Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Take away illegally owned guns (California)
SF Chronicle ^ | 8:12 pm, Monday, February 4, 2013

Posted on 02/10/2013 9:19:22 AM PST by Red Steel

Edited on 02/10/2013 9:26:39 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

In the divisive debates over gun control, here is something all factions should agree on: Deadly weapons should be taken out of the hands of those who have been deemed a risk because of felony convictions or episodes of domestic violence, mental health conditions or drug addictions.


(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; US: California
KEYWORDS: banglist; confiscation; guncontrol; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-42 next last

1 posted on 02/10/2013 9:19:27 AM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
...mental health conditions...

As defined by who?

2 posted on 02/10/2013 9:29:44 AM PST by Washi (PUSH BACK! Encourage your legislators to introduce pro-second amendment legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

“shall not be infringed” ... so much for that one

“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”... gone, as you’re not even allowed to protect your own life with these idiots

and bringing any if this crap to the courts is pointless, as we ‘don’t have standing’


3 posted on 02/10/2013 9:30:34 AM PST by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Further evidence that registration ALWAYS leads to confiscation.

Once they start down this slippery slope, who is going to make the judgment of who is a “risk” or mentally incompetent? Some fag in SF? “Look! He's former military! Danger! Danger! OMG! He's a hunter! We all know hunters are cold blooded killers!”

It all leads to "anybody that would even consider owning a firearm is dangerous!"

4 posted on 02/10/2013 9:32:28 AM PST by 2111USMC (aim small, miss small)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Let no free man be debarred the use of arms. Or something like that...


5 posted on 02/10/2013 9:40:19 AM PST by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

>>> Domestic Violence

It means San Francisco Police Chief can’t carry his guns.


6 posted on 02/10/2013 9:42:16 AM PST by jennychase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennychase

Mirkarimi?

SF County Sheriff


7 posted on 02/10/2013 9:47:08 AM PST by Califreak (11/6/12 The Day America Divided By Zero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Washi
As defined by who?

Well, by liberals of course. (sarc)

8 posted on 02/10/2013 9:47:29 AM PST by Mark17 (California, where English is a foreign language)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jennychase

You meant the City and County of San Francisco Sheriff not the Police Chief.


9 posted on 02/10/2013 9:48:50 AM PST by aloppoct (stucnsf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Deadly weapons should be taken out of the hands of those who have been deemed a risk because of felony convictions or episodes of domestic violence, mental health conditions or drug addictions.

And how will they know what weapons this person who was 'deemed' at risk has? There would need to be some sort of list, wouldn't there.

Let's generate such a list by requiring every gun transaction be done through the federal government's NICS system, and keep track of who bought what. We'll call it a "Universal Background Check."

10 posted on 02/10/2013 9:50:56 AM PST by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Confiscation will come INCREMENTALLY; the left is patient, as has learned that the very low and steady approach is best.

It will be crazy people first, then people with felonies, then folks with restraining orders, etc.

It will only be door-to-door with SWAT at the very end.


11 posted on 02/10/2013 9:52:31 AM PST by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; All

Add this little tidbit to yer plate...

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/02/electronics-border-seizures/?cid=co5746764

This is geting rather surreal...


12 posted on 02/10/2013 10:03:27 AM PST by stevie_d_64 (It's not the color of one's skin that offends people...it's how thin it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2111USMC

A Christian “clinger.”


13 posted on 02/10/2013 10:03:27 AM PST by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Washi
...mental health conditions...

As defined by who?

Precisely.

Expect the liberals to define wanting to own a gun as mentally unstable; that it's a mental illness.

Therefore you are automatically deemed unfit to own one.

14 posted on 02/10/2013 10:09:27 AM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

So here we are: the state of California has “lists” of people who are not permitted to possess firearms. The writer wants the state AG to send out the troops to go get those firearms. Here’s the fun part: if they know of felons or mental patients with guns, why haven’t they arrested these people before? Answer: these aren’t felons or mental patients - these are trusting people who registered their “assault rifles” and now the state wants to come take them. Typically, Fascists grab power in easy-to-digest stages. One by one we hand off freedoms because is “doesn’t involve us yet”. All they have to do is shave more people off the “approved” list until their final objective is reached. They want all of us completely disarmed and completely subject to their power.


15 posted on 02/10/2013 10:11:50 AM PST by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
... those who have been deemed a risk because of felony convictions...

If they have been deemed a risk because of a felony conviction, do we allow them to have knives, baseball bats, cars, gasoline cans or tire irons?

Of course we do.

But they can maim and kill with any of those also.

With gasoline, quite prolifically.

16 posted on 02/10/2013 10:19:22 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Great idea! Start with Los Angeles. The LAPD has a lot of extra time and manpower right now, given that they’ve been idle for the last week or so. So right now is a great opportunity to start taking guns away from dangerous criminals. Seize the day!


17 posted on 02/10/2013 10:27:13 AM PST by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

If you are convicted of carrying a concealed weapon without a permit (bearing arms) you are now a felon who cannot have firearms at all. What part of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” do these people not understand?


18 posted on 02/10/2013 10:29:44 AM PST by shooter223 (the government should fear the citizens......not the other way around)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

And while they’re at it, they can deport illegally situated Mexicans and other foreigners who break our laws.


19 posted on 02/10/2013 10:30:54 AM PST by trebb (Allies no longer trust us. Enemies no longer fear us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Expect the liberals to define wanting to own a gun as mentally unstable; that it's a mental illness.

Therefore you are automatically deemed unfit to own one.

Joseph Heller wrote a book about that very thing.

20 posted on 02/10/2013 10:47:18 AM PST by Graybeard58 (_.. ._. .. _. _._ __ ___ ._. . ___ ..._ ._ ._.. _ .. _. .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-42 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson