Trump Considering Confiscating Guns From "Dangerous People"

[BluesStringer]

More conjecture.

No "law" is needed for anyone in the higher-echelons of power to use unconstitutional, no-due-process mental health regulations to snare more people in that web.

That right there is a fact.

We can't act on conjecture.

Apparently we can't act on hard, cold facts either. It would seem we can't even state them out loud if it inures to a criticism of Donald Trump's government, which by the way, in this case and in the case of DACA, he inherited from Obama, whose criticisms on the exact same topics would've been wholly embraced by you and very nearly everyone else here. That too, is a fact.

Do I believe there is an end game? I do.
Is it now?
No.

The end game of the Second Amendment came and went 84 years ago with passage of the NFA, so you're right, now's not the time. All I have ever advocated for is the belief in and action(s) to back up the oft-stated slogan of gun owners, "Not one more inch!" Admittedly, that slogan is but an echo from years past at this point, as most gun owners (myself being an exception) can't bring themselves to lie so blatantly about an idea they won't even vote for, much less put action of any kind behind. Now it's en vogue to marginalize and impugn the integrity of Second Amendment purists as war-mongers and maniacs. C'est la vie, Second Amendment, it was nice knowin' ya.

Where is Navajo when you need him?

Originally Posted by Navajo "If you are mad as hell and aren't gonna take it anymore, grab your rifle and head outside. If you're the only one with a rifle screaming like a maniac, go back inside. It isn't time yet."

I have never advocated for war. All I said was "Molon Labe," which loosely translated means only "Come and take them." I own a bump stock that is fitted for an AR-15. Come and take it/them is all I'm saying. I'm not asking you or any other American to back me up. I'm saying that if they come to my home to tell me which bit of property I'm *allowed" to own, that's a line I'm willing to toe forcefully, which is a helluva lot more honorable than Trump campaigning on "loving" the Second Amendment and within a ~year starting to make noise about finding ways to ensnare more gun owners as mental deficients or instituting universal background checks as "justification" to take more guns away from them/us. Apparently nowadays though, toeing the same line that the Founders did that resulted in the DoI, Constitution and Bill of Rights, makes me maniacal and Trump sycophants reasonable.

Have you ever actually read the letter from which the phrase you named your site comes?

Blues

[CaryC]

Just for information purposes read an article this AM, and will see if I can find it and post the link, that CA has a task force in place, and is being utilized to confiscate guns.

Part of what the task force is supposed to do initially seems ligit. Confiscate guns purchased by felons. Then again shouldn't that have been caught by the background check when they purchased the gun.

The second part can go off the rails, to also confiscate guns purchased by the mentally unfit.

No promises, but will see if I can find link.

This isn't the article I read, can't find it, but is similar to it:

Beginning January 1, police in California may confiscate firearms from gun owners thought to be a danger to themselves or others without giving the owner any notice.

This is the result of the implementation of “gun violence restraining orders” (GVROs), which go into effect New Year’s Day.According to KPCC, GVROs “could be issued without prior knowledge of the person.

In other words, a judge could issue the order without ever hearing from the person in question, if there are reasonable grounds to believe the person is a threat based on accounts from the family and police.”

And since the order can be issued without the gun owner even being present to defend him or herself, confiscation can commence without any notice to the gun owner once the order is issued.

KPCC reports that “California law already bans people from possessing guns if they’ve committed a violent crime or were involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.” And now, with GVROs, California law allows judges to bar people from possessing guns even if they have not committed a violent crime or were involuntarily committed. Because of this, Gun Owners of California Executive Director Sam Paredes warns that GVROs “may create a situation where law-abiding gun owners are put in jeopardy.”

More at link: http://www.breitbart.com/california/...ing-january-1/

[Lenno]

Ignores 'God Given' because he's a Godless Commie

[Lenno]

A dilemma for the Left.

Nation That Calls Trump ‘Hitler’ Demands He Take All Guns Away
Satire

http://babylonbee.com/news/nation-ca...ake-guns-away/

David Hogg Defends Coward Officer: ‘Who Wants To Go Down The Barrel Of An AR-15?’

‘I know that’s what these people are supposed to do, but they’re people too,’ he says

The Washington Times - February 25, 2018 0 Comments
Defend the man that let 17 children be slaughtered

[Sherree]

Obama threatened. Everyone went apoplectic.

Trump threatens and it's 3D chess, conjecture, supposition, and more winning.

[Hoppalong]

And I see President Trump is using Twitters to get under the skin of those that do not believe in him. By the way it looks on here that is happening. Titter is not a law policy making medium. But I see a few just can't leave it alone. LOL

[Davy Crockett]

Second only to reading Dilbert every day, I get my chuckles from Hoppy's humor

[Sherree]

And I see President Trump is using Twitters to get under the skin of those that do not believe in him. By the way it looks on here that is happening. Titter is not a law policy making medium. But I see a few just can't leave it alone. LOL

Well, bless your heart, Hoppy. Thanks for the laugh. I know you can't help yourself.

[Blacksprucy]

Obama threatened. Everyone went apoplectic.

Trump threatens and it's 3D chess, conjecture, supposition, and more winning.

A fine example illustrating to us that claiming to have principles and actually having them are two very different things.

[HouseWolf]

A fine example illustrating to us that claiming to have principles and actually having them are two very different things.

So who are YOU going to KILL first? Since you declare it unprincipled to allow the rule of law, and due process, what is your target? Who is it you will assign as the first to die in the principled debate?