California Begins Gun Confiscation

I did not see where she was involuntarily committed, but you could be right. My guess is she tried to committ suicide, and was observed until she wouldn't harm herself (there are few other precedents).

Interesting how a photographer happened to be outside the house when the cops aarrived. I doubt it was a coincidence. If I was some rabid pro-gun advocate, I wonder if I might threaten suicide, then get out in time to call the press?

Regardless of whether or not the story was manufactured, or accusations are fabricated, I feel quite comfortable with this confiscation, and disagree that, as stated in the OP, this will lead to some sort of slippery slope. We're still a long way from adding an amendment to the Constitution.

I'm sure the photographer was there at the behest of the Stasi. I imagine if the victim had known they were coming, they would have been scarce.

:eusa_eh:

That would be an amazing precedent since the police have rarely benefited from the presence of independent photographers during apprehensions.

Rodney King:
rodneykingbeating.jpg


Mississippi
police1.jpg


Wall Street
occupy-wall-street-police-brutality-1.jpg
 
2 days and they both lose a Constitutional right.

And the left cheers.


I didn't need further proof that liberals and progs hate the Constitution, but I got more anyway

I call it a reasonable precaution.

I've told this story before, but it bears repeating.

A couple years back, I had a next door neighbor. Kind of a bum. Had some serious medical issues and he was on disability. Well, one day, a bullet shattered his patio door. When the cops came, he tried to claim someone shot in at him. (Quickly dismissed by the fact the glass was outside and there were no bullet holes in the walls inside.)

Well, the sensible thing for the cops to do at that point would have been to confiscate his gun. Nope. No deal there. They let him keep it.

A few weeks later, he killed himself with that gun.

The moral is some people are too stupid to own one.

What's to stop him from overdosing or driving his car into someone?

You can't screw the rational by attempting to protect the irrational.

Point well taken.

The cops probably should have taken the car too.

Suspending anyone's driver's license because they've driven recklessly is probably as good an idea as taking away anyone's license to have firearms.

It should be important for us all to note that no alcohol was removed from the home. If you want to see some truely violent behaviour, then give a nut a fifth of vodka.
 
THAT I believe.

Yes, but you're a fuckwad with an IQ in the low teens.

It's why you're a leftist.

You all are the "no problem" brigade. People are shooting dozens of little first-graders? Oh, no problem! you say.

We said that? How could you hear us over the the noise of the grinder as you ground little black babies into hamburger.

Standard Disclaimer: From now on, when leftist tell outrageous lies, I'm throwing the "grinding black babies into hamburger" meme right back at them.
 
2 days and they both lose a Constitutional right.

And the left cheers.


I didn't need further proof that liberals and progs hate the Constitution, but I got more anyway

I call it a reasonable precaution.

I've told this story before, but it bears repeating.

A couple years back, I had a next door neighbor. Kind of a bum. Had some serious medical issues and he was on disability. Well, one day, a bullet shattered his patio door. When the cops came, he tried to claim someone shot in at him. (Quickly dismissed by the fact the glass was outside and there were no bullet holes in the walls inside.)

Well, the sensible thing for the cops to do at that point would have been to confiscate his gun. Nope. No deal there. They let him keep it.

A few weeks later, he killed himself with that gun.

Don't see a problem there. Should have offed himself first and saved the hassle of a new patio door.
 
2 days and they both lose a Constitutional right.

And the left cheers.


I didn't need further proof that liberals and progs hate the Constitution, but I got more anyway

I call it a reasonable precaution.

I've told this story before, but it bears repeating.

A couple years back, I had a next door neighbor. Kind of a bum. Had some serious medical issues and he was on disability. Well, one day, a bullet shattered his patio door. When the cops came, he tried to claim someone shot in at him. (Quickly dismissed by the fact the glass was outside and there were no bullet holes in the walls inside.)

Well, the sensible thing for the cops to do at that point would have been to confiscate his gun. Nope. No deal there. They let him keep it.

A few weeks later, he killed himself with that gun.
actually they should have arrested him for discharging his firearm

not that a freedom hater like yourself would come to that conclusion.
 
Why are rightwingers always on the side of the bad guys?

The spectacularly bad guys.

You all were wildly in favor of the torturers; you were enthusiastic supporters of Herman Cain with his feeling up of every white woman who interviewed with him for a job; now you want certified crazy people to keep their guns!

All this while a crazy man in upper New York State has gone on YET ANOTHER of these shooting rampages we see so many of, shot 6, killed 4, is holed up in an abandoned bar surrounded by police, and he's shooting at them.

Do all gun collectors want crazy people to have guns? Is this the new sliced bread?

uhm, you guys are quoting Nixon and copying hitler, and doing everything you can to kill the Constitution and remove freedoms from law abiding Americans.


And what's "spectacular" about Cain and 2 cases of harassment?

and before you make it clear that you are a hypocrite; Clinton
 
Why are rightwingers always on the side of the bad guys?

The spectacularly bad guys.

You all were wildly in favor of the torturers; you were enthusiastic supporters of Herman Cain with his feeling up of every white woman who interviewed with him for a job; now you want certified crazy people to keep their guns!

All this while a crazy man in upper New York State has gone on YET ANOTHER of these shooting rampages we see so many of, shot 6, killed 4, is holed up in an abandoned bar surrounded by police, and he's shooting at them.

Do all gun collectors want crazy people to have guns? Is this the new sliced bread?

uhm, you guys are quoting Nixon and copying hitler, and doing everything you can to kill the Constitution and remove freedoms from law abiding Americans.


And what's "spectacular" about Cain and 2 cases of harassment?

and before you make it clear that you are a hypocrite; Clinton
John Edwards cheated on his dying wife and even had a child.
 
[


sad story

bullets rarely break a window

they usually zip through

the way the cone shape hole in the glass

indicates the direction of the bullet

maybe the cops didnt see how crazy he was and did not make a referral to the mental health folks

for a follow up

what as a good neighbor did you do to help this guy

Why should that be my job. (I actually did lend this fool money from time to time.) Nor did I get a lot of the details about what was messed up with him.
 
2 days and they both lose a Constitutional right.

And the left cheers.


I didn't need further proof that liberals and progs hate the Constitution, but I got more anyway

I call it a reasonable precaution.

I've told this story before, but it bears repeating.

A couple years back, I had a next door neighbor. Kind of a bum. Had some serious medical issues and he was on disability. Well, one day, a bullet shattered his patio door. When the cops came, he tried to claim someone shot in at him. (Quickly dismissed by the fact the glass was outside and there were no bullet holes in the walls inside.)

Well, the sensible thing for the cops to do at that point would have been to confiscate his gun. Nope. No deal there. They let him keep it.

A few weeks later, he killed himself with that gun.

The moral is some people are too stupid to own one.

What's to stop him from overdosing or driving his car into someone?

You can't screw the rational by attempting to protect the irrational.

The only thing I see as "irrational" is you wanting to own a killing device you have no real need for.
 
Amazing. I posted the California laws and clearly showed the circumstances which deprived her to the right to keep a firearm, but it means nothing to you simpletons. You just go right on spewing nonsense, as if the law, facts and truth don't mean anything.

How Republican of you.
 
:eusa_eh:

That would be an amazing precedent since the police have rarely benefited from the presence of independent photographers during apprehensions.

There was nothing independent about the photographer, he was there to document the "Brave and Noble" Stasi as they kept the peasants in line.

"Patrick T. Fallon is a photojournalist in Los Angeles specializing in news, features and sports: looking to capture unique moments of life with every assignment...He is available for assignments throughout California."

Your theory is not supported with historical evidence, or fact.

:eusa_hand:

But don't let that stop your imagination from running wild.
 
Last edited:
I call it a reasonable precaution.

I've told this story before, but it bears repeating.

A couple years back, I had a next door neighbor. Kind of a bum. Had some serious medical issues and he was on disability. Well, one day, a bullet shattered his patio door. When the cops came, he tried to claim someone shot in at him. (Quickly dismissed by the fact the glass was outside and there were no bullet holes in the walls inside.)

Well, the sensible thing for the cops to do at that point would have been to confiscate his gun. Nope. No deal there. They let him keep it.

A few weeks later, he killed himself with that gun.

The moral is some people are too stupid to own one.

What's to stop him from overdosing or driving his car into someone?

You can't screw the rational by attempting to protect the irrational.

The only thing I see as "irrational" is you wanting to own a killing device you have no real need for.

Killing device????

You mean the scissors the abortion doctor uses to sever spines????

Really, you have no need for it because you think the cops will always come to save your ass on time before you're dead, but I like to be able to rely on my own ability to stop an attack without any help.
 
The moral is some people are too stupid to own one.

What's to stop him from overdosing or driving his car into someone?

You can't screw the rational by attempting to protect the irrational.

The only thing I see as "irrational" is you wanting to own a killing device you have no real need for.

Killing device????

You mean the scissors the abortion doctor uses to sever spines????

Really, you have no need for it because you think the cops will always come to save your ass on time before you're dead, but I like to be able to rely on my own ability to stop an attack without any help.


naw

he knows better

he already said the cops didnt do a damn thing

if that is the case why would the cops do anything

when ones (his) l life is in danger


--LOL
 

Forum List

Back
Top