Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...and it's great to see you think that this is such a great thing. It's obvious by posting that you fully support the states in this issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by remoddahouse
Talk to Mike there. He's strongly in support of these laws. I'm sure he can counter your arguments.
I'm not in favor of random gun seizures. I'm against people having some classes of guns, assault weapons and such, but we have laws on the books for that already. I also think people have a right to bear arms within reason.
Next time don't assume. And even if I did agree, that's just too bad, isn't it?
Last edited by CaseyB; 07-07-2014 at 06:01 AM..
Reason: rude
And what's the worst result from taking away a few "too many" guns in some borderline cases? A little less chance of another Sandy Hook?
Why bother,
a) if Lanza was in custody could he have committed the Sandy Hook Massacre?
b) If Lanza had is guns confiscated could he have committed the Sandy Hook Massacre?
Answer to a is no he could not, answer to b is maybe, the guns were not his in the first place, so they couldn't have been seized by a warrant for him, even if they were it's possible he could have replaced them to commit the massacre, or, have alternate means of achieving the same goal (a bomb for instance).
a) solves all those possibilities, and a) is equally effective against all people who are a risk to themselves and others, it doesn't target gun owners, which is a shortsighted policy. However it then affects everyone, even MDA/MAG, and you. It's fine when someone proposes something that doesn't affect them, it takes a big person to admit that it makes sense when it affects them too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95
Simply unfathomable that anyone would worry more about a few gun seizures than about the next mass slaughter of innocent children that next time could be their own.
Simply unfathomable that anyone would worry more about their privacy than about the next terrorist attack. Simply unfathomable that anyone would worry about roadblocks than people DUI the next DUI fatality could be them or their family. Simply unfathomable we release any convicts from prison, they've proven they're not law abiding, they should be sentenced for life all of them, regardless.
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — As state officials across the country grapple with how to prevent mass killings like the ones at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown and near the University of California, Santa Barbara, some are turning to a gun seizure law pioneered in Connecticut 15 years ago.
Connecticut's law allows judges to order guns temporarily seized after police present evidence that a person is a danger to themselves or others. A court hearing must be held within 14 days to determine whether to return the guns or authorize the state to hold them for up to a year.
Of course, this is exactly what the 2nd amendment was written to prevent.
Crazy people would occasionally get guns in George Washington's time, too. Some would even arm themselves with four or even six of the single-shot pistols available at the time, and kill many. Others could make large gunpowder bombs that could blow up a room, or an entire building, killing dozens.
And yet the Framers wrote an ironclad law that said government could have NO say in who could own and carry guns and other such weapons... and made it a part of the Law of the Land. And the states ratified it.
Washington, Adams, Madison, and all the rest knew that it was far more dangerous for government to have the power to control people's guns, than to have the occasional crazy person get hold of one (or more).
Our "enlightened" progressives, disagree. As though they had done anything more than react with horror to a couple of crazy people getting guns, and throw up their hands and call for repealing (or worse, violating) the 2nd amendment.
Last edited by Little-Acorn; 07-06-2014 at 06:42 PM..
BTW, California isn't just "contemplating" making a law like that. They've already done it. They've had SWAT teams going house to house, confiscating citizens' guns for more than a year now.
California Department of Justice agents sweep Fresno, Clovis for illegal guns
By Jim Guy
The Fresno Bee
November 16, 2013
The sign in the window warned burglars that the homeowner owned a handgun and would use it in self-defense. The state agents knocking on the door were there to confiscate the weapon. The agents are part of the California Department of Justice's Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS), a program that takes firearms from people barred from owning them. The law says that group can include ex-felons and people deemed to be mentally unstable.
Often arriving in SUVs and dressed in black tactical uniforms, the teams regularly sweep through California cities with a list of names and addresses.
It was Fresno's turn last week.
Thursday night, the agents went to the home near Roeding Park to collect a Smith & Wesson semi-automatic pistol from a woman who had been evaluated under California Welfare and Institutions Code 5150 as a danger to herself and others. As such, she had been ordered to surrender any firearms in her possession and had not.
BTW, California isn't just "contemplating" making a law like that. They've already done it. They've had SWAT teams going house to house, confiscating citizens' guns for more than a year now.
California Department of Justice agents sweep Fresno, Clovis for illegal guns
By Jim Guy
The Fresno Bee
November 16, 2013
The sign in the window warned burglars that the homeowner owned a handgun and would use it in self-defense. The state agents knocking on the door were there to confiscate the weapon. The agents are part of the California Department of Justice's Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS), a program that takes firearms from people barred from owning them. The law says that group can include ex-felons and people deemed to be mentally unstable.
Often arriving in SUVs and dressed in black tactical uniforms, the teams regularly sweep through California cities with a list of names and addresses.
It was Fresno's turn last week.
Thursday night, the agents went to the home near Roeding Park to collect a Smith & Wesson semi-automatic pistol from a woman who had been evaluated under California Welfare and Institutions Code 5150 as a danger to herself and others. As such, she had been ordered to surrender any firearms in her possession and had not.
So if you have a sign that says you'll defend your home does that make you mentally unstable? It's not clear why they seized the first homeowner's gun.
great! according to the CT law, all a person has to do is present to a judge that a person presents a danger to themselves or to others. now we just need firearm owners to start doing the same tactic to cops, politicians and judges in order to have their firearms or their ability to use firearms taken away from them.
the spear can be pointed both ways. remember that.
So if you have a sign that says you'll defend your home does that make you mentally unstable?
Yes it does. Sanity, according to the progressive, is never attempting any sort of defense against an aggressor. The aggressor is to be empowered as much as possible and the victim hobbled as much as possible. The goal is to have a nation of empowered wolves and incapacitated sheep.
Yes it does. Sanity, according to the progressive, is never attempting any sort of defense against an aggressor. The aggressor is to be empowered as much as possible and the victim hobbled as much as possible. The goal is to have a nation of empowered wolves and incapacitated sheep.
not my fault if some progressive if they just want to lay there and get robbed, raped or murdered. but I am not a sheep such as they are.
Yes it does. Sanity, according to the progressive, is never attempting any sort of defense against an aggressor. The aggressor is to be empowered as much as possible and the victim hobbled as much as possible. The goal is to have a nation of empowered wolves and incapacitated sheep.
That explains why the illegal aliens are given so much protection.
Is there a problem removing guns from people who are prohibited from owning them because of a felony conviction?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
