Authored by Jeremiah Johnson via SHTFplan.com,
For all those individuals who claimed door-to-door gun confiscation wouldn’t happen? Well, it just did… in Florida. The report came out on 3/16/18, entitled It Begins: Florida Resident’s Firearms, Ammunition Confiscated Under Gun Control Law.
Yes, here it is: Here it starts.
Apparently, the individual is a 56-year-old man who has not committed a crime: he just falls into a category of people that could “pose a harm to the public good.” Here’s an excerpt:
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
The Orlando Sentinel reports that “four firearms and 267 rounds of ammunition” were taken from the man, and he was “taken to a hospital for involuntary psychiatric treatment.”
The seized firearms were listed as “a Ruger LCP .380 pistol, an M2 Mauser .45 pistol, a Charter Arms .357 mag snub nose revolver and a Mossberg 500 12-gauge shotgun.”
The paper notes that “the civil ruling removing his access to guns and ammunition was granted under … new legislation — which permits confiscating guns from people who have not been committed but are deemed a potential risk to themselves or others, according to the order signed by Broward’s Chief Judge Jack Tuter.
What’s even worse is that they have incorporated wonderful elements of Communism, namely stoolpigeons and snitches within the family or by order of a judge. Yes, Communism is that system that many deny, along with Marxism, that concentrated on removing undesirables and nonconformists by sending them to psychiatric wards until they displayed “correct thinking.”
For those who are not aware: Communism is the end-state, resulting in the death of all the undesirables and the enslavement of the masses. For “primers” on Communism, read George Orwell’s “1984,” and J. Edgar Hoover’s “Masters of Deceit.” Yes, Communism is alive, well, real, and waiting…in the guise of labels such as “the Progressive Movement” and “Social Justice,” clarion calls for armies of fools and illiterates who wish to change the world to be utilized in the call.
Utilized, and then liquidated after their usefulness expires: History has shown it again and again, with the “showcase era” being the entire 20th century.
Here is an excerpt that illustrates how the Communists work…turning family members against one another, using the “gendarmes” of the police force outside of their normal role, and bypassing due process of law with the use of judges:
The confiscatory order also bars the man from making new firearm or ammunition purchases. On March 9, Breitbart News reported that Gov. Scott signed a $400 million gun bill that includes orders which allows a family member or law enforcement to petition a judge to order the seizure of an individual’s firearms. The bill also put waiting periods in place for long gun purchases, raised the minimum purchase age for long gun purchases (from 18 to 21), and banned bump stocks.
Neat term, huh? Confiscatory order. Right up there with “Eminent Domain,” and “Annexation.” Chef DeJure: “Stroke of the pen…law of the land.”
Instead of denouncing the order and upholding the Constitution, the judge, addressed as “Your Honor” but without any… is now selectively interpreting the law and bypassing the 2nd and 4th Amendments to the Constitution in one fell swoop. All of this has been initiated by a pseudo-Republican governor’s stroke of the pen… entrée de jure, courtesy of Rick Scott.
Illinois is passing a legislative ban and the mandatory turn-in of “prohibited” firearms by 18-20-year-olds. Other states are following. What is not accomplished by the federal government is being accomplished by the states. They’re using the youth and the pressure of the media and social media to mold the public into compliance. What they cannot engender in that department they’ll close with de jure legislation.
The problem with laws? Once they’re in place, they’re able to be enforced by men with badges and guns… forcing you to comply. By the time the law is scrutinized by the courts, it is too late. That court scrutiny is not a guarantee that things will be set straight: it’s most likely they will not be. They win by passing their laws, and you are a “subject.” You become the victim of the tyranny of the majority, and the “Your Honors” who are paid politicians and puppets, selectively interpreting, bypassing, and violating Constitutional law.
They are coming for the guns. Each new “venture” elicits a new response, an incremental shift of the paradigm, as they craft their socialist society. They must have the guns, and they will be coming door to door for them… as they have just done in Florida. Take your steps now while you still can. In the end, a fight is coming. To win, people need to be smart. They need to be aware of what is going on… when to hold ‘em, fold ‘em, walk away, and run… not just stand and fight.
The first battle is to admit to what is happening and prepare for what is to come.
This is about a ridiculous and over-wrought article as I’ve ever read. “Stroke of the pen law of the land”? I’ve got news for you. This bill went through the Republican house and Republican Senate of the State of Florida, and was signed by the Republican Governor of Florida. Do you think Rick Scott is a communist? That’s insane. Hardly executive order stuff, as your quotes suggests. Taking away a maniac’s guns BEFORE he kills is a great idea. It should have happened in the Parkland case. Common sense it’s not that common anymore. The author of this piece has none. The guy who runs my farm has a neighbor who took to sitting out in front of his house with a rifle at night. He had already slashed my friends tires and was in and out of mental institutions over the years. He called BSO and they came and took the guy’s guns. As they should. He has a wife and kid to worry about, not some lunatics “rights”. Easy for this guy to write his bullshit, having never had to live next door to a fucking loon with a gun.
Due Process???
There is plenty of time for due process after you’ve taken the gun away from the lunatic
And you know they are a “lunatic” how? Because an ex-wife, or cat lady, hates guns, or just wants revenge? This is communism.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/03/02/exclusive-kobach-the-gun-confiscation-crusade-begins/
money quote ” One need not be a lawyer to see the multiple violations of due process in these laws. Even the ultra-liberal ACLU acknowledges that such confiscation laws threaten due process. Hopefully, when the legal challenges eventually occur, the judges will recognize the multiple constitutional problem”
Starsucker, you come across as a hysterical bitch
There was – pursuant to this newly and duly passed law – an order signed by a circuit court judge who’d been appointed by Jeb and re-elected multiple times. Sounds like due process to me. I’m going to be lonely here defending Starfckr, I see…
You’re wrong. Was this guy represented in court, and was there a hearing on whatever allegations were made by some snitch? No….This was ex parte, so no due process at all…
This also puts undue pressure on the poor since they would have to go to court to prove their innocence. The burden of proof is on the government. This should never change for any reason.
Really stupid comment. Oh the stress of living next door to someone with a gun–did you call the Sheriff?…If someone is committing crimes (Parkland) or committable (Parkland), then deal with them through the legal process. This bill is unConstitutional in about every way, and will be opposed by everyone who believes in America…
When I lived out west for a few years a half-wit lived a couple of houses up the street and shot my dog, paralyzing the poor thing. Admittedly, the dog was running free and this guy had penned up hunting dogs and mine sniffed around their cage. Guess he took a dislike to that, as he chased my dog into the park across the street and shot him with a .22 rifle.
Long story short, I took him to court and he had to pay restitution for the vet bills (my dog had to be put to sleep, as he was never going to walk again). Half-wit didn’t like having to pay restitution. I pleaded with the judge and prosecutor that his guns should be taken away. They weren’t.
I moved to the other side of town soon after that. One day at my new location, a bullet whizzed by my head. I knew it was him, but could not locate where the shot came from.
A week later he killed a woman jogger on a trail. Said he wanted to know what a .22 would do to a person’s head. He didn’t even know his victim–just randomly shot her dead.
Denizen,
You’ve missed the whole damn point. The point is that we shouldn’t have to give up our rights because of the actions of the few. Yeah, your story is sad. But I’ll take that dangerous world versus the 1984/Pre-crime utopia that cowards prefer.
BTW, keep your dog pinned up.
Denizen didn’t miss anything. I hope somebody shoots your dog, idiot. Did you not catch part about a bullet whizzing by his head? Or a woman shot for no reason? Once we identify a lunatic, disarming them would be the minimum that we should do. Putting them in a mental institution would be preferable. But leaving them to roam around with a firearm is insane. You know what they’re going to do, sooner or later. The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact. Get your head out of your ass
starfker,
Yeah, he missed the point. And I see it went right over your head too.
So far what he’s told me is a story. No links, just a story. But even if it were true. I don’t give a shit. Neither you nor Denizen can predict the future. To say that taking his firearms would have prevented that tragedy is as ignorant as the lefts arguments for gun control. But hey, I know that pre-crime assauges your Feelz™ so I should shut up and go along with your willingness to throw my rights out of the window. Not.
Suck it up and know you can’t save yourself much less the world with your laws.
Edit:
Oh, if my dog is on someones property, they have a right to dispose of him.
You’re out of your mind. I live in one of the most gun-friendly states in the Union. Nothing in the new laws changes that. I live in a neighborhood where everyone is armed to the teeth. I like that. We have no crime. The police don’t even bother patrolling my neighborhood. But you’re a lot less of a man than me if you think letting some lunatic keep a gun and endanger your family and neighbors is a good idea in the name of some inability of yours to understand what a right actually is. Men protect what is precious to them. Failure to do that makes you less of a man. That’s why God put you on this Earth. To protect women and children. And dogs. “Oh, if my dog is on someones property, they have a right to dispose of him.” You are a fruit loop. Dogs get out. It’s their nature. A good neighbor calls you and says come get him, he doesn’t put a fucking bullet in it. You must have no friends
Then I suppose you would’ve been man enough to take the guys guns from him yourself. No? You’d call the cops you say? Well, I guess we know who the men are don’t we?
@starfkr: See my response below.
If I took somebody’s gun from them, I would go to jail. I’m a civilized person living in a civilized society. I follow the law. If the way to remove some lunatics gun is calling the police, I would call the police. If the police refused to ensure my safety or the safety of those I love, would have to consider my options. But I guarantee you, doing nothing would not be an option
quote by Mad Dog Mattis
“Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”
Take his guns away and put him in the nut House
Crazy Man on the loose, lock up your dogs!
Dogs on my land get a bullet.
starfcker you’re a fucking lunatic. I mean what man in his right name would stick his sick in a star? And have you seen his comment history. Clearly an antisocial, antigovernment nut job who is a threat to his neighbors. Let’s cherry pick some of his juiciyer comments, show them to a judge out of context, refuse to let him present his side of the case, and then take his guns away.
See how easy that was?
It’s not qualitatively different from how a warrant is obtained.
My story is true. I recognize this is a tough issue. But in this case a life may have been saved if the half-wit’s guns were confiscated. He had already committed a crime when he fired on the dog on public property, plus the inhumane animal treatment charge.
I own firearms, and I don’t like the new Florida laws either. I was just relaying a story since it was personal and shows the “other side”. I knew this guy was gonna hurt someone and was mentally ill. I was proven right.
This link speaks to the murder, with a reference to my dog:
“… Spoonire was convicted previously of shooting a neighbor’s dog that relieved himself on his lawn. ”
http://www.bendbulletin.com/slideshows/1521738-151/bend-killer-will-remain-behind-bars
Denizen,
Some people are just evil. I know that. We all know that. But the truth is that not all Crazy/Evil people act on their impulses. My mother for example is nuttier than a fruitcake. She fantasizes about a man who she claims is going to marry her (she’s 77). Marty, she calls him, has thousands of disguises, and is anybody she singles out at Walmart. He could be a black gay jewish limo driver. “Eh, son, it’s him. He’s in disguise”. Ok mom your nuts but whatever. But I’ll tell you right now. She would never hurt a fly.
Well, she owns two guns. One day she may use one or both. But until she does, she is still entitled to posses the means to defend herself in the event someone tries to hurt her.
Under yours and starfkrs plan and now Floridas “law”, anyone could have her disarmed. Well I call bullshit because this WILL lead to so much abuse that you have failed to foresee. Any boyfriend, girlfriend, lover, dog catcher, tax man with a grievance can have your firearms taken from you and you have fuckall for recourse. No thank you.
It’s tragic about your dog and the nurse. But that world is better than the nightmare that Florida has unleashed. This law won’t save a single human or animal soul if a person is hell bent on killing. End of fucking story. Don’t trash your children’s rights because you live in fear.
“It’s tragic about your dog and the nurse. But that world is better than the nightmare that Florida has unleashed.” Tell that to the nurses family, birdbrain
starfker,
“Tell that to the nurses family, birdbrain”
I’d do it in minute if they asked my opinion. And most certainly would if they picked up the anti-gun banner and pushed for a law like Florida’s.
Telling the truth isn’t always easy but us men have a duty no?
Star, most laws start out with good intentions, like Civil Asset Forfeiture. Designed to take mobster’s assets. It has now been used for years to impoverish normal people that have their cash, vehicles, tools of their trade, etc. taken without any charges being filed. Letting police confiscate without even the cover of law would be monstrous.
“Under yours and starfkrs plan and now Floridas “law” “…
Don’t know what your are smoking, “Smoke”, but it’s not MY law! Did you not read that I said I DISAGREE with those Florida laws? Obviously not, else you are just lacking reading comprehension skill.
Now you’ve missed the entire point of my comment. Which is when a person is convicted of using a gun in a crime, they should forfeit their firearms.
Denizen,
“Don’t know what your are smoking, “Smoke”, but it’s not MY law! Did you not read that I said I DISAGREE with those Florida laws? Obviously not, else you are just lacking reading comprehension skill”.
My bad. And my apologies.
“Now you’ve missed the entire point of my comment. Which is when a person is convicted of using a gun in a crime, they should forfeit their firearms”.
You’re absolutely correct. But in your case you state “Admittedly, the dog was running free and this guy had penned up hunting dogs and mine sniffed around their cage”. You admitted your dog was on his property. In my opinion he’s a total dirtbag and deserves to be beat within an inch of his life. But he committed no crime if your dog was trespassing. I’ll bet you that your city has animal nuisance laws that make it a crime to allow your dog to roam freely. Ammiright? So why should he have to pay restitution? And why should he have his guns confiscated for protecting his property?
I’ve loved your mother for years. You’re just going to have to get used to having a black, Jewish limo-driving stepfather.
Marty,
“I’ve loved your mother for years. You’re just going to have to get used to having a black, Jewish limo-driving stepfather”.
I could live with that. But if she were right all those years? Fuck me……..
But he committed no crime if your dog was trespassing. – Jensen
For heaven’s sake, Jensen, didn’t you read Denizen’s story? The guy shot his dog ON PUBLIC PROPERTY (the park across the street). That was illegal, as was using a firearm to maim an animal.
Back of the class for you!
The Bill of Rights doesn’t care about the effectiveness of law enforcement, which frequently fumbles the ball. Its philosophy is “better 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be convicted.” What part of “Congress shall make no law…” did you not understand???
Maybe you should move to Mexico, which has lots of gun “control.”
The Bill of Rights doesn’t have anything to do with “better 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be convicted.” Some liberal swine lawyer made that up, and gullible schmucks like you repeat it.
I think there is already a law that allows involuntary hospitalization for mentally ill people that fantasizes about murdering people.
Generally by court order.
Just like this court order from Judge Jack Tuter.
Always by court order, after a hearing in which the accused is represented and has been examined by his own psychiatrist.
If your story is true, it’s tragic for the woman (not for you), but completely unconnected to the issue…
pyrrhus says:
March 21, 2018 at 10:45 am
If your story is true, it’s tragic for the woman (not for you), but completely unconnected to the issue…
———–
Another dumb fuck who can’t read for comprehension. Go back and read my comment. It was totally connected. Half-wit shot my dog, we went to court, he was convicted of a gun crime, I asked the judge to consider confiscating his firearms, they didn’t and he used the rifle to commit murder.
Get it now?
And yes, it was tragic for me as well. Not only because I loved that dog, but because I was unable to convince the court of the danger of this half-wit.
Your dog was running loose, idiot, and no doubt causing problems, so you were partly to blame. You asked the judge to confiscate his guns, but the law did not permit that, did it?
Then you say he murdered a woman….Stuff happens, the murder rate is not, and never has been zero. But Rule of Law is the only barrier between civilization and savagery.
“but completely unconnected to the issue.” You are dumb as a rock
No, I’m a Constitutional lawyer who has won cases in the Supreme Court, and you’re an anti-American ignoramus.
Leave the country, please.
Before this is over, we will rid our country of people like you. a woman gets shot in the head in a totally preventable situation, And you say “stuff happens.”
what a good little apparatchik you’ll make, come the Glorious Revolution. Onward to Utopia Comrades!!
My state had a similar bill of allowing family members to petition and the Republicans killed it. AND I LIVE IN A BLUE STATE! Yipeee!
I have also had my liberal family members freak the fck out over my guns and threatening to call the cops for it because my Kel-Tec PLR looked like a “assault rifle” (that’s not a pistol, this is a pistol I told them) – I guess my Ruger .380 was less assaulty?
I think the hardest part about truth-ing them was to have them realize (even my pro-gun members) that the government and its agents are not looking out for them. It was fairly easy to convince them to not take their vacation in Playa Del Carmen though. Because … you know, they’re deathly afraid of death but would rather die than ask for a gun. I’m just happy that they are not treating me like the next Adam Lanza.
I’ve had relatives act weird about my air rifle, and some would no doubt have liked to have it confiscated.
Won’t be voting for Rick Scott for Senate or any thing else, ever again, nor will I be voting for my Quisling Republican Rep or State Senator,
Great call. I’m sure the Dems will run a prime candidate. Make yourself proud. Tell me this, Warren. What actual part of the Florida Bill do you object to? It shouldn’t affect you or I at all.
What happens to HollyO shouldn’t affect you or I at all.
Sad for the individual stories, but individual stories are the back door that liberals will use to eventually confiscate your guns.
The problem with making laws based on individual cases is that those who are making the laws will sooner or later use the law that is on the books, to change the definition of “unstable” to be defined as one who has a negative opinion of government; and that negative opinion MAY lead that individual to violence. I am afraid that this definition of disliking government would be an apt description of most of us here.
I would like to see some law that would solve the tragedies you wrote about in the previous posts, but the bottom line is, there is a movement by many who want gun confiscation, but have to be satisfied with layer upon layer of gun control. Until one day, when the laws they have on the books will be enough to start the door to door campaign to make America safe again, by removing the hardware you own to protect you and your family.
As long as a significant number of the population want to deny you your 2nd amendment rights, any attempt at gun control must be resisted, while you have the power to resist.
Gangs regularly beat people to death with baseball bats in Chicago…Confiscate those too?
Wait, what? You must have me Confused with Someone else, I was not advocating for gun confiscation.
Many more people are killed with bats and hammers than AR-15’s for example. Many more are beaten or kicked to death. So much easier for the proggies to rail against guns. When they take your guns they can then beat you to death with fists or bats.
The 56 yo involved does have significant mental impairment, based on the statements presented. Overt paranoia mixed with guns has the potential for untoward outcomes. I doubt any residents of the condo objected to the confiscation of his guns. Even as a staunch defender of 2A, I gotta reluctantly go with the coppers on this one and any similar examples.
I’m steadfastly against the 3 day wait on purchases and the age restrictions Florida has instituted. Listening to Gov. Scott on guns is worrisome.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-florida-school-shooting-guns-seized-lighthouse-point-20180316-story.html
Steve, everything in your post is reasonable. I don’t see what the big deal is on the waiting period other than a minor inconvenience, but it certainly is something reasonable people could disagree with. If you are a Floridian, you know we have some of the best gun laws and self-defense laws in the country. I don’t think governor Scott is going to mess that up.
If he was given an appropriate hearing, with full representation, and committed, then it would be appropriate. Confiscation and commitment without a hearing? Communist totalitarianism.
starfker,
“If I took somebody’s gun from them, I would go to jail”.
Because men like you gave up your right to defend your wimmins and chilrens to the police because they didn’t have the intestinal fortitude for the hard work.
“I’m a civilized person living in a civilized society. I follow the law”.
Soy Boy talk right there.
“If the way to remove some lunatics gun is calling the police, I would call the police”.
Especially if they didn’t think like you and you had a heated argument with them the Florida law now allows you to ruin a mans life with a phone call instead of manning up and settling the dispute man to man.
” If the police refused to ensure my safety or the safety of those I love, would have to consider my options. But I guarantee you, doing nothing would not be an option”
Well, well, well. Buried deep inside of you is that man you claim to be. My apologies.
Soy Boy? I hate soy. I didn’t give up any rights, I was born with a system in place for a civil society, and I respect that. “instead of manning up and settling the dispute man to man.” We’re talking about mentally ill people. You can’t reason with them. And some of them will do a lot of harm. It’s our job as men to stop that from happening. And I accept your gracious apology
starfkr,
“Soy Boy? I hate soy”. Good. That’s a check in your plus column.
“I didn’t give up any rights, I was born with a system in place for a civil society, and I respect that”.
If you live in Floriduh Rick Scott just pissed your right to due process out of the window. What did you do to stop it? Unless you call a SWAT team pulling you out of your home at 3:00am to take your guns because of an angry ex claiming you’re a nut, Or a neighbor sees you through a window cleaning your scary black rifle, then spending thousands of dollars on a lawyer to prove your sane
due process. Then I’m just wasting my digital ink. You just wait. It’s coming.
“We’re talking about mentally ill people. You can’t reason with them”.
I know this from 30+ years of personal experience. My mother and I used to get into heated arguments. We’d say things that would make a sailor blush. But before we parted we’d kiss and make up (most of the time). I could never make her see that she was crazy no matter how much logic or reason or common sense I through at her. But until the day she threatens to hurt herself or someone else I won’t take her guns from her.
“And some of them will do a lot of harm”.
If you were a man that could see the future then I would say have at it. But you’re not. If the new bar is going to be “well he might do something” then this world is going to be needing new prisons.
“It’s our job as men to stop that from happening”.
You mean the Authorities job to stop that. Like the Coward County Sheriffs department stoped Nicholas Cruz. Those kind of men? I want to make sure that you meant them and not you because you might go to jail or something.
end/rant
You’re definitely winning. Actually, you won.
Gentlemen:
These faux tradeoffs have never been articulated more succinctly:
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Benjamin Franklin
Ben Franklin was talking about men, Joe. He was saying men have to be men. No actual man is going to have a nut job next door with guns endangering the lives of his wife and children. He will put a stop to that somehow. Ben Franklin was not saying roll over and your wife and kids should be at risk for some lunatics “rights”. That’s not how it works. Your job as a man is not to protect that lunatic. Your job as a man is to protect the people that count on you to protect them.
Sir:
I completely agree with you. But I don’t need any help defending me or mine.
In addition to the 7 “Ss”; shadow, shine, shape, … ; there are the 3 “Ss”.
Shoot, Shovel and Shut-up.
Thumbs up for that
Due process is the real issue as I see it.
Does the due process come first, then the punishment or does the punishment come first with due process at some later date if the lawyers can be persuasive enough and at a cost someone can afford to pay?
Same situation as with civil asset forfeiture, seizure first and any due process comes later for those who can afford it.
The civil asset forfeiture laws are an abomination. These gun removal laws are more akin to allowing a cop in pursuit (with probable cause) to seize – due to exigent circumstances – evidence in plain view. In exigent circumstances, formal due process can be delayed for a reasonable – and short – period.
Been fun guys, I got some work to do. Carry on
starfker,
Ditto. Be safe. Thanks for being a good sport.
???
That’s putting the cop in place of the law to make a decision based strictly on personal subjective considerations.
Subjective considerations such as thinking a person may be of some kind of danger -which could be anyone he looks askew at including you if he doesn’t like you- allowing a search of his home and property to see if he possesses any guns so they can be seized at his discretion.
Not a good idea since that will expand to any and all things and any and all circumstances. It will eventually expand to include preventive arrest without any reasonable cause or due process involved.
At the least, a court order of some kind stating who what is to be seized and why should be required to institute due process before the seizure. Maybe a law should be considered requiring that.
I believe what you have stated is the 4th amendment to the constitution, almost verbatim.
Can you say Judge Dredd? I knew that you could.
Who says it has to be short?
Death before doom porn.
“Soy Boy? I hate soy. I didn’t give up any rights, I was born with a system in place for a civil society, and I respect that. “instead of manning up and settling the dispute man to man.” We’re talking about mentally ill people. You can’t reason with them. And some of them will do a lot of harm. It’s our job as men to stop that from happening. And I accept your gracious apology.”
By this logic all Liberals need to be disarmed (which I wouldn’t mind–they are, after all, the vast majority of mass shooters now aren’t they)?
Maybe you said ONE THING that made sense.
The arguments on this thread are interesting and show that there are good arguments on both sides of any issue.
Sometimes your point-of-view on an argument changes based on how close you are to the issue and whether you’ve felt the effects personally, like Denizen. When you are in the situation, objectivity is not your first thoughts. You want/need a solution to the problem. You see it very clearly because you lived it. On the other hand, it is easier for someone who is not directly connected to the issue to see things more broadly. They too are looking for a solution but because they don’t have the same experience they approach it differently.
Free Speech Forum’s comment was excellent and stated many details I intended to include here. Thank you for posting.
I’ll end with one additional thought.
Nobody on this forum who has lived in the western world for all their lives has any first-hand knowledge of what it’s like to live under a totalitarian government. It is easy for some in that situation to therefore discount the arguments being made about our rights under the 1A, 2A, and 4A being abridged. The founders of this country lived under tyranny and experienced it personally. They thought that freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and freedom from unlawful search was ultimately important to avoid tyranny and they organized the country around these principles. If we ignore their experience by allowing these rights to be chipped away, piece by piece, we do so at our own peril as human nature never changes.
Please enough already with the mental illness finger pointing and the warrentless search , no knock at 3AM ETC… ! Once you are in the clutches of the system it’s very difficult to escape uninjured for life ! So someone has a the preverbal hard on for you and points the finger with the anynomous tip , out goes the warrant backed by oath or affirmation . Let’s say you comply now you are really fucked being held , questioned endlessly over and over , now your pissed ! See My tip was correct he is dangerous says the badge wearing minion . Good luck finding any mental health professional signing off for anyone to be armed . Not going to happen ever !
As fouled and weak at points our constitution and bill of rights may be it is the least bad overall . Anyone that wishes to limit alter or change the rights assured is an enemy to all Americans regardless of their ability to admit it !
Best defense is to never talk to any LEO ever!
Am I free to go? Am I under arrest? Lawyer up immediately.
Make sure to lawyer up before the thug does anything and make sure all parts of harassment by copthug is streamed video while thug is in camera.
Otherwise, most people should realize they most certainly die by cop even for a minor stop such as parking. Maybe being in a hotel room then begging for your life. Who knows? You might be crossing the street and some goon decides you need to die. Well you might be riding a bike in NYC and are violently assaulted by a thug aka armed government thug.
Are you safe being outside? Really?
When will people become the real Americans of old?
None ya biz: in response to your final question about Americans of old compared to Americans Of Today it’s sadly too late now . Bankrupt in every way possible , morally , spiritually and economically the game is so polluted and rigged the nation is an empty shell of its former self as are far to many people that call themselves Americans .
A good start is to mentor a young boy to be a man of honor and integrity , standing up straight and responding to adults with respect . Sadly our society is so busy worrying about feelings and other nonsense we pollute young boys into becoming withdrawn or girls with dicks !
You are correct never ever answer any questions from a badge wearing minion of the government “LEO”
The entrapment trap is always on and waiting with far to many weak minded LEO’s thinking it’s their job or even worse it’s funny !
We live in a hazardous world. Life is hazardous. However there are more sane people than insane ones. When the insane run the world then the sane suffer. When the sane run the world then there is less suffering.
From this perspective guns provide protection for the sane. Faith in man is stupidity. When someone tells me that not having a gun when there is insane people among us is safe that person is stupid.
The people advocating gun control are stupid people. The only thing to do about stupid people is to ignore them. Stupidity is a disease of the mind. Which means reasoning with them is a waste of time.