Confiscation begins in Kalifornia

[Sfrandolph]

Also, it appears that they are concentrating on the mental illness folks. How about all the known criminals that have guns that AREN'T REGISTERED? Of course our illustrious leaders haven't figured out that problem yet. Bunch of brain dead morons. Ok, I feel better now.

 

[jwh20]

Sooo...we're against taking firearms away from mentally unstable people? Do you really want no mechanism in place to remove firearms from someone who's violently mentally ill BEFORE the tragedy happens?

Also, did you notice this in the article:



Doesn't sound like tyranny to me, and I'm not seeing a reason to get worked up over it.

I'm not against taking firearms away from those who BY DUE PROCESS (i.e. the 5th Amendment) have been determined to be unqualified to own or posses them.

What I AM AGAINST, is this being decided behind closed doors by "committee". If a person is to be deprived of his rights, his liberty, or his PROPERTY, due process involves a court hearing, and right to examine evidence, the right to cross examine witnesses, and the right to call rebuttal witnesses.

Clearly due process means NOTHING in California. But that's not surprising, since few of the other rights enumerated in the Constitution mean much there.

 

[jwh20]

What happens when YOU find an armed squad of police in SWAT gear crashing in your front door? A teacher reported that your kid mentioned that you had guns. Clearly NO SANE PERSON would let their kid even think about a gun, much less know they exist. You've been deemed UNFIT as a parent and judged by the school's nurse as MENTALLY UNSTABLE.

They then proceed to take your guns...and possibly your child as well!

Oh, that could NEVER happen here in America. We have rights, right?? With a government gone crazy, right are not worth the paper they are written on.

Plus if you offer even the slightest protect, now your resisting. You're going to JAIL!

Did you watch that NRA video about what happened in New Orleans? If not, you should:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

This will never happen in America? It's already going on!

 

[gunworks321]

Notice early on in the article where they state in a letter to Joe "shotgun" Biden "consider California as a national model" Once it is established that they can, they will.

 

[squirrelhntr]

Sooo...we're against taking firearms away from mentally unstable people? Do you really want no mechanism in place to remove firearms from someone who's violently mentally ill BEFORE the tragedy happens?

Also, did you notice this in the article:



Doesn't sound like tyranny to me, and I'm not seeing a reason to get worked up over it.

that does'nt make sense IMO. why is a violently mentally ill person walkin amoung us so called normal people in the first place? the government permits him or her to work so they can tax em, but they won't let them protect themselves ????

 

[Sgtusmc]

They're playing a chess game with citizens rights. A disaster or tragedy is a gimme for them to ratchet up their control and set up their next move. They're getting closer to a check mate while citizens are still playing tic tac toe.

 

[jwh20]

They're playing a chess game with citizens rights. A disaster or tragedy is a gimme for them to ratchet up their control and set up their next move. They're getting closer to a check mate while citizens are still playing tic tac toe.

Remember the mantra: NOTHING is more important than the CHILDREN! It's all about the CHILDREN, our MOST IMPORTANT resource!

Don't get me wrong, children are very important. But there are things we should VALUE MORE! If we give up on those, then the children are lost in the process.

This entire "Moms against guns" thing is sickening. I have a lot of respect for MADD, they picked a good target. DRUNK DRIVING! So instead of "Moms against senseless gun violence" we have the "enemy" being identified as the guns.

By this perverse logic, MADD should would have been: "Moms against AUTOMOBILES"

 

[jbombelli]

Sooo...we're against taking firearms away from mentally unstable people? Do you really want no mechanism in place to remove firearms from someone who's violently mentally ill BEFORE the tragedy happens?

Also, did you notice this in the article:



Doesn't sound like tyranny to me, and I'm not seeing a reason to get worked up over it.

If someone is violently mentally ill, why are they free to walk the streets among us in the first place? If they can't be trusted to behave per society's edicts, why are they free?

What is to stop someone who's violently mentally ill from going out and buying more guns after the government takes theirs away, if he's free to walk the streets with the rest of us?

I don't recall the 2nd Amendment stating "... the right of those people of acceptable character to keep and bear arms ..." Do you?

 

[wtfd661]

I'm not against taking firearms away from those who BY DUE PROCESS (i.e. the 5th Amendment) have been determined to be unqualified to own or posses them.

What I AM AGAINST, is this being decided behind closed doors by "committee". If a person is to be deprived of his rights, his liberty, or his PROPERTY, due process involves a court hearing, and right to examine evidence, the right to cross examine witnesses, and the right to call rebuttal witnesses.

Clearly due process means NOTHING in California. But that's not surprising, since few of the other rights enumerated in the Constitution mean much there.

This is right on.

 

[CSORuger]

I was told that all firearm owners are mentally unstable people, by NBC, CBS, ABC,
PBS, ect.

 

[yepthatsme]

This is very disturbing to me. This is a blatant move to take away our rights and to intimidate others in the process. Yes there are those who do not have the right to own firearms, but this is going far beyond that goal. If the authorities do not have enough evidence to obtain a warrant, then those citizens targeted are being victimized. When we as citizens fear our own government, then our government has become tyrannical. This just proves what can happen if we allow the politicians to approve universal background checks.

For those who think it's alright for a person or committee to judge whether or not you are safe enough for the privilege to own a firearm, just imagine being judged by someone as wacko as Nancy Pelosi or Feinstein. Everyone would be judged mentally unstable just because they used the word "gun" in a sentence. If they had their way, we would all be in chains.

 

[Signal23]

This is why we are asked at the doctor if we have guns, then the asprin we are taking is deemed for "mental health" and by, by guns.

Then you go to court and tell a liberal judge, "yes, I have a thousand rounds of ammo to fight the government take over".......by, by freedom

 

[Vic_Mackey]

Remember the mantra: NOTHING is more important than the CHILDREN! It's all about the CHILDREN, our MOST IMPORTANT resource!

Don't get me wrong, children are very important. But there are things we should VALUE MORE! If we give up on those, then the children are lost in the process.

This entire "Moms against guns" thing is sickening. I have a lot of respect for MADD, they picked a good target. DRUNK DRIVING! So instead of "Moms against senseless gun violence" we have the "enemy" being identified as the guns.

By this perverse logic, MADD should would have been: "Moms against AUTOMOBILES"

I'm all about MADD, but even then the drunk driver doesn't lose his car. Jail and impound aside, they can still buy a car because there's no law saying you can't have collect property. Cars and guns are both investments and private property. Hell, when you're too old to drive you may have to surrender your license, but not your vehicle. How many people buy cars off "some old lady"?

 

[rambone]

First they came for the Prohibited Persons, but I didn't speak up...

 

[cosermann]

Psychology is a pseudoscience at best and a racket at worst; certainly nothing upon which we should be revoking inalienable rights.

And are these people afforded any opportunity to extract any salvage value for their property? Nope. If I lost my driver's license, I'd at be able to sell my car and get the remaining value out of it. If there was any respect for rights and property at all, at the very least seized firearms would be held in escrow until sold by the owner. But it's not really about that, is it?

Furthermore, why the piecemeal approach (just a rhetorical question, I know the answer)?

I mean, if you're too "mentally unstable" to possess a firearm, you're too mentally unstable to vote, right? I mean, hey, why not?

 

[jwh20]

I'm all about MADD, but even then the drunk driver doesn't lose his car. Jail and impound aside, they can still buy a car because there's no law saying you can't have collect property. Cars and guns are both investments and private property. Hell, when you're too old to drive you may have to surrender your license, but not your vehicle. How many people buy cars off "some old lady"?

Exactly, MADD targeted the ACTIVITY, namely drunk driving which only a fool (or a drunk) would say is a good thing. It endangers not only the drunk driver but innocent bystanders. But it's NOT THE CAR that is the problem. It's NOT the alcohol that is the problem, it's the BEHAVIOR.

Same with GUN VIOLENCE and I would say there is nothing special about gun-violence. The undesirable behavior is VIOLENCE regardless of how it's perpetrated. Who here, among a bunch of mostly NRA members, 2nd Amendment believer, and gun owners/carriers would say that VIOLENCE in our society is a good thing? None or next to none, there are always those few...

So if Mr. Obama was pushing some measures that were targeting VIOLENCE and pushing for mandatory sentences for robbers, rapists, murderers, etc. the way MADD pushed for DUI sentences, who would oppose that?

But remember, Obama and his liberal buddies don't really want to end violence. That is a tool that they can exploit to get what they want, of which one thing is elimination of all private firearm ownership in the USA.

If they wanted to end or reduce violence they would be doing something OTHER than attacking the lawful gun owner who is statistically VERY unlikely to commit ANY crime with a firearm.

 

[Light]

Psychology is a pseudoscience at best and a racket at worst; certainly nothing upon which we should be revoking inalienable rights.

And are these people afforded any opportunity to extract any salvage value for their property? Nope. If I lost my driver's license, I'd at be able to sell my car and get the remaining value out of it. If there was any respect for rights and property at all, at the very least seized firearms would be held in escrow until sold by the owner. But it's not really about that, is it?

Furthermore, why the piecemeal approach (just a rhetorical question, I know the answer)?

I mean, if you're too "mentally unstable" to possess a firearm, you're too mentally unstable to vote, right? I mean, hey, why not?

Exactly. I can't stand that either. Say it's a Loaded M1A, and just zip, it's gone for use or destruction by the police. That's not money to scoff at. They should at least offer some sort of system for allowing them to sell it, while the police hold it for them. Have an officer transport it to a gun store for the transfer to happen.

Before all this crazyness, if someone told me the police could take my firearms and not compensate my, I would have laughed. This is bs.

 

[Mark 1911]

The question that comes to mind is, how to totally dismantle the government of California and start over.

 

[jwh20]

The question that comes to mind is, how to totally dismantle the government of California and start over.

It's not going to happen any time soon, unfortunately. The liberal-Democrats in Sacramento have spent the state into near oblivion and the only thing keeping the state running is the incredibly vibrant tech-economy in the SF Bay Area, defense business in the LA Basin, and US Military spending at installations throughout the state.

There is a migration away from CA to lower cost and TAX locations both inside and outside the US but that takes time.

I think the only hope is the San Andreas Fault. That could wipe much of the state off the map in a matter of minutes. It's going to happen, that's certain. The only question is when??

 

[Bennettjh]

I know someone who has a history of bipolar disorder. It's well-controlled, but because of the history, she had to go to a shrink to get a letter approving her for her LTCH. The one she was seeing was anti-gun, and thus, had she gotten a whiff that the young lady was seeking her license or afterward, had gotten it, there would have been a letter to the state telling them not to issue. She ended up seeking out and finding a different, pro-2A psychiatrist to write the letter, and was issued her license. No issues since, and she carries daily.

I am against taking guns away from any private citizen. If the citizen is so dangerous as to not be safe around guns, take the citizen away, under due process, to an asylum or a prison. I'm sure it's much easier to take things away from people than to take people away from things.... but if the person is so much of a risk, it shouldn't be too hard to prove it, even if the bar is set significantly high enough to avoid infringements of good peoples' rights.



Blessings,
Bill

Bill nailed it!