SCHAKOWSKY: ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN 'JUST THE BEGINNING'

breitbart.com ^ | March 11, 2013 | Breitbart

[NoRedTape]

"Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a member of the Democratic Party’s leadership in the House of Representatives, suggested to Jason Mattera at a Feb. 13 women’s rights rally that plans for an assault weapons ban and private-sales background checks were only the beginning of a broader gun control agenda extending to handguns as well."..............

[TigersEye]

Exactly! A law-abiding citizen will promptly take all of his or her guns down to the government buy-back, thank them profusely for giving them pennies on the dollar for them and for bonus points wear something wool and say "baaa baaa baaa" while standing in line.

Everyone else will be Federal felons and probably suspect of being a domestic terrorist. Avoid coffee shops.

[HammerT]

SCHAKOWSKY: ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN SCAM 'JUST THE BEGINNING'

Fixed it The ‘Assault Weapon’ Scam is just a means to ban ALL guns.

It’s just the Pro-Tyranny Left’s way of destroying a Constitutional right by simply re-labeling the object of that right as some thing else – something that can be demonized and destroyed.

Another prime example would be the terms ‘Hate Speech’, ‘High Capacity’ or ‘Military Style’.

Ask Pro-Tyranny Leftists to define these arbitrary terms – they will be incapable of giving you an exact answer because there is none.

Ask Pro-Tyranny Leftists to spell out the differences between the deliberately vague term ‘Assault Weapon’ and what is protected by the God-given and Constitutionally right to keep and bear arms and you’ll roll snake eyes on that on as well.

Fact is, the Pro-Tyranny Left cannot specify what these phrases mean because they are deliberately indefinable.

[unless you use the phrase “Shoulder thing that goes up”, - that’s the exception /sarc.]

[HammerT]

Love your screen name ping.

[Blood of Tyrants]

More ammo against those who try to tell us “No one is coming after your guns”.

[RoosterRedux]

I know this sounds stupid, but I have been poor too (very poor)...and it was in many ways the best time. I was humble and appreciative...and my thinking was very clear.

There is no shame in being poor. It is a badge of honor to handle poverty with dignity.

[RoosterRedux]

I think you are correct.

The Libs are pushing for confiscation, but confiscation brings war...and, except for Obama and his class war, war is not exactly what the Libs are prepared for.

The Libs (even Alinsky) are agents of social change, not military change.

But when they force their social change, they create a vacuum...a vacuum that might be filled with force by their opponents.

Alinsky was great at waging war against civil society...he was not so great at waging war against the militant forces that would oppose him.

Alinsky and Obama have misjudged us. They have framed us against a 1960's peace-nik background.

We are no longer in the 1960's.

We know peace is not the answer.

We are ready to fight for the country our forefathers created and died creating.

Obama and Soros are not Americans...they do not understand our ethos.

But they are about to get a good lesson in it.;-)

[45Auto]

Ex Post Facto:

Latin for "from a thing done afterward." Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the US Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws: Art 1, § 9 and Art. 1 § 10. see, e.g. Collins v. Youngblood, 497 US 37 (1990) and California Dep't of Corrections v. Morales, 514 US 499 (1995).

[Redcitizen]

Liability insurance definitely won’t cover damage from an anititank round.

[OneWingedShark]

Ex Post Facto:

Latin for "from a thing done afterward." Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the US Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws: Art 1, § 9 and Art. 1 § 10. see, e.g. Collins v. Youngblood, 497 US 37 (1990) and California Dep't of Corrections v. Morales, 514 US 499 (1995).

It's an interesting thing, Ex Post Facto laws are prohibited to both the federal government and the States.
It could [and likely will] be argued that the passing of new laws (like illegalizing guns) WITHOUT a retroactive element is not Ex Post Facto; indeed, I would agree. They (gun-banners) needn't worry about Ex Post Pacto prohibitions in the Constitution if they do not get greedy and try to make preceding gun-ownership illegal.

But then again, the 2nd is quite explicit on not infringing the right, and yet we have the GCA and NFA both.

[Marathoner]

The Communist from Evanston strikes again. Doesn’t she have a husband who’s convicted of a felony?

[CodeToad]

And millions of Americans loading up and prepping up is just the beginning, too. People are not buying because they think there will be bans, they are loading up because they think they’ll need the weapons.

[Up Yours Marxists]

Cheers and ping back at ya!

My mother once told me, “If you can’t say something nice about someone, he must be a pinko commie bastard.”

[Vendome]

GTH....and burn...

[HammerT]

Just remember #10 of the Top 10 Gun Safety Tips:

10. Always keep your gun pointed in a safe direction, such as at a hippie or communist.

[Up Yours Marxists]

That one’s a keeper! Thanks.

[NoRedTape]

Amazing......