negative ground and we are being invaded by diseased, illiterate illegals. So what are the members of Congress worried about? Cartoon characters ! They only have to look at each other to see cartoon characters.

  39. avatar MacBeth51 says:

    “Thankfully, this will never see the light of day in the Republican-controlled house.”
    Wouldn’t bet on that.

  40. avatar Alex in IL says:

    Well, ya know what they say: the dumb get dumber, and then they go into politics.

  41. avatar Gregory says:

    1, 2 & 3 are 1st amendment violations.

  42. avatar Jon says:

    OK, I think 5 B is plain stupid! – Do they honestly think that a kid who doesn’t understand it’s not a toy, is going to be able to understand that wording?!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email