Second to last paragraph - they presume all gunowners are dangerous
Guess this means the SWAT teams will be busy.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
To: driftdiver
But 12 people were arrested on suspicion of illegally owning assault weapons or grenades ... which of these things is not like the other...which of these things does not belong? yep, busy they will be. hide your dogs.
2 posted on
06/17/2011 11:59:11 AM PDT by
WOBBLY BOB
( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
To: driftdiver
“Guess this means the SWAT teams will be busy.”
Until the attrition kicks in.
3 posted on
06/17/2011 12:00:15 PM PDT by
Psalm 144
(Voodoo Republicans: Don't read their lips - watch their hands.)
To: driftdiver
Eventually there will be unintended consequences from these ham fisted encroachments on liberty.
4 posted on
06/17/2011 12:01:04 PM PDT by
Durus
(You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
To: driftdiver
No such thing as an ‘illegally owned gun’....................
5 posted on
06/17/2011 12:01:12 PM PDT by
Red Badger
(Nothing is a 'right' if someone has to give it to you................)
To: driftdiver
Were any of the weapons owned by BATF agents?
8 posted on
06/17/2011 12:04:23 PM PDT by
saganite
(What happens to taglines? Is there a termination date?)
To: driftdiver
"Harris said 90 percent of the people who had guns seized were barred from owning weapons because of mental illness"
And what qualifies as "mental illness" such that 30 thousand people had cops show up at their doors demanding their guns? They obtained a Rx for anti-depressants? That sounds like a lot of civil committment orders if that's what they base it on. Or are Doctors turning in their patients? Is this why doctors in lib states are asking patients if they own guns?
To: driftdiver
You have to wonder just how California chooses to define “mental illness” for this purpose. And you might also wonder how many of the targeted individuals have ever committed a violent felony or are truly likely to do so... as compared with the recidivist criminal element that the state might otherwise choose to address... if it were not so dramatically overrepresented by other, “protected” classes of people.
12 posted on
06/17/2011 12:12:03 PM PDT by
andy58-in-nh
(America does not need to be organized: it needs to be liberated.)
To: driftdiver
My favorite line “Conduct the high-security operations needed to safely seize the guns from people” another excuse to use SWAT
13 posted on
06/17/2011 12:12:15 PM PDT by
Ratman83
To: driftdiver; All
Whatever you do, don’t EVER go to the doctor and complain of being ‘depressed’ or overly stressed out. That could be considered “mental illness”, and you may eventually find your name on some federal gun grabber list!
14 posted on
06/17/2011 12:13:48 PM PDT by
KoRn
(Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
To: driftdiver
And its for reason such as this that I will not buy guns from any source other than individuals, cash only, no questions asked. As far as the Government is concerned I own zero guns and I intend to keep it that way no matter what “mandatory” registration schemes they put in place. I am lucky enough to live in West Virginia, which is a very pro-gun state but you never know what the future might bring.
15 posted on
06/17/2011 12:14:55 PM PDT by
apillar
To: driftdiver
What are they doing about the illegals that are carrying the illegal guns?
To: driftdiver
The Real story. Your blood sugar goes bad. Someone takes you to the ER. The ER Doc finds you whacked out. He puts a 51-50 hold on you to get your blood sugar back within limits. The AG wants to really show people she is doing things sees you one the list and has your gun removed. Moral, Don't give the cop or ER doc a problem and they won't visit you. Remember these are the same people that could not find three people living in a felons back yard.
To: All
I presume this group includes convicted violent felons, whose ranks are soon to be swelled in CA.
To: driftdiver
“they presume all gunowners are dangerous”
Only to criminals and tyrants.
To: driftdiver
Most people bought the weapons legally but were later prohibited from owning guns. These were U.S. Citizens doing what they were legally allowed to do. Subsequently they were criminalized by retroactive rules drafted and put into effect by their state legislature and governor.
35 posted on
06/17/2011 12:48:29 PM PDT by
DoughtyOne
(Muslim Brotherhood (renames itself) the Liberty and Justice Party. NOT A JOKE.)
To: driftdiver
San Franciso - The Marxist capitol of the United States.
38 posted on
06/17/2011 12:50:29 PM PDT by
broken_arrow1
(I regret that I have but one life to give for my country - Nathan Hale "Patriot")
To: driftdiver
Let me guess, they picked the easy, low-hanging fruit, people technically not supposed to own guns, but not all that likely to harm anyone with them.
I seriously doubt they went into the “hood” or the “barrio” to seize guns from the gang bangers who are very likely to use them.
To: driftdiver
California seizes 1200 "illegally" owned gunsWell, assuming the laws making it "illegal" to own those guns pass muster themselves, and the safest assumption is that they do not. Safe both for statistical reasons (how many reasonable gun laws consistent with IIA have you seen?) and in terms of the Goldwater test (does the pro-rights or pro-state assumption work out worse if you guess wrong).
48 posted on
06/17/2011 2:04:03 PM PDT by
Still Thinking
(Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
To: driftdiver
The massive perils of gun registration. Gun confiscating Big Brother will always know who and where you are.
To: driftdiver
Meanwhile the gangbangers who routinely murder people get a pass.
54 posted on
06/17/2011 3:00:30 PM PDT by
Scotsman will be Free
(11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson