Pro-gun myths busted

[The Dark Side of Will]

But those countries were dictatorships without any rights or constitutions. They had no democracy, no checks & balances, no representatives of the people, and no independent judiciary. They are/were 180* away from the US in every way. You cannot draw any parallels between them.

You mean countries like England and Australia?

[The Dark Side of Will]

actually you are completely incorrect about this. no warrant can be issued and no weapons can be confiscated unless a judge reviews the case and the evidence and finds probable cause that the person should have his/her weapons held under the language of the law. In order to invoke that law you must be involuntarily committed. A therapist can't do it, a family member can't do it, a friend or stranger can't do it... No one. There is no "wide variety of people who have been treated by any mental health institution". Seriously, do you try to be wrong about stuff?

lol.
Read the link. You're the one who goes out of your way to remain uninformed.

ca confiscates weapons which may have a risk of being accessed by newly "prohibited persons", which include a wide variety of people who have been treated by any mental health institution.
They try to take weapons that are in the household of the prohibited person which do not belong to that person. They show up without a warrant and try to talk their way into the house for a search.

No due process, no probable cause.

Iow, it's a whole lot of the government doing illegal things with information they shouldn't have.

Edit: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...del-for-nation

I'm aware of the way it's *supposed* to happen. I'm telling you that it's not happening that way (and "proving" it as well).
Just like the FBI is *supposed* to destroy NICS data, and the ATF is *supposed* to leave FFL's 4473's alone.

[frankenbeemer]

How many tanks can you take out with your AR-15?

Still fucking that chicken?

[smooth]

Oh they can't? I guess you've never heard of a 72 hour hold. Of which, severely limits your rights for a lifetime after being placed in one.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wic&group=05001-06000&file=5150-5155

Snippet...




Read the link, they can commit you, and then the facility can make a determination and commit you to another, or the same facility. No judge required for a 5150. A 'Peace Officer" can do it, so...

Laws are complicated everywhere, and California certainly has it's fair share of complicated laws, but the blogs circulating bullshit make discussions even more difficult than necessary. Consider the source when evaluating any "news"

A peace officer can't strip anyone of their guns. If you seem to be a threat to yourself or others then a peace officer can place you on an involuntarily hold for 72 hours. That alone does not trigger a loss of ones firearm rights. A mental health practitioner assesses you and the case has to eventually be adjudicated. If you are committed, not held for 72 hours, for mental illness then you can lose your right to own a firearm for five years (not lifetime)

[smooth]

the bold is wrong. it HAS happened. read and be educated.

sorry about the facts, bro. your argument could fool the lazy.

"Gun owners in California and Connecticut have discovered that it really CAN happen here. Advertising has been strong here in San Diego recently, urging all owners of the SKS "Sporter" to turn them in for a $230 reimbursement before January 1, 2000. "If you own an SKS Sporter, you can’t sell it and you can’t shoot it. You MUST turn it in before January 1 or face criminal charges and confiscation" goes the ad which has been run on local radio stations."

link here-

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...tem.asp?ID=195

I don't know why you guys keep citing this 15 year old blog story but it's not accurate, there never was a registry for those rifles and the blog post you keep citing doesn't even talk about confiscations...because they never occurred.

[2761377]

Just because you think something could happen doesn't mean that it absolutely will. Just because you think 2 + 2 =/= 4 doesn't make it true.
In fact, 100% of examples of registration in the US have shown the exact opposite of what you think will happen to be true. Registration of automatic weapons = no confiscation. Registration of cars = no confiscation. Registration of home alarm systems = no confiscation. Shall I continue to prove you wrong, over and over again? Or do you have any actual evidence or examples to prove that background checks WILL cause confiscation of all guns?

the bold is wrong. it HAS happened. read and be educated.

sorry about the facts, bro. your argument could fool the lazy.

"Gun owners in California and Connecticut have discovered that it really CAN happen here. Advertising has been strong here in San Diego recently, urging all owners of the SKS "Sporter" to turn them in for a $230 reimbursement before January 1, 2000. "If you own an SKS Sporter, you can’t sell it and you can’t shoot it. You MUST turn it in before January 1 or face criminal charges and confiscation" goes the ad which has been run on local radio stations."

link here-

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=195

[Farbin Kaiber]

Yes, they do. Because a police officer cannot involuntarily commit you to psychiatric treatment. Only a judge, after weighing all the facts and evidence in a case, can do that. And then a seperate judgement must be made regarding the defendant's firearms. You can't just have your guns taken away by any old cop off the street.

Again it comes down to gun-tards being not just unaware, but wilfully ignoring and then making false claims about, the existing or proposed laws. All the shit you guys are so terrified of doesn't actually exist, but you say it does. I still don't understand your need to lie in order to make your case.

Oh they can't? I guess you've never heard of a 72 hour hold. Of which, severely limits your rights for a lifetime after being placed in one.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wic&group=05001-06000&file=5150-5155

Snippet...

WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE
SECTION 5150-5155



5150. (a) When a person, as a result of a mental health disorder,
is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled,
a peace officer, professional person in charge of a facility
designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the
attending staff, as defined by regulation, of a facility designated
by the county for evaluation and treatment, designated members of a
mobile crisis team, or professional person designated by the county
may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into
custody for a period of up to 72 hours for assessment, evaluation,
and crisis intervention, or placement for evaluation and treatment in
a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment and
approved by the State Department of Health Care Services. At a
minimum, assessment, as defined in Section 5150.4, and evaluation, as
defined in subdivision (a) of Section 5008, shall be conducted and
provided on an ongoing basis. Crisis intervention, as defined in
subdivision (e) of Section 5008, may be provided concurrently with
assessment, evaluation, or any other service.

Read the link, they can commit you, and then the facility can make a determination and commit you to another, or the same facility. No judge required for a 5150. A 'Peace Officer" can do it, so...

[mrsleeve]

^
Stop making shit up...... A Wisconsin court just upheld that very scenario

[CorvallisBMW]

So, do police officers fall under your classification of 'no one'?

Yes, they do. Because a police officer cannot involuntarily commit you to psychiatric treatment. Only a judge, after weighing all the facts and evidence in a case, can do that. And then a seperate judgement must be made regarding the defendant's firearms. You can't just have your guns taken away by any old cop off the street.

Again it comes down to gun-tards being not just unaware, but wilfully ignoring and then making false claims about, the existing or proposed laws. All the shit you guys are so terrified of doesn't actually exist, but you say it does. I still don't understand your need to lie in order to make your case.

[ParsedOut]

How many tanks can you take out with your AR-15?

Shit son, tanks ain't got nothin' on me.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Actually you are completely incorrect about this. No warrant can be issued and no weapons can be confiscated unless a judge reviews the case and the evidence and finds probable cause that the person should have his/her weapons held under the language of the law. In order to invoke that law you must be INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED. A therapist can't do it, a family member can't do it, a friend or stranger can't do it... No one. There is no "wide variety of people who have been treated by any mental health institution". Seriously, do you TRY to be wrong about stuff?

So, do police officers fall under your classification of 'no one'?

[CorvallisBMW]

For the record, I fear our own government more than any foreign invasion...too bad because an American militia would be way more effective against Mexicans than our own military.

How many tanks can you take out with your AR-15?

[ParsedOut]

WTF are you talking about?

Not only are you a fantasist, but you're a racist.

I'm sure you're being cheeky though....

You said foreign invasion...people from Mexico are in fact called Mexicans...the Mexican military is not as advanced as the US military...yeah, I'm so racist.

[einhander]

too bad because an American militia would be way more effective against Mexicans than our own military.

WTF are you talking about?

Not only are you a fantasist, but you're a racist.

I'm sure you're being cheeky though....

[ParsedOut]

You're right.

It's the fact that you don't know the difference between "terrorize" and "terrorist" that indicates your brain is, indeed, pea-sized.

And your fear of foreign invasion as a justification for gun ownership only strengthens that fact.

I will commend you on your absolutely fantastic imagination though. Kudos.

The fact that you don't realize this thread was started with tongue in cheek is no surprise, but I'm glad you took it seriously and find it so entertaining. For the record, I fear our own government more than any foreign invasion...too bad because an American militia would be way more effective against Mexicans than our own military.