Remind us again how firearms are not seized and destroyed.

[AmericanFirst]

He was cleared, and did what he had to to be legal......and they destroyed his property without his permission.....imagine if they did that with your "My Little Pony" collection.....you and your buddies would be outraged.....

"He shouldn't have broken the law!!!"

What part of cleared did you not understand?

 

[AmericanFirst]

“People can't afford to spend tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees to get back a $500 firearm."

What is it right wingers always say when a black guy breaks the law and gets shot or beat senseless by the cops?

"He shouldn't have broken the law!!!"

Yeah.

I guess you think just because you are accused of something you are guilty right? So if I file an anonymous claim against you you have no problem losing all your weapons and never getting them back after it is shown to be a false claim? Right? That is what you are saying after all. Further you are saying once the charges are dropped the Government should not return the weapons to the INNOCENT person they took them from.

Imagine if they confiscated a gay wedding cake.......

G500 would be devastated.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Right to Bear Arms Gun grabbing sweeping the nation Fox News

Go ahead remind us how this does not happen again.

One can't 'remind' someone of something that has never happened.

You succeed in only exhibiting your ignorance of the law, the Fifth Amendment, the right to due process, and Takings Clause jurisprudence.

In all of the examples cited in the article the persons involved were – and are – being afforded due process of the law.

No firearms are being 'confiscated,' no guns 'grabbed,' no Second or Fifth Amendment rights 'violated.'

As the cited articles notes “firearms were seized in California from[...]home because of psychiatric issues, domestic violence allegations, restraining orders or other issues[,]” not in an effort to 'disarm' citizens or 'violate' anyone's rights.

This is yet another example of the demagoguery, fear-mongering, and hyperbolic idiocy common to ignorant extremists concerning guns.

 

[Mr.Right]

He was cleared, and did what he had to to be legal......and they destroyed his property without his permission.....imagine if they did that with your "My Little Pony" collection.....you and your buddies would be outraged.....

Oh dear. I'm busting a gut here. Lol. My little pony! Murderers!

 

[Mr.Right]

Right to Bear Arms Gun grabbing sweeping the nation Fox News

Go ahead remind us how this does not happen again.

One can't 'remind' someone of something that has never happened.

You succeed in only exhibiting your ignorance of the law, the Fifth Amendment, the right to due process, and Takings Clause jurisprudence.

In all of the examples cited in the article the persons involved were – and are – being afforded due process of the law.

No firearms are being 'confiscated,' no guns 'grabbed,' no Second or Fifth Amendment rights 'violated.'

As the cited articles notes “firearms were seized in California from[...]home because of psychiatric issues, domestic violence allegations, restraining orders or other issues[,]” not in an effort to 'disarm' citizens or 'violate' anyone's rights.

This is yet another example of the demagoguery, fear-mongering, and hyperbolic idiocy common to ignorant extremists concerning guns.

What about the illegal gun grab, after hurricane Katrina? We haven't forgot about that.

 

[g5000]

“People can't afford to spend tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees to get back a $500 firearm."

What is it right wingers always say when a black guy breaks the law and gets shot or beat senseless by the cops?

"He shouldn't have broken the law!!!"

Yeah.

I guess you think just because you are accused of something you are guilty right?

Nope. In fact, that is the very antithesis of what I believe.

 

[g5000]

Of course it is wrong the guy's guns were destroyed. That is, if Fox News can be relied upon to be telling the whole truth here. Which they can't be.

Stipulating they are telling the whole truth, this is not evidence of some government conspiracy to seize all our guns. Sorry!

You are delusional........

No, the delusional are those who see a vast conspiracy to seize guns where there isn't one.

 

[g5000]

He was cleared, and did what he had to to be legal......and they destroyed his property without his permission.....imagine if they did that with your "My Little Pony" collection.....you and your buddies would be outraged.....

"He shouldn't have broken the law!!!"

And after he paid his dues he gets his property back...right?

If the cops improperly destroyed the guys guns, then the cops are in the wrong.

But if they have also improperly disposed of other kinds of property, then this debunks the claim this is about seizing our guns. It becomes a run-of-the-mill story about more police incompetence.

But Fox News doesn't want it to be about run-of-the-mill incompetence. They want it to be about OBAMAZ CUMMIN FER YER GUNZ!

See how that works?

Why would they destroy a couch.....? Considering how long they have to actually hold on to guns and knives for criminal cases...they just destroyed his gun in a hurry....why?

Police seize all kinds of property under the Asset Forfeiture Program. The abuses of that program are notorious.

Fox News is guilty of either willfully choosing not to investigate what other kinds of property people may have had seized and destroyed or sold off at auction by incompetent or abusive cops, or they are aware that such things are going on and willfully choosing to hide that fact from you in order to create a bogus wide ranging gun-seizing conspiracy for gullible fools like yourself.

Lies of omission are just as bad, if not worse, than straight up lies. Fox News excels at both.

 

[g5000]

Civil Asset Forfeiture American Civil Liberties Union

Policing for Profit The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture Cato Institute

The 7 Worst Examples Of Civil Asset Forfeiture The Daily Caller

The Contemporary Art Institute of Detroit’s monthly “Funk Night” party got weird in May of 2008. The all-night dance party was raging when police burst in around 2 a.m., the Metro Times reports. Officers alleged the establishment did not have a license. They passed out loitering tickets and impounded 40 vehicles just because they were driven to the party. They all got their cars back. Oh, except for the one guy who had his car stolen from the impound lot. Also, they each paid a $900 impound fee, totaling more than $35,000.

Civil Asset Forfeiture - The Progress Report

In Detroit, a grocery store was raided and all the cash was confiscated, even though the police found no drugs, because the police dogs reacted to some of the cash. In New Jersey, a man was accused of practicing psychiatry without a license because he was counselling people in his mother’s home; even though counselling does not require a license, the police confiscated the house and furniture.

 

[g5000]

Imagine if they confiscated a gay wedding cake.......

Click on Judy's Bakery in this link.

 

[Flash]

So a guy who was a threat to other people had his guns confiscated. I guess we should let people who have restraining orders against them go around armed.

And this is connected to having MY guns confiscated...how?


Oh, yeah. It isn't. I guess I don't need to shit my pants even if Fox News wants me to.

That despicable SAFE Act was passed in New York. It was advertised by the anti gun nuts as "reasonable gun control law".

Within a week of it passing a veteran was arrested because he had unloaded AR magazines in his trunk.

A couple of months ago another veteran had his firearms confiscated under the SAFE Act because he went to see a doctor about having insomnia.

You can't ever trust Liberals with our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms because they are not reasonable. We have also recently saw how unreasonable they were with the Constitutional freedom of religion in Indiana, haven't we? Liberals don't understand the concept of freedom.

 

[g5000]

So a guy who was a threat to other people had his guns confiscated. I guess we should let people who have restraining orders against them go around armed.

And this is connected to having MY guns confiscated...how?


Oh, yeah. It isn't. I guess I don't need to shit my pants even if Fox News wants me to.

That despicable SAFE Act was passed in New York. It was advertised by the anti gun nuts as "reasonable gun control law".

Within a week of it passing a veteran was arrested because he had unloaded AR magazines in his trunk.

A couple of months ago another veteran had his firearms confiscated under the SAFE Act because he went to see a doctor about having insomnia.

You can't ever trust Liberals with our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms because they are not reasonable. We have also recently saw how unreasonable they were with the Constitutional freedom of religion in Indiana, haven't we? Liberals don't understand the concept of freedom.

I am in the pro gun rights camp. I am opposed to the liberal desire to remove guns from our society.

However, I do support some common sense laws, as we conservatives did decades ago, but which the current crop of right wing lunatics opposes for who knows what reasons.

Background checks are common sense. Limiting magazine sizes is not.

Nevertheless, the OP is not evidence of some imaginary wide-ranging gun-seizing conspiracy. Occam's razor. Which is the more likely explanation for the valuable guns which were destroyed: A) A wide-ranging gun-seizing conspiracy which extends across countless law enforcement agencies at the local, state, and federal levels, or; B) Incompetent cops who fucked up?

We see a lot of incompetent cops ******* up all over the country. This is not evidence of a conspiracy. It is evidence that police organizations are no more exempt from having idiots in their ranks than any other profession.

If I am a "journalist" (air quotes) with a heavy confirmation bias, I can easily find a case of incompetent cops which will fit into the propaganda narrative I am trying to convey to my profitable rube audience.

 

[g5000]

Going hyperbolic on this particular situation creates the Crying Wolf problem. If you are running around screaming, "THEY ARE CUMMIN FER YER GUNZ!" at every idiotic story like this one, you completely dilute the message.

Liberals really do want to do away with guns. Some liberals want to eliminate some types of guns. Other liberals want to eliminate all guns.

Save your protest for the instances that actually matter, people.

In other words, keep your powder dry.

 

[Flash]

[

I am in the pro gun rights camp. I am opposed to the liberal desire to remove guns from our society.

However, I do support some common sense laws, as we conservatives did decades ago, but which the current crop of right wing lunatics opposes for who knows what reasons.

Background checks are common sense. Limiting magazine sizes is not.

There is a big problem with background checks.

I think it is wrong to have the government in the position of giving permission on who can enjoy a Constitutional right. A right that is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and that the Supreme court has said is an individual right.

If you have to get the government's permission to enjoy a right then you really don't have the right, do you?

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is suppose to establish the rights that individuals have that the government can't infringe. If you have to get permission from the government then the Bill of Rights is not the worth the paper it is written on, is it?

The second thing that is bad about background checks is that it will do nothing to keep firearms out of the hands of those that would use the firearms for crimes. It will only put a burden on those people that would never have used the firearms for a crime in the first place.

Bad idea all around.

I do not trust the Liberals with any definition of "common sense". I don't think they are capable of determining what is common sense and what is not. They will always go off the deep end as we see in several states. For instance, it took the Heller and McDonald cases to tell DC and Chicago that they must allow their citizens to have a handgun for self defense in their own homes. Before the cases the Liberals thought it was common sense to prevent anybody from owning a handgun.

 

[HenryBHough]

When you live in Communist state is it not wrong to believe you have any rights?