gun

[DIRTYBRASS]

Read More

 

[DIRTYBRASS]

 

[speeddemon94]

"Repo Men" implies that they are somehow repossessing an item that is owned and on loan to someone.

How does one "re" possess that which they never possessed in the first place?

That's just plain theft.

 

[DIRTYBRASS]

 

[speeddemon94]

Men show up wearing tac gear and ask to come in my house to talk about guns.

Me: Do you have a warrant?

Them: No, but we just want to talk to you.

Me: (while shutting the door) Go away and come back when you get a warrant.

Hide guns, or take them to a relative who is not under scrutiny by the rulers. When they come back with a warrant tell them you gave them to charity.

Though, I don't intend on ever giving a reason for anyone to come to my house in the first place. Or living in CA ever again. And I will move from Oregon if it ever gets that bad here.

 

[dmancornell]

With luck these jack-booted thugs will be snuffed out in the near future.

 

[Nwcid]

So we don't want firearms in the hands of "bad guys" but at the same time it is a "bad thing" the state is going after those people? I am very confused. You can not have it both ways.

 

[dmancornell]

So we don't want firearms in the hands of "bad guys" but at the same time it is a "bad thing" the state is going after those people? I am very confused. You can not have it both ways.

"Bad guys" is nothing more than a euphemism for "people the state dislikes". Law-and-order sheeple incorrectly assume the state knows what they're talking about.

 

[Nwcid]

I guess I forgot that "There are almost 20,000 such gun owners, state records show, including convicted felons, people under domestic violence restraining orders" are not bad people. That must be where my misunderstanding comes in :huh:

 

[Suge206]

No, its not just a euphemism. That's pure crap. By your logic no laws have any merit. There are people that no longer meet the criteria to own firearms and they should not be allowed to continue to possess them. The first time someone goes berserker that should have had their weapons taken you guys will flip immediately and blame the state for not enforcing existing laws.

 

[dmancornell]

I guess I forgot that "There are almost 20,000 such gun owners, state records show, including convicted felons, people under domestic violence restraining orders" are not bad people. That must be where my misunderstanding comes in :huh:

As usual, modern journalism is nothing more than statist cheerleading. How about some context:
- "Including", is that one or all? Who knows? Who cares?
- Convicted felons, convicted of what? Fake, victim-less crimes or actual crimes with real victims?
- People under restraining orders, totally meaningless. Innocence before guilt.

 

[speeddemon94]

So we don't want firearms in the hands of "bad guys" but at the same time it is a "bad thing" the state is going after those people? I am very confused. You can not have it both ways.

So in my mind, we don't want the bad guys to have guns, but classify a bad guy for me. A lady who had a breakdown and was committed by an irrational nurse for 2 days? Then why cant her husband be afforded the opportunity to keep them safely under lock and key?

There are many people in this world who make a bad decision, and have their Rights revoked but choose to ignore that. They abide by the law for the rest of their lives and nobody knows any different. Then they get caught plinking in the woods with their kid and their gun is confiscated for our safety.

The ones who don't abide by the law and continue to do the wrong thing are the ones that should be dealt with, but wont because true criminals that should not have guns are too good at not getting caught. They continue to do crimes and don't get caught.

California is going after the low hanging fruit to make themselves feel better about the fact that the state is a hellish pit of crime and squalor. It's all about image.

 

[dmancornell]

No, its not just a euphemism. That's pure crap. By your logic no laws have any merit.

That's right, most laws on the books have no merit. Laws revolving pre-crime (i.e. seizure of guns to be used in crimes the state presumes will be committed) certainly have no merit.

There are people that no longer meet the criteria to own firearms and they should not be allowed to continue to possess them.

Meet the criteria, according to some government bureaucrat. Papa government knows best.

The first time someone goes berserker that should have had their weapons taken you guys will flip immediately and blame the state for not enforcing existing laws.

Not me, since existing laws are also bureaucratic crap created to satiate tools like you.

 

[Suge206]

You don't have any point that's worth arguing.

 

[dmancornell]

Keep kowtowing. I'll send you some kneepads.

 

[Suge206]

Are you posting form another country? have you told the man off for real or are you just puffing your chest on your employers dime in Portland?

 

[dmancornell]

Are you posting form another country? have you told the man off for real or are you just puffing your chest on your employers dime in Portland?

In the immortal words of Office Space: Why should I leave? You're the no-talent a**clown.

Also, learn to multitask.

 

[Suge206]

So you are puffing your chest on your employers dime. Thought so. Off to multi-task!

 

[dmancornell]

So you are puffing your chest on your employers dime. Thought so. Off to multi-task!

You jealous? My job rocks, and I don't have to murder and steal from anyone, like you probably have to, since you most likely "work" for the government in some pathetic make-belief position.

 

[JackThompson]

Man. I hate it when Dman's right but again he makes the sane point.

I'm not one of the people claiming thu need to enforce the gun laws already on the books either. Half of those laws are horrible infringements.

Going door to door isn't the gun law anyone is asking to enforce either. It's the "You just tried to buy a gun from a gun store and it shows you robbed a bank, so we will decline the purchase, but you're welcome to try again later." laws.

Secondly, mental health classification an enforcement or help is a joke in this country.

Here's what your doctor/psychiatrist has to do:

"Did losing your close friend on the field of battle in Iraq make you depressed?" - Poof goes your 2A.

"Do you believe Jesus was real? That this man died and came back to life 3 days later before ascending to a magical place in the clouds?" - Poof goes your 2A.

"Did you have a rough time when you first turned 18? Did you have to go through drug and alcohol counseling to straighten out your life?" - Poof goes your 2A.

"Do you believe our government is out to get you?" - Poof...

"Did your child chew a pop tart into the shape of a gun at school?" - Poof...



Point is, these laws are arbitrary tools of entrapment enforced and interpreted on a whim to disarm anybody they can.

No oversight, no rules and regulations. No follow up.

This is criminal theft pure and simple. The only reason you are in support of it is because nobody has officially called it a crime. Once the officials do, you will magically see it as the crime it is.

Don't get me wrong. I totally understand officers are not to interpret law, just enforce it, but look with your eyes and hear with your ears or you will find yourself muttering the same words the Nazis did. "I was just following orders"

Peace.