Freepers, your Contributions make every difference!
Please keep ‘em coming! Thank you all very much!
Posted on 02/25/2013 5:18:54 PM PST by Red in Blue PA
Full Committee
DATE: February 27, 2013 TIME: 10:00 AM ROOM: Hart 216 OFFICIAL HEARING NOTICE / WITNESS LIST: February 25, 2013
NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING LOCATION CHANGE The hearing entitled “Hearing on the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013” scheduled before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary for Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 10:00 a.m., in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building will now take place in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.
Senator Feinstein to preside.
By order of the Chairman.
Witness List
Hearing before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary
On
“Hearing on the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013”
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 Hart Senate Office Building, Room 216 10:00 a.m.
Panel I
John Walsh United States Attorney District of Colorado United States Department of Justice Denver, CO
Edward Flynn Chief Milwaukee Police Department Milwaukee, WI
Panel II
Neil Heslin Newtown, CT
Dr. William Begg EMS Medical Director Western Connecticut Health Network Newtown, CT
Nicholas Johnson Professor of Law Fordham Law School New York, NY
David Hardy Attorney Law Offices of David Hardy Tucson, AZ
The Honorable Sandy Adams Former United States Representative (R-FL-24) Orlando, FL
The Honorable Michael Nutter Mayor of Philadelphia President, U.S. Conference of Mayors Philadelphia, PA
Don't get complacent!
She will Chair a hearing and she will be the only one to hear the lies. This is a stoke job by her for her bill that is going nowhere. The Press will play it up big. We need to counter big in return.
Great place to send a drone!
If it is a TRUE assault weapons ban they will be talking about military grade full auto weapons. They must want to ban the military from having these weapons.
You better watch what you say. Big brother might take you away and you will never be heard from. I know it didn't get much play but this administration just fought to keep that little bill in tact for Dear Leader. You see, the government know longer works for the people.
The language of this law is dangerously vague, but many — including several of its sponsors — believe that it grants what are essentially dictatorial powers to the federal government to arrest any American citizen (or anyone, anywhere) without warrant and to indefinitely detain them without any charge. Suspects can be shipped by the military to our offshore prisons and kept there until “the end of hostilities.” It is a catastrophic blow to civil liberties. Section 1021 defines a “covered person” – one subject to detention – as “a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces” that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”
I see Ms. Piggy didn’t like how the last one went.
From the following link: http://www.assaultweapon.info/
According to a 1988 report by the Violence Policy Center, an anti-gun lobby:
Handgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons ... are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban’s real purpose:
No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.
In 2004, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired. It was not renewed. The AWB had failed to have an impact on gun crime in the United States. A 2004 Department of Justice report concluded:
Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. [Assault weapons] were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.
Oh I’m really scared. I said drone, not weapon .You know, the little fly on the wall drone to hear what goes on behind closed doors!Personally I don’t give a flying F%$#^ what the government thinks about me.Guess I’m one of those old guys you really don’t want to pi$$ off!
I’m sorry, I should of put a sarcasm tag on that. The sad part is that their is nothing we can do about it. As a society, we are being boiled slowly like the proverbial frog. We already know that only a few run this country and the rest are expendable. Elections mean nothing.
***Handgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority.***
Don’t you believe it! Handguns have always been the target. The switch to “assault rifles” is just to get a foot in the door for a handgun ban.
Nelson T. ‘Pete’ Shields
Founder of Handgun Control, Inc.
“I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest.
Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, ‘This is a great law. The problem is solved.’ And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time.
So then we’ll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time.
My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.”
-Pete Shields, Chairman and founder, Handgun Control Inc., “A Reporter At Large: Handguns,” The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, 57-58
“Yes, I’m for an outright ban [on handguns].”
-Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., 60 Minutes interview
Within ten years HCI (which said rifles and shotguns would not be banned) was calling for a ban on “assault rifles” and shotguns.
Whenever I see a picture of Arlington I think of all the sacrifices that were made to preserve the freedoms we have (had). It really pi$$es me off to see the struggles those Americans made get flushed down the toilet by the Brown Clown and his operatives.
Doctors agree if you have a Cancer you cut it out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.