Quote of the day—Kat Schuster

Drawing inspiration from a controversial approach to outlawing most abortions in Texas, Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday pledged to make it easier for private citizens to sue manufacturers or other citizens who sell assault rifles or parts for ghost guns in the Golden State.

His plan mirrors the authority enacted by lawmakers in Texas to ban most abortions.

Kat Schuster
December 12, 2021
Newsom Vows To Ban Assault Guns Using Texas Abortion Ban Tactics
[We knew it would happen.—Joe]


14 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Kat Schuster

  1. “Assault Guns”?

    They’ll take my ASU-85 from me when they scrape my flash-fried corpse from the gunner’s seat with a spatula! 😉

    ETA: I chose the ASU-85 because giving paratroopers armored vehicles is awesome!

    • If memory serves correctly, the SU-152 was so big, so well armored, and carried such a large-caliber gun, an article in the Avalon Hill General from decades ago said that not only would people not stick around to try to fight it, its only enemy would be small mammals that eat the eggs.
      The ASU-85 would be enough to scare the bejeebers out of leftists, and I don’t mean bejeebers.

  2. Guns are only the start of it. With the notion that states can prevent federal oversight now in precedent, fans of big government are going to have a field day. Pro-birth folks have to ask themselves: was it worth it?

    Thanks Texas.

  3. Whether the government directly violates your constitutionally enumerated rights or it passes laws encouraging and enabling those violations, it’s still violating the constitution. The only difference is that, like an average street criminal organization, it has enlisted the help of private citizens.

    And yes, several people saw this coming as soon as the Texas abortion thing was proposed, and they warned us about it. And this is the deliciously evil character of the Romish left– They’ll get us, in our single-minded, single issue orientation which lacks a firm and broad foundation in principled morality, to support their evil measures, and then revel in our suffering after those measures have been used against us.

    But I don’t think it matters any longer. I think we’re well past the point of no return, generally speaking.

    And I have to say “generally speaking” because no doubt we’ll be achieving little victories here and there, but they’ll only keep us distracted from the absolute failure of our nation which has been progressing all around us for generations and is today essentially complete.

    I would expect this sort of measure to be declared unconstitutional, eventually, but by the time that happens there will be a dozen other outrages in progress.

    The Romish authoritarian left has programmed us to be “Tolerant” (of them, while they tolerate us less and less) and such tolerance on our part is our ultimate undoing. We already believe that it wouldn’t be “fair” to kick them out, but once you see the final result of having allowed them to stay, you’ll realize that the far greater unfairness was to tolerate them at all.

  4. That was the risk in the Texas abortion law. It creates a weapon that can be used against anything. They can’t outlaw firearms but they can allow anyone to sue the gun-owner. The time and the expense involved in defending against that are huge. And typically there is no possibility of a counter suit against the person making that claim. There is no standard of proof, just the burden of fighting the suit. It is ruinous for anyone targeted by a “busybody” with nothing better to do. The “state” doesn’t have to do a thing or expose themselves politically or legally. In some versions, the person making the complaint doesn’t even have to identify themselves or for there to have been an actual “incident”. These laws give “standing” to file a suit, and you can be sure there are folks with nothing better to do. If you complain about a neighbor’s trash or loud music, guess what……. And it is a “private” action so the state or jurisdiction doesn’t actually “do” anything.

    Chicago allowed claims against the police without a sworn statement. A “grudge” and a signed document is enough to tie the Department in knots. There is no effective counter. A once productive officer gets to spend his time giving testimony about something that never happened.

    All it takes is a concerned “Mom”, with an impulsive and aggressive son or spouse , to “drop a dime” to bleed you for court time and legal expenses. It is your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, if you can afford it.

    • So anything the state does not like, they just have to pass a law allowing individual/private lawsuits.

      Does that not have other consequences such as tying up the court system? What about other unintended consequences? Suing a candidate that you don’t like because the candidate carries or has private armed security? Or suing companies that have private armed guards?

      It sounds just like another step to a more dysfunctional society and one that will cause migration.

      • I can’t count how many cases I read in Law School in which the justice writing the opinion mentioned “The Floodgates of Litigation.”
        They have enough trouble managing their dockets so the presiding judge stays off their backs, I question how long the “Private Attorney General” laws will stand if the standard for a conviction is “I’m scared knowing you have this, so I lied about what you said to me.”
        Add to that the fact that this is an enumerated right in the Bill of Rights, like Speech, the Press, Religion, Peaceable Assembly, and to Petition one’s government, and these laws may be unconstitutional before even a trial date is set.

      • What about other unintended consequences?

        Yes, I can think of other consequences and ( just from my cynical side ) these days, IDK if one consequence would be ‘unintended’ or not.

        Step on enough toes with what I’ll call ‘personal lawsuits’ like this and one will sooner or later run across someone who will decide to swat what’s aggravating them. And if they’re good enough, it’ll look like an accident.

  5. The state goading private business or private citizens to do the dirty work it wants done is classic fascism.

  6. I’m reminded that no matter how trifling or egregious the offense there is always individual and private corrective action of varying degree available.

    Which will work….until it doesn’t.

  7. Meh. They are enemies and will adopt any tactic to oppress us. We are a banana republic now. Deal with it.

  8. More along the line of what Richard said. Were way passed this truly mattering anymore.
    Newsom is pissed he didn’t think of it sooner.
    We already have federal laws against these kinds of lawsuits, and it still didn’t matter to the bitches.
    How much longer before it’s applied to cars and alcohol?
    We were never going to be able to sue our way back into a semi-honest country.
    Nor vote it back either. It was made for a moral and religious people. And is wholly unsuited for any other.
    This was always going to come down to playing Cowboys and Communists.
    So, say when?
    Just because we don’t want to play for blood. Doesn’t mean the communists don’t and won’t.

    • Maybe so.

      But it is important to exhaust all other options first, and not to fire the first shot if at all possible.

Comments are closed.