Pro-gun myths busted

[CorvallisBMW]

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

Evidence please?

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.
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...

A 72-hour hold is not the same as involuntary commitment, and it does not result in a suspension of weapons rights. Again, due process must be carried out before either of those things can happen.

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

So your linking a 15-year-old blog post based on absolutely zero facts? A blog post that is literally fiction?

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.

But that doesn't support their predefined viewpoints on the issue

Still fucking that chicken?

huh?

You mean countries like England and Australia?

Unless you're comparing current-day Australia to Germany under Hitler or the USSR under Stalin, the answer would be "NO". You can still buy and own various guns in both of those countries, including rifles, shotguns and handguns. So again, NO. Do you even think before you post things?

Relevant
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...d-threatening/

"At the time a domestic violence survivor leaves a domestic violence situation, she or he is five times more likely to get murdered,"

Glad to know you side with domestic abusers, rapists, wife-beaters and violent criminals. It shows just how moral and justified you are.

[ParsedOut]

Glad to know you side with domestic abusers, rapists, wife-beaters and violent criminals. It shows just how moral and justified you are.

Tell me, what does the world look like in only black and white?

[The Dark Side of Will]

So you want to throw your 2cents in support of wife and child abusers getting to keep their guns? Like anyone here really gives a flying fuck about the rights of some piece of shit who beats his wife and then threatens her life with a gun when she tries to leave.

We can't protect our own rights if we don't protect EVERYONE's rights.

Like Parsed said... everyone is entitled to due process.

[Exodus_2pt0]

^ Because when you strip away the rights of child molestors and wife beaters, then all you gotta do is accuse someone of being either and you can snuff them out without anyone looking twice.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Relevant
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...d-threatening/

It's ironic that the article cites the D.C. Victim advocates group. D.C. has stoopid stoooopid laws on handguns, similar to Chicago's.

In most other jurisdictions in the country, this is not a problem because a victim of domestic abuse can GET HER OWN DAMNED GUN.

The gun is the ultimate equalizer.

The victim immediately becomes as powerful as the abuser and can no longer be abused. Why would we not want that?

However, because DC has backwards gun laws that violate the victim's 2nd amendment rights, idiots think that they have to violate the abuser's 5th amendment rights also.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Unless you're comparing current-day Australia to Germany under Hitler or the USSR under Stalin, the answer would be "NO". You can still buy and own various guns in both of those countries, including rifles, shotguns and handguns. So again, NO. Do you even think before you post things?

[Australia]
those people must comply with 'genuine reasons' to obtain a 'Permit to Acquire' from their State government. 'Genuine Reasons' focus on either hunting and/or sport/target shooting (for Rifles), and do not include 'personal protection.'

Not allowed to protect myself in Australia. That's jaw dropping.

[United Kingdom]
The criteria required for the grant of a Firearm certificate are far more stringent. Alongside safe storage requirements and checks on previous convictions and medical records, the applicant must also demonstrated a Good reason for each firearm they wish to hold (Good reason may include hunting, pest control, collecting or target shooting). Police may restrict the type and amount of ammunition held, and where and how the firearms are used.[55] Historically, most certificates approved for handguns listed "self-defence" as a reason.

At least I'm allowed to protect myself in England, but I have to get permission from the government to do it first.

Maybe you should read.

Canada:

Nice guns, makes me want to buy an AR-15 variant with all these nice examples. Again, our gun laws are stupid and is pretty much the reason I don't already have one.

Example- This first gun, a cheap AR-15 variant... Restricted. Can only take to a range and back, has to be kept locked up with a trigger lock at all times, can't take out to the woods, blah blah

https://www.canadaammo.com/product/detail/norinco-m4-carbine-223-10-5-rifle/

This newly released bullpup .223 that is likely more concealable and dangerous than an AR is non restricted. I can take this anywhere I want and shoot it. No special provisions at all.

http://www.theammosource.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=2_24_80&products_id=2118

So I might just buy the bullpup and call it a day.

Your argument continues to be the asinine idea that my rights to keep and bear arms haven't been infringed as long as I can still buy a .22 single shot pistol. The Supreme Court disagrees, as does the 9th Circuit in striking down San Diego county's restrictions on "may issue" handgun permits.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Relevant
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...d-threatening/

It's ironic that the article cites the D.C. Victim advocates group. D.C. has stoopid stoooopid laws on handguns, similar to Chicago's.

In most other jurisdictions in the country, this is not a problem because a victim of domestic abuse can GET HER OWN DAMNED GUN.

The gun is the ultimate equalizer.

The victim immediately becomes as powerful as the abuser and can no longer be abused. Why would we not want that?

However, because DC has backwards gun laws that violate the victim's 2nd amendment rights, idiots think that they have to violate the abuser's 5th amendment rights also.

Also amazingly ironic is that the council and mayor's points of view are so myopic in the very city in which Warren vs. District of Columbia occurred.

[Farbin Kaiber]

A 72-hour hold is not the same as involuntary commitment, and it does not result in a suspension of weapons rights. Again, due process must be carried out before either of those things can happen.

A person I know, close family friend showed me the documentation where they were required to sign a document stating they could not own, nor possess a firearm for 5 years following their 5150, and if they had any firearms, they were required to be turned in to the County Sheriff within 24 hours of release, by calling the sheriff to come and pick them up from their place of residence. This same person fought to regain their property 5 years after the fact and were denied, also, 7 years after the one and only 5150 they experienced, they attempted to buy a firearm legally and were denied the right because the Background Check showed they were 5150'ed, and multiple attempts to appeal the decision were denied.

No judge ever had any say in the matter, no due process, no appearance in court, nothing. So, please stop making assumptions when I have firsthand experience with this exact situation.

[BraveUlysses]

anecdotal arguments are very convincing, yes

[smooth]

We can't protect our own rights if we don't protect EVERYONE's rights.

Like Parsed said... everyone is entitled to due process.

You and he need to quit throwing that term around so loosely. Farbin seems to be the only one using is correctly out of the three of you.

[ParsedOut]

You and he need to quit throwing that term around so loosely. Farbin seems to be the only one using is correctly out of the three of you.

I said I believe in due process, excuse me for throwing it around so loosely.

[smooth]

How can you claim to believe in something so strongly when you don't even understand how it operates?

You're just throwing around conceptual catch-phrases at this point.

[The Dark Side of Will]

You and he need to quit throwing that term around so loosely. Farbin seems to be the only one using is correctly out of the three of you.

Due process as written in the Constitution and due process as executed currently are different things.

SCOTUS has ruled that most Bill of Rights protections don't apply if you're not facing jail time. This allows the travesty of civil property seizure (Google it, I'm not going to write 500 words because you're lazy) to occur.

Is civil property seizure right because it's legal? HELL to the NO.

Interesting that due process is the only discussion point of several that you picked out.

I do hope you see how scary an elected official saying "take now, figure it out later" is. As Farbin mentions above... later doesn't happen.

[The Dark Side of Will]

^ Because when you strip away the rights of child molestors and wife beaters, then all you gotta do is accuse someone of being either and you can snuff them out without anyone looking twice.

Just like calling someone a "terrorist".

Oh... that's happening right now.

[smooth]

Due process as written in the Constitution and due process as executed currently are different things.

SCOTUS has ruled that most Bill of Rights protections don't apply if you're not facing jail time. This allows the travesty of civil property seizure (Google it, I'm not going to write 500 words because you're lazy) to occur.

Is civil property seizure right because it's legal? HELL to the NO.

Interesting that due process is the only discussion point of several that you picked out.

I do hope you see how scary an elected official saying "take now, figure it out later" is. As Farbin mentions above... later doesn't happen.

It's not the only point I've picked out, it's simply the latest cause you all have jumped on. Every time you ramble incoherently I point out the logical errors and inconsistencies, you and a few others try to buttress your positions to no avail, then abandon the point in lieu of something else you've picked up from the blogosphere. That's the trend of the past month in these few threads I've been participating within.