GOP Mega Donor: No More Money Without ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban

Great Big 'Ol Freeper B U M P ! ! !

yup, he’s no conservative if he’s in bed with the Bush’s.

The long forgotten SCOTUS Dred Scott Decision listed in it the rights citizens of the USA had. One of them, buried deep in there was...”The right to keep and carry arms wherever they went”.

What is an assault weapon anyway? I seriously thought it was an fully automatic weapon

The LEFTISTS COMMIES tear out language apart in order to put forth their agenda. Assault weapons (for the most part) are not allowed in the hands of the American public.

9 Most Misused Gun Terms
As noted by David Kopel in an article in the “Journal of Contemporary Law,” the U.S. Department of Defense defines assault rifles as “selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between sub-machine gun and rifle cartridges.” The AR-15 and other civilian carbines errantly called assault rifles do no such thing. They are semi-automatic, non-battlefield firearms.

“Assault weapon.” Sixteen-round “clip.” A box of “bullets.” When it comes to firearms, there’s no shortage of misused terminology.

$1 million is peanuts. Who cares?

The long forgotten SCOTUS Dred Scott Decision listed in it the rights citizens of the USA had. One of them, buried deep in there was...”The right to keep and carry arms wherever they went”.

You are ABSOLUTELY correct and I further amplified that below from the Power Line Blog of December 26, 2012 by John Hinderaker .....

You can read the decision, which is lengthy, Scott v. Sandford, here. Taney wrote for the majority. In the first section of his opinion, he held that the case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Scott, being a Negro, could be a citizen of a state–that was a matter of state law–but he could not be a citizen of the United States, within the meaning of the Constitution, so as to be able to bring a case in federal court. In the course of explaining why members of the black race could not be citizens, Taney argued that representatives of the slaveholding states would never have consented to a Constitution that had the potential to confer citizenship on Negroes. Imagine, he wrote, the consequences:

[I]t cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.

It is impossible, it would seem, to believe that the great men of the slaveholding States, who took so large a share in framing the Constitution of the United States and exercised so much influence in procuring its adoption, could have been so forgetful or regardless of their own safety and the safety of those who trusted and confided in them.

The Swamp knows in their little black hearts the 2nd Amendment is the Constitution's Red Line for maintaining it.

They are bound and determined to exterminate that Inalienable Right so they can finalize shredding the entire document once and for all.

Open Secrets shows he donated $2,700 to Rep Rooney on 5/31/16.

Here’s a recent video from MSNBC on Rooney:

http://www.msnbc.com/weekends-with-alex-witt/watch/after-parkland-republican-rep-rooney-calls-for-new-gun-safety-laws-1164101187897

The Swamp knows in their little black hearts the 2nd Amendment is the Constitution's Red Line for maintaining it.

They are bound and determined to exterminate that Inalienable Right so they can finalize shredding the entire document once and for all.

The original 2A intent was not to guarantee that Americans could hunt, or even for self defense of your home and family - it was to ensure American citizens protection against a tyrannical Government gone power hungry. The semi-auto rifle is the perfect weapon to stop the Feds when they come for you and yours.

From NYT Columnist: Let's Repeal the Second Amendment

I for one do not want to ever again here that useless phrase uttered by the commies in America - "Common Sense Gun Control".

Assault weapons have been banned before. It’s not unconstitutional. Does not require a rewrite of the constitution.

Maybe this rich RINO would like to borrow my cell phone and see if he can call someone who cares what he does with his money.

MEGA DONOR BAN

Democrat donor Hoffman Jr., junior because he inherited daddy’s money is just another donor loser out to screw people.

RENT SEEKER DONOR

real estate developer Al Hoffman Jr.

Naturally, that a rich rent seeker wants defenseless slaves.

Hoffman, please, oh please, do halt donor money to RINOs.

Hoffman reportedly supported hitlery. He is an anti trumper

Screw him. His money is wasted anyway if he backs unelectable asshats like Jeb Bush. It sounds like he is a useless donor anyway.

Banning assault weapons is unconstitutional. Just because you can get a bunch of activist judges on SCOTUS to rule something is not unconstitutional does not make that true.

A federal requirement for abortion is not consitutional but the evil SCOTUS ruled it was in 1973.

See how that works? Just because lawless men in black robes rule lawlessly does not make it so. When men of good conscience take their place, you will see righteous rulings in compliance with the Constitution.

He is a Bush level Never Trumper - Globalist traitor .
Glad he is upset .

Funny how we had mass shootings continue to happen during the last ‘assults weapons’ ban. This is a mental health issue, until it’s treated as a mental health issue and you start throwing these mentally I’ll people into institutions mass shootings for sake of killing are going to keep happening.

But sure go ahead and ban ‘assult weapons’ and iqnore the real issue again. It won’t make anymore different next time than it did the last time.

It is unconstitutional but thankfully because you know it’s been done before you should also know it doesn’t actually make any difference.

Crazy people free to roam the streets are still crazy effective at kill lots of other non-people regardless of whether or not you try to disarm law-abiding people.

Until you recognize that the only difference between now and pre-1960s is not gun(which are more restrictive) but insane asylums( which are less restrictive).

You might also have noticed it pretty much every last one of these Mass killers has been mentally distrubed.

As hard as it might be to believe same people don’t go out and try to kill a bunch of other sane people, usually killing themselves killed in the process.
If you want to continue to let these people roam the streets you’re going to have to turn the entire world into an insane asylum to be safe from them. I’m sorry that’s not really possible.

It is unconstitutional but thankfully because you know it’s been done before you should also know it doesn’t actually make any difference.

Crazy people free to roam the streets are still crazy effective at kill lots of other people regardless of whether or not you try to disarm law-abiding people.

Until you recognize that the only difference between now and pre-1960s is not gun(which are more restrictive) but insane asylums( which are less restrictive).

You might also have noticed it pretty much every last one of these Mass killers has been mentally distrubed.

As hard as it might be to believe same people don’t go out and try to kill a bunch of other sane people, usually killing themselves killed in the process.
If you want to continue to let these people roam the streets you’re going to have to turn the entire world into an insane asylum to be safe from them. I’m sorry that’s not really possible.