Gun owners, NOBODY'S COMING FOR YOUR GUNS. Except these guys.

[Little-Acorn]

Remember the bill that Governor Moonbeam signed some months ago, setting up squads to go after gun owners whom the state didn't think should own guns?

They weren't kidding.

Remember that "people barred from owning firearms" includes people going through an ordinary divorce, including a divorce where there has been no violence, no threats, no harrassment, and no complaints about any. Judges routinely hand out "restraining orders" against husband and wife both, ordering them not to stalk, harrass, or commit domestic violence against the other. Purely routine, not a big deal, you understand.

Except... the late and not-so-honorable Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) added an amendment to a law that said anyone who was under a restraining order that mentioned "domestic violence", was hereby forbidden to own firearms.

California divorcees, better look out your window. Especially at night (see below).

----------------------------------------

http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/11/16/3613913/state-agents-sweep-fresno.html

California Department of Justice agents sweep Fresno, Clovis for illegal guns

By Jim Guy
The Fresno Bee
November 16, 2013

The sign in the window warned burglars that the homeowner owned a handgun and would use it in self-defense. The state agents knocking on the door were there to confiscate the weapon.

The agents are part of the California Department of Justice's Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS), a program that takes firearms from people barred from owning them. The law says that group can include ex-felons and people deemed to be mentally unstable.

Often arriving in SUVs and dressed in black tactical uniforms, the teams regularly sweep through California cities with a list of names and addresses.

It was Fresno's turn last week.

Thursday night, the agents went to the home near Roeding Park to collect a Smith & Wesson semi-automatic pistol from a woman who had been evaluated under California Welfare and Institutions Code 5150 as a danger to herself and others. As such, she had been ordered to surrender any firearms in her possession and had not.

As is often the case, the agents were told that the weapon was not there and the woman's father-in-law had it in Bakersfield.

But that won't be the end of the search, according to Kisu Yo, a special agent who was part of the team making the sweep.

"There's no such thing as safe-keeping (by another family member)," Yo said.

Team members say they are dogged: They will press a prohibited person to allow them to search a home to look for the gun and ask to see the paperwork if they are told a weapon has been sold.

If agents are denied the search but have reason to believe they are being lied to, they will seek a warrant and lock down the house until they get results.

"That can make for a long night," said Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the Department of Justice.

Long nights are part of the job for the 33 agents who make up the APPS teams. They work evenings and nights because they are more likely to find people at home during those hours. They work in teams because they often have to approach darkened homes where there is likely to be an armed person inside.

"It really is a dangerous job," said Yo, a Marine Corps veteran of the first Gulf War. "Every time we make a contact, it's a very dangerous situation."

[Arbo]

I don't so much have a problem with the concept of taking guns from those who should not own them. I have a problem with their tactics AND some of what is used to say people should not own them. The history of government is one that abuses such things.

[Little-Acorn]

I don't so much have a problem with the concept of taking guns from those who should not own them.
TRANSLATION: "I don't have a problem with government having the authority to decide who should own guns and who should not."


(Rest of post deleted since the first part makes it irrelevant and self-contradictory)

[Arbo]

TRANSLATION: "I don't have a problem with government having the authority to decide who should own guns and who should not."

Nope, not even close to what I said. But thanks for alerting us to your comprehension problem.

[Little-Acorn]

Nope, not even close to what I said. But thanks for alerting us to your comprehension problem.

So you DO object to government having the authority to decide who should have guns and who shouldn't?

[Arbo]

So you DO object to government having the authority to decide who should have guns and who shouldn't?

What I said is perfectly clear.

[Little-Acorn]

What I said is perfectly clear.

Do you object to government having the authority to decide who should own guns and who shouldn't?

[Arbo]

Do you object to government having the authority to decide who should own guns and who shouldn't?

It is really quite tiresome to have to explain for those with comprehension problems… but here we go… what I said:

I don't so much have a problem with the concept of taking guns from those who should not own them.

Those that shouldn't have guns are set down pretty well in most law, and a good bit is common sense. Felons and those with a violent history and documenting mental instability. It makes sense that such people should not be allowed to own firearms.

I have a problem with their tactics AND some of what is used to say people should not own them.

The tactics used such as in the story, where they pretty much hold people hostage while they do in depth searches is sketchy and normally ripe for government abuse of citizens rights. Also, some of the reasoning used for why people can not own a gun is sketchy, and questionably extra-Constitutional. If there is no history of violence or solid reason why violence might occur, then there is no reason to say a person can now own a firearm. When the anti-gun crowd has tried everything to separate law abiding citizens from their firearms, and the anti-gun crowd continues to pour money into bogus campaigns thus influencing legislators and legislation, then that legislation is suspect.

The history of government is one that abuses such things.

See previous response. Government has a history of abusing 'reasons' for people not owning guns, so there is no reason to suddenly trust their motives are pure.

[Little-Acorn]

So you DO object to government having the authority to decide who should have guns and who shouldn't?


What I said is perfectly clear.

What is clear, is that you don't want to answer a clear question.

The reasons are pretty clear, too: You do favor giving government the authority to decide which of us shuould be allowed to own guns, and which should not. The excuse, as usual, is "mentally unstable people"... but I notice you don't make any attempt to restrict government to only that. Nor do you lay down any criteria that government should use in figuring out who those people are.

Under your rules, anyone who objects to the goodness and kindness of govenment, might get judged "mentally unstable"... since you lay down nothing that might confine govt to only the ones who are genuinely unstable.

My question has been answered by your very refusal to answer it.

You have no objection to giving government the authority to decide who should own a gun and who shouldn't... despite the huge abuse that opens ordinary citizens up to.

[Arbo]

What is clear, is that you don't want to answer a clear question.

The reasons are pretty clear, too: You do favor giving government the authority to decide which of us shuould be allowed to own guns, and which should not. The excuse, as usual, is "mentally unstable people"... but I notice you don't make any attempt to restrict government to only that. Nor do you lay down any criteria that government should use in figuring out who those people are.

Under your rules, anyone who objects to the goodness and kindness of govenment, might get judged "mentally unstable"... since you lay down nothing that might confine govt to only the ones who are genuinely unstable.

My question has been answered by your very refusal to answer it.

You have no objection to giving government the authority to decide who should own a gun and who shouldn't... despite the huge abuse that opens ordinary citizens up to.

You really are a dumb fucker that is incapable of understanding the written word. Thanks for verifying.

[fj1200]

You really are a dumb fucker that is incapable of understanding the written word. Thanks for verifying.

Your only chance at redemption is to grunt, "guns good, government bad." :slap:

[Arbo]

Your only chance at redemption is to grunt, "guns good, government bad." :slap:

The crazy part is he doesn't seem to see I am on his 'side' on this one. Amazing.

[Little-Acorn]

The crazy part is he doesn't seem to see I am on his 'side' on this one. Amazing.

I asked if you objected to giving govt the authority to decide who owns firearms and who doesn't. If you can't give a definitive YES in answer to that question, then you aren't on my side, much as you might like to believe you are.

You went into a long diatribe about taking guns away from mentally unstable persons etc. while carefully omitting who might do this taking away, and tossed in a few remarks about questioning government's tactics and doubting they could avoid abuse. But you carefully avoided (four times now) answering the dir4cxt question I asked, choosing to call me names and insulting me instead, over and over.

It's a pattern I frequently see from people afraid to admit they support an agenda they cannot defend: Giving government the authority to decide who should have a gun and who shouldn't. In other words, repealing the 2nd amendment.

OK, we've got one answer to the question, from someone without the courage to admit it. Anyone else?

[Arbo]

It's a pattern I frequently see from people afraid to admit they support an agenda they cannot defend:

The pattern I see is you working hard to take the title of head dumbass. Man, talk about living in a freaking fantasyland. You are there…

[logroller]

I asked if you objected to giving govt the authority to decide who owns firearms and who doesn't. If you can't give a definitive YES in answer to that question, then you aren't on my side, much as you might like to believe you are.

You went into a long diatribe about taking guns away from mentally unstable persons etc. while carefully omitting who might do this taking away, and tossed in a few remarks about questioning government's tactics and doubting they could avoid abuse. But you carefully avoided (four times now) answering the dir4cxt question I asked, choosing to call me names and insulting me instead, over and over.

It's a pattern I frequently see from people afraid to admit they support an agenda they cannot defend: Giving government the authority to decide who should have a gun and who shouldn't. In other words, repealing the 2nd amendment.

OK, we've got one answer to the question, from someone without the courage to admit it. Anyone else?
so long as the individual is given due process beforehand, then yes. Do you believe felons should be able to possess firearms?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

so long as the individual is given due process beforehand, then yes. Do you believe felons should be able to possess firearms? Didn't the Nazi's pass laws and set up a "process" before they murdered over 6 million Jews? I get what you were saying but the term "due process" is not a cover all IMHO. SOME OF US SEE WHAT THESE STEPS ARE LEADING TO. You know like the Jews that sent their kids to foreign nations before it was too late , we see. Big government has the power and the wealth to influence each state one by one to go along with its agenda. What we see going on in Cali comes directly from the Obama admin and its far reaching influence. A few private words here and there WITH TOP STATE OFFICIALS AND ORGANIZATIONS ABOUT FEDERAL AID TO A STATE THATS BANKRUPT WOULD DO THE TRICK TO GET SMALL INCREMENTS OF A GOVERNMENT GONE BAD PUT INTO PLACE. I always stated that Cali would be the first and here it is. --Tyr

[logroller]

Didn't the Nazi's pass laws and set up a "process" before they murdered over 6 million Jews? I get what you were saying but the term "due process" is not a cover all IMHO. SOME OF US SEE WHAT THESE STEPS ARE LEADING TO. You know like the Jews that sent their kids to foreign nations before it was too late , we see. Big government has the power and the wealth to influence each state one by one to go along with its agenda. What we see going on in Cali comes directly from the Obama admin and its far reaching influence. A few private words here and there WITH TOP STATE OFFICIALS AND ORGANIZATIONS ABOUT FEDERAL AID TO A STATE THATS BANKRUPT WOULD DO THE TRICK TO GET SMALL INCREMENTS OF A GOVERNMENT GONE BAD PUT INTO PLACE. I always stated that Cali would be the first and here it is. --Tyr
nazis? And they did what? I went to wikipedia to check out what you were talking about--suspect then just a story concocted by one of those hate sites, but now I feel like a jerk for sporting a swastika armband all these years.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention I had no idea that gun control had ever been tried before. But genocide certainly takes the cake. Wow! Not sure how to argue against that-- I mean, I don't want to be seen as a jew-hating nazi so the armband is going in the trash.

Regarding due process, well, I didn't find reference to the perils of due process as a cover-all in Nazi Germany-- I did, however find reference to hyperbole, reductio ad hitlerum and godwins law. :2up:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

nazis? And they did what? I went to wikipedia to check out what you were talking about--suspect then just a story concocted by one of those hate sites, but now I feel like a jerk for sporting a swastika armband all these years.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention I had no idea that gun control had ever been tried before. But genocide certainly takes the cake. Wow! Not sure how to argue against that-- I mean, I don't want to be seen as a jew-hating nazi so the armband is going in the trash.

Regarding due process, well, I didn't find reference to the perils of due process as a cover-all in Nazi Germany-- I did, however find reference to hyperbole, reductio ad hitlerum and godwins law. :2up:


Didn't the Nazi's pass laws and set up a "process" before they murdered over 6 million Jews? I get what you were saying but the term "due process" is not a cover all IMHO. SOME OF US SEE WHAT THESE STEPS ARE LEADING TO. Obviously my enlarged section agreeing with most of the due process of which you spoke flew right over your head. The point was the Nazi's did not just take over in a day and impose the final solution the next day. Godwins law being tossed out as a supposed destruction of a person's point of view has always been over rated IMHO. If the frog could speak it too would be saying , "come on in the water is warm and fine." I guess it was hyperbole when the Jews tried to warn their friends what was coming too. None are so blind as are those that refuse to see. Remember how I predicted here that obama would wait to start his antigun crusade until after he secured his second term and what did he do? Exactly that.. Accept it or not the guy is out to destroy this nation as it was founded. --Tyr

[logroller]

Obviously my enlarged section agreeing with most of the due process of which you spoke flew right over your head. The point was the Nazi's did not just take over in a day and impose the final solution the next day. Godwins law being tossed out as a supposed destruction of a person's point of view has always been over rated IMHO. If the frog could speak it too would be saying , "come on in the water is warm and fine." I guess it was hyperbole when the Jews tried to warn their friends what was coming too. None are so blind as are those that refuse to see. Remember how I predicted here that obama would wait to start his antigun crusade until after he secured his second term and what did he do? Exactly that.. Accept it or not the guy is out to destroy this nation as it was founded. --Tyr

If you can't (or won't) be bothered to form an argument in a way that doesn't color another as a nazi for disagreeing then I'm quite sure there's little, if any expectation of a continued debate. That's the gist of Godwin's law. I can't even play the race card-- the nazi card trumps all.

http://www.hark.com/clips/pdjbstctww-you-know-the-nazis-had-pieces-of-flair\

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

If you can't (or won't) be bothered to form an argument in a way that doesn't color another as a nazi for disagreeing then I'm quite sure there's little, if any expectation of a continued debate. That's the gist of Godwin's law. I can't even play the race card-- the nazi card trumps all.

http://www.hark.com/clips/pdjbstctww-you-know-the-nazis-had-pieces-of-flair\ Obvious or at least I thought it to be obvious that I wasn't speaking of you when giving the Nazi reference. I was speaking of the Obama admin and its ways. I am well aware of Godwin's law my reference to the Nazis was to highlight the Incrementalism the current agenda spearheaded by Obama.


Referred to as the “slippery slope,” incrementalism describes how we unconsciously lower our ethical standards over time through small changes in behavior.

I know of no card that trumps all but be that as it may my presentation of my views will be accurate according to how I see it. You are perfectly free to disagree but it would be wise to understand I was not accusing you directly of being anything at all (my point was about our government). And of course you can play the race card--I mentioned Obama didn't I and that's the biggest birther of race card being played of them all ?????---Tyr

[Little-Acorn]

so long as the individual is given due process beforehand, then yes.

What I'm talking about, comes way before "due process".

"Due process" means that the laws on the books, are properly applied to the case at hand, and the accused is judged and sentenced according to those laws.

But what if the law itself, is wrong?

In this country, we are lucky to have a law that supersedes every other law in the country. It's called "The Constitution". And any law that is hostile to it, is null and void (Marbury vs. Madison, for those of you who like to think the Supreme Court supersedes the Constitution. Article 6 Section 2, for those who know the opposite is true).

And part of that Constitution says that for stated reasons, the people's right to own and carry guns can't be taken away or restricted. That makes virtually all so-called "gun control" laws, null and void.

Some people might say that a law giving government the authority to decide who can have guns and who can't, means the govenment has that authority. But in fact, such a law is simply null and void. Govt can't have that authority, no matter what any laws say.

My point here: If such laws exist on the books, then "due process" is corrupted.

[Little-Acorn]

What I'm talking about, comes way before "due process".

"Due process" means that the laws on the books, are properly applied to the case at hand, and the accused is judged and sentenced according to those laws.

But what if the law itself, is wrong?

In this country, we are lucky to have a law that supersedes every other law in the country. It's called "The Constitution". And any law that is hostile to it, is null and void (Marbury vs. Madison, for those of you who like to think the Supreme Court supersedes the Constitution. Article 6 Section 2, for those who know the opposite is true).

And part of that Constitution says that for stated reasons, the people's right to own and carry guns can't be taken away or restricted. That makes virtually all so-called "gun control" laws, null and void.

Some people might say that a law giving government the authority to decide who can have guns and who can't, means the govenment has that authority. But in fact, such a law is simply null and void. Govt can't have that authority, no matter what any laws say.

My point here: If such laws exist on the books, then "due process" is corrupted.

To keep this thread from getting hijacked into a different subject, I've opened a new thread here:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?44061-The-2ndAm-doesn-t-say-quot-except-for-felons-quot-or-quot-except-by-due-process-of-law-quot-Why-not&p=675429#post675429

[Nukeman]

so long as the individual is given due process beforehand, then yes. Do you believe felons should be able to possess firearms?
Kind of depends on the nature of the "felony" dont you think??? There are a lot of non-violent felonies out there so who picks and chooses which should and should not be able to own a gun... So which of these do you feel deserve to lose a constitutional right to own guns??? I can pick a couple but who am I to say... For that matter who are YOU to say?!!?!?!?!?


Felonies include but are not limited to the following:


Murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder)
Rape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape)
Aggravated assault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault) and/or battery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(crime))
Manslaughter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter)
Vehicular homicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide)
Arson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arson)
Burglary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burglary)
Tax evasion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_evasion)
Various forms of fraud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud)
The manufacture, sale, distribution, or possession with intent to distribute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drug_trade) of certain types and/or quantities of illegal drugs
In some states, the simple possession (possession without intent to distribute, e.g., for personal use (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_abuse)) of certain types of illegal drugs, usually in more than a certain quantity but regardless of quantity for some drugs in some jurisdictions (such as Virginia for cocaine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine) and heroin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin))
Grand larceny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_larceny) or grand theft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_theft), i.e., larceny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larceny) or theft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft) above a certain statutorily established value or quantity of goods
Vandalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism) on federal property.
Treason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason)
Kidnapping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping)
Obstruction of justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice)
Perjury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury)
Cheque fraud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Check_fraud)
Copyright infringement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felonies#cite_note-2)
Child pornography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography) (also includes only viewing pictures, unless you immanently report to an officer.);
Mail tampering (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mail_tampering&action=edit&redlink=1)
Theft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft) of money over a certain amount
Violating parole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parole), probation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probation), or recognizance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognizance) bond
Threatening an official (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_government_officials_of_the_United _States) (police officer, judge)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

What I'm talking about, comes way before "due process".

"Due process" means that the laws on the books, are properly applied to the case at hand, and the accused is judged and sentenced according to those laws.

But what if the law itself, is wrong?

In this country, we are lucky to have a law that supersedes every other law in the country. It's called "The Constitution". And any law that is hostile to it, is null and void (Marbury vs. Madison, for those of you who like to think the Supreme Court supersedes the Constitution. Article 6 Section 2, for those who know the opposite is true).

And part of that Constitution says that for stated reasons, the people's right to own and carry guns can't be taken away or restricted. That makes virtually all so-called "gun control" laws, null and void.

Some people might say that a law giving government the authority to decide who can have guns and who can't, means the govenment has that authority. But in fact, such a law is simply null and void. Govt can't have that authority, no matter what any laws say.

My point here: If such laws exist on the books, then "due process" is corrupted.
Which was the gist of my comment to Logroller that "due process" is not a cover all that justifies the Obama and/or a state government overstepping its authority. The Nazis set up laws that allowed the "due process" to be applied in order to murder 6 million Jews. Godwin's law be damned the truth is the ffing truth. Obama wants to be a dictator and he wants to be a combo Stalin/Hitler type.--Tyr

[Gaffer]

Want to see what tactics are being used here? Go back to 1922 Italy. You might note that Mussolini started out as a communist and moved into fascism later. History repeating itself with a little of this and a little of that. Our Constitution and freedoms make it harder to transform the country into the dictatorship that is desired, but over time that can happen. The propaganda machine (Media) is hard at work, along with the education dept. The brown shirts can be found in every community, now known as thugs and gangs. More and more laws are enacted to deal with them. Laws that take away the rights of the citizen and do nothing to curtail the criminals.