California Begins Gun Confiscation

[JoeB131]

[

Killing device????

You mean the scissors the abortion doctor uses to sever spines????

Really, you have no need for it because you think the cops will always come to save your ass on time before you're dead, but I like to be able to rely on my own ability to stop an attack without any help.

But...but... but... abortion. Do try to stay on subject. When Conseratards start giving a shit about poor kids, I'll start taking their welping about 'the unborn' seriously.

Guy, real cases of people defending themselves with guns are rarer than lightening strikes and UFO abductions. It just doesn't happen that often.

The FBI only recorded 201 cases of "justifiable homicide" with a firearm in 2010. Comared with 11,101 murders and 16,000 suicides, the gun is more dangerous to the people in the house than anyone wanting to break in.

 

[Samson]

[

Killing device????

You mean the scissors the abortion doctor uses to sever spines????

Really, you have no need for it because you think the cops will always come to save your ass on time before you're dead, but I like to be able to rely on my own ability to stop an attack without any help.

But...but... but... abortion. Do try to stay on subject. When Conseratards start giving a shit about poor kids, I'll start taking their welping about 'the unborn' seriously.

Guy, real cases of people defending themselves with guns are rarer than lightening strikes and UFO abductions. It just doesn't happen that often.

The FBI only recorded 201 cases of "justifiable homicide" with a firearm in 2010. Comared with 11,101 murders and 16,000 suicides, the gun is more dangerous to the people in the house than anyone wanting to break in.

I agree with much of your arguement; however, inflating the numbers through duplicity is probably unnecessary; e.g. every murder and suicide is not committed with a gun, and every murder or suicide by gunshot is not done with a registered firearm. One can easily accomplish the task with Biden's shotgun.

 

[Agit8r]

The FBI only recorded 201 cases of "justifiable homicide" with a firearm in 2010. Comared with 11,101 murders and 16,000 suicides, the gun is more dangerous to the people in the house than anyone wanting to break in.

But I think this sort of thing could happen to me, because I read all the Dear National Riflemen stories. Though between you and me, I think they all exaggerate the size of their... um ...guns.

 

[JoeB131]

The FBI only recorded 201 cases of "justifiable homicide" with a firearm in 2010. Comared with 11,101 murders and 16,000 suicides, the gun is more dangerous to the people in the house than anyone wanting to break in.

But I think this sort of thing could happen to me, because I read all the Dear National Riflemen stories. Though between you and me, I think they all exaggerate the size of their... um ...guns.

Well, they are "compensating" for something....

 

[Samson]

The FBI only recorded 201 cases of "justifiable homicide" with a firearm in 2010. Comared with 11,101 murders and 16,000 suicides, the gun is more dangerous to the people in the house than anyone wanting to break in.

But I think this sort of thing could happen to me, because I read all the Dear National Riflemen stories. Though between you and me, I think they all exaggerate the size of their... um ...guns.

impressive.

a phallic/gun comment.

This depth of thought really brings a lot of credability to the anti-gun arguement.

Bravo.

 

[JoeB131]

The FBI only recorded 201 cases of "justifiable homicide" with a firearm in 2010. Comared with 11,101 murders and 16,000 suicides, the gun is more dangerous to the people in the house than anyone wanting to break in.

But I think this sort of thing could happen to me, because I read all the Dear National Riflemen stories. Though between you and me, I think they all exaggerate the size of their... um ...guns.

impressive.

a phallic/gun comment.

This depth of thought really brings a lot of credability to the anti-gun arguement.

Bravo.

Hey, those "Dear National Rifleman" stories are the right's version of Penthouse Forums...

 

[Agit8r]

But I think this sort of thing could happen to me, because I read all the Dear National Riflemen stories. Though between you and me, I think they all exaggerate the size of their... um ...guns.

impressive.

a phallic/gun comment.

This depth of thought really brings a lot of credability to the anti-gun arguement.

Bravo.

Hey, those "Dear National Rifleman" stories are the right's version of Penthouse Forums...

*must.. resist.. quip.. about.. shooting wad*

 

[Samson]

But I think this sort of thing could happen to me, because I read all the Dear National Riflemen stories. Though between you and me, I think they all exaggerate the size of their... um ...guns.

impressive.

a phallic/gun comment.

This depth of thought really brings a lot of credability to the anti-gun arguement.

Bravo.

Hey, those "Dear National Rifleman" stories are the right's version of Penthouse Forums...

Not having wasted time reading either, I wouldn't know.



The only worthy expenditure of excess intellectual resourses is Octo-porn.

 

[Agit8r]

All you need to be put on the list is an unfounded accusation.

Is that what Wayne LaPierre meant by an "active" mental health database?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Amazing. I posted the California laws and clearly showed the circumstances which deprived her to the right to keep a firearm, but it means nothing to you simpletons. You just go right on spewing nonsense, as if the law, facts and truth don't mean anything.

How Republican of you.

You did post them, and thank you for that.

Two issues though; first, as I already pointed out, the law DOES call for judicial review. While it appears that the statement of a single police officer, without legal representation, trial, or any sort of due process is sufficient to strip people of their constitutional rights, if a challenge is made, then the process must be followed.

Now clearly this is a violation of both 5th and 14th amendment protections, but California is a police state, run by the extreme left with absolutely no respect for civil rights.

The incident in Upland is no different than if my wife were pulled over for DUI, put in jail, released awaiting trial, and then Stasi agents come and take my car - along with hers, without compensation or right of appeal. Notice that the Stasi stole 2 guns registered to the husband, along with the 1 registered to the wife.

Hopefully this case gained enough media that the ACLJ (the ACLU does not protect civil rights) will take the Peoples Republic to court. Even the 9th will have heartburn with such flagrant disregard for the Constitution.

 

[Uncensored2008]

"Patrick T. Fallon is a photojournalist in Los Angeles specializing in news, features and sports: looking to capture unique moments of life with every assignment...He is available for assignments throughout California."

Your theory is not supported with historical evidence, or fact.



But don't let that stop your imagination from running wild.

The article says he works for the LA Times, a division of the democratic party. That confirms that the Stasi called for the coverage. It was staged propaganda.

 

[Goodoledays]

I think everyone has at one time or another been accused of being a little crazy.

For sure. Look at the gov't we have now.

 

[Goodoledays]

I think everyone has at one time or another been accused of being a little crazy.

yes, we have...

Most of us don't get locked up in psych hospitals, though.

Guess your right. Anyone in gov't gets a free pass.

 

[Goodoledays]

That's some scary stuff..We have come full circle with our rights being stripped

Do you think people with mental illness have the right to own a gun?

No I don't. And I don't believe any of the illegals running around this country do either.

 

[Jarlaxle]

[

Don't see a problem there. Should have offed himself first and saved the hassle of a new patio door.

Yeah, but we've already established you're a sociopath, you don't need to remind us.

Pot, meet kettle!

 

[sitarro]

impressive.

a phallic/gun comment.

This depth of thought really brings a lot of credability to the anti-gun arguement.

Bravo.

Hey, those "Dear National Rifleman" stories are the right's version of Penthouse Forums...

Not having wasted time reading either, I wouldn't know.



The only worthy expenditure of excess intellectual resourses is Octo-porn.

did someone say Octo?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...........
Ummmmmmmmmmm.......
Errrrrrrrrrr...........

Actually, that about covers it!

 

[Vandalshandle]

I used to ride BART through Oalkand to San Fransico every day. I would have been delighted if they had banned guns in Oakland.

 

[Oldguy]

You did post them, and thank you for that.

Two issues though; first, as I already pointed out, the law DOES call for judicial review. While it appears that the statement of a single police officer, without legal representation, trial, or any sort of due process is sufficient to strip people of their constitutional rights, if a challenge is made, then the process must be followed.

No. The peace officer must be able to verify his actions and, yes, a judicial review is an option IF the person makes such a request. Apparently, she has not, which must either indicate that she does not care or knows her request will be rejected because of the circumstances.

Now clearly this is a violation of both 5th and 14th amendment protections, but California is a police state, run by the extreme left with absolutely no respect for civil rights.

No, it isn't "clearly" a violation of the Constitution. You may THINK it is, but that does not make it so.

The incident in Upland is no different than if my wife were pulled over for DUI, put in jail, released awaiting trial, and then Stasi agents come and take my car - along with hers, without compensation or right of appeal. Notice that the Stasi stole 2 guns registered to the husband, along with the 1 registered to the wife.

You can thank the War on Drugs for that. Seizing the assets of a SUSPECTED drug runner has been going on for some time. Simply by being accused, a person can literally lose everything they have and the only recourse they have is to sue for the VALUE of the seized property in court. It's considered a civil asset seizure, rather than a criminal asset seizure, and it happens every day. The Courts have ruled it Constitutional, though they also have limited its scope.

California's gun seizures operates under the same legal principle.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Amazing. I posted the California laws and clearly showed the circumstances which deprived her to the right to keep a firearm, but it means nothing to you simpletons. You just go right on spewing nonsense, as if the law, facts and truth don't mean anything.

How Republican of you.

You did post them, and thank you for that.

Two issues though; first, as I already pointed out, the law DOES call for judicial review. While it appears that the statement of a single police officer, without legal representation, trial, or any sort of due process is sufficient to strip people of their constitutional rights, if a challenge is made, then the process must be followed.

Now clearly this is a violation of both 5th and 14th amendment protections, but California is a police state, run by the extreme left with absolutely no respect for civil rights.

The incident in Upland is no different than if my wife were pulled over for DUI, put in jail, released awaiting trial, and then Stasi agents come and take my car - along with hers, without compensation or right of appeal. Notice that the Stasi stole 2 guns registered to the husband, along with the 1 registered to the wife.

Hopefully this case gained enough media that the ACLJ (the ACLU does not protect civil rights) will take the Peoples Republic to court. Even the 9th will have heartburn with such flagrant disregard for the Constitution.

it certainly is a violation of the protections of the Constitution