Democrat Rep. Debbie Dingell To Introduce Gun Confiscation Legislation

a reply to: DBCowboy

Question - Is their ANY Progressive Liberal Alive in America Today who Believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ? If so , how can they Rationalize their Political Beliefs with the Reality of the Freedoms they Now possess because of them ?

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: DBCowboy

Question - Is their ANY Progressive Liberal Alive in America Today who Believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ? If so , how can they Rationalize their Political Beliefs with the Reality of the Freedoms they Now possess because of them ?

Puh-leeze!

I haven't seen this much of a push against the Constitution, Bill of Rights since Stalin.


They say, "Freedom" with the same distaste as Michael Moore says, "Diet soda".

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Wayfarer
This article seems really disingenuous, full of vagaries and appeals to base emotion. How is what she is proposing (if she actually is proposing such a thing) bad in the case of mentally unstable or certifiably violent people not possessing firearms?

You seem to forget that they pass a bill with vague wording (Mentally unstable, who would vote against that?) and then expand the list of what mentally unstable is.

For instance, let's just make conservatives mentally unstable. After the bill passes.

This is EXACTLY what they do. By they, I mean progressives. And as for the Republican that co-sponsored, plenty of Progressive Republicans out there. McCain is a poster child for that particular type. As was Bush. As is McConnell.

What I remember is that I was deemed a domestic terrorist by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2007 because.. I voted for Ron Paul in the primary.

SoOo... not even a slippery slope here, it's just that the typical voter doesn't bother to think things through to the logical conclusion.

No thanks to anything resembling this bill. Only an idiot or a progressive pushing an agenda would even think about it.

It wasn't the bills wording I was arguing was vague, but rather the article on it in the OP. As I've said repeatedly, nobody has seen the bill, so all this furor is over theoretical estimates.

I would think it's about what she said, but we all have opinions...

a reply to: burdman30ott6

so, let's say there is a case of domestic violence, as it stands now, ya know what is likely to happen... the man goes to jail for a brief time, overnight perhaps, posts bail and is back out. the women may have gone and obtained a protective order, or she may have gone into hiding in a shelter, or whatever.... but the man is free to move about, go to work, visit his friends, or ya, maybe grab his gun and hunt her down...
what you are suggesting is that it's would be better, less invasive to his constitutional rights for him to remain in jail till his court date than it would be to ensure he doesn't have the gun to hunt her down but yet be free to move about, go to work, visit his friends... that's just plain insane.
only, I looked at another aspect of this law, when there is mental illness, or maybe someone suffering from dementia, something like that, where if we were talking about their having the car keys taken from them, there would be less protest than there would be having a gun removed from them. I've read the article the op linked to several times, and this is what I am getting from it...

A family who knows that someone in their family could be a danger to themselves or to others needs to have a tool that they can take that gun away.”

conservativedailypost.com...

or are you wanting to make no longer being mentally capable of understanding your surroundings enough because of mental illness a crime? you would take a gun away from a child, you would take the stick away from them the first hint that they were going to misuse it, you would take the knife away from the child, even the rock...
what you wouldn't do is lock them in a closet because they hadn't learned yet how to use these things responsibly... well, we shouldn't be locking them away when they start forgetting what they had learned because of old age/mental illness either. you just go back to taking away the things that they might use to harm others or themselves.

a reply to: Wayfarer

So on a "maybe" or a "might" someone loses their property, without actually having done anything wrong. Property that could take God only knows how long to get back, assuming that a judge would even listen to them.

Yeah... No.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Fear not. His turn is coming. I'm curious to see which parts of the bill each of these dimwits is responsible for.

But fear not, Ol' Fred'll get his share of brickbats thrown his way.

a reply to: dawnstar

So you "believe" this person is a danger. Belief is all, apparently. How about actually having done something? Isn't that the way it's supposed to work?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Would Dingle want to remove knives, sharp objects, cars, hammers, bats, clubs, large sticks from the person as well?

If not, then it's just a leftist gun-grab and anti-Constitutional to boot.

####ing douche-bag leftists.

A Republican is co-sponsoring the bill. What are you going to suggest next, that Dingle forced him to with her lizard mind rays...?

Douche-bag republicans are leftists also.

You play your partisan games.

They all suck.

You're the one playing partisan games (calling anyone, even those of the opposite party douchebag leftist).

Show me a douche-bag leftist that is for more freedoms, smaller government, free expression, secure borders, lower taxes and I'll apologize.

I don't have to, you are literally guilty of the very thing you're railing against (partisan games), on account of me telling you of a Republican who supports something you abhor that you can twist to fit your partisan narrative and suddenly become a 'douchebag leftist'.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Pork chop, I have not been "a republican" for 2 decades.

Edit, misread your post.

Because it makes absolutely no sense.

a reply to: dawnstar

Does the girlfriend/ex-wife in this scenario get a handgun, too? Or just the bad guy?

At some point, people need to be able to protect themselves. A restraining order is utterly useless in too many cases. A good friend of mine was badly beaten by her ex who had one of those orders placed on him.

After he got done beating her up, he told her he'd be back. About 3 weeks later, he was back, she had, however, taken the time to purchase herself an equalizer from the law firm of Smith and Wesson. I, and another friend, had taken the time to show her the ends and outs of it, and it probably saved her life when the bastard came calling the second time. Oddly enough, he's never come back, even after he got out of jail. She didn't even have to shoot him...just cocked the hammer back, and showed him that big ol' gaping maw at the front of the barrel. I'm told he set a new land speed record for assholes running away from an ex who's gonna shoot him if he comes any closer...

She protected herself, then called the cops. He was arrested without incident a day or two later, and did 5 years (I think) for the previous assault, and attempted assault.

So not just bad guys have guns. Good guys, and gals, have them, too.

Before one gets all gung ho about gun confiscation from law abiding folks who've done nothing wrong, we might want to make sure that that wonderful law can't be abused. Suppose that ex had gone before a judge and sworn on his Mama's grave, and a stack of bibles, that she was dangerous, and had said scary things? Then paid her a call... That's not a scenario I'm willing to allow, nor should anyone be.

a reply to: SKEPTEK

a reply to: xuenchen

Everyone always knew they were lying anyway. This won't make a bit of difference in how this is going or how Democrats are seen. Their own base always knew the truth and gun owners always knew the truth. They just never had the opportunity to take things this far until they had this very convenient (if I do say so myself) excuse.

Just leave it to Debbie Dingbat.

a reply to: seagull



ummm ya....

I know in states that all ready has this law the judge can order confiscation pending the outcome of a trial. The law is meant to protect pwople from situatuons like mental illness, escalating threats, substance abuse and domestic violence are among the circumstances in which a judge can order weapon restrictions.


Right now the police have no legal recourse if they suspect someone of being a threat to others. They can try him in court but most times people would post bail and be back on the street able to accomplish what ever act they were planning.

If you want to prevent some one from killing others there has to be some way you can hold those weopons until it's deemed safe to return them

originally posted by: dragonridr

If you want to prevent some one from killing others there has to be some way you can hold those weopons until it's deemed safe to return them

Riiight. And I'll bet the list of things that can cause you to lose your rights will get nice and long really fast too. Before you know it, making a funny face will be on there.

I can't believe people are this stupid.

Isn't this the exact same thing our president, and savior, is suggesting?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

So democrat party platform for 2018 and 2020 is;

Higher taxes
Gun confiscation
Open borders.

Also, "Impeach Trump (we'll worry about justifying it later)."

Yeah, it's like they're deliberately trying to commit suicide as a major party.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Why? Most Americans want some kind of gun control.
You guys are the minority.
But Dingell isn't proposing this at all. Her appeal in to keep guns out of the hands of unstable people.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

Dingell, along with Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., was named co-chair of the bipartisan Working Group on Response to Parkland Shooting this week. The group is tasked with devising measures to curb gun violence.

Dingell introduced legislation last year prohibiting people who abused dating partners from purchasing or possessing firearms, and clarifying federal law to prohibit those convicted of stalking from legally purchasing a firearm.

She is for banning certain types of weapons but again most Americans are okay with that.

More alarmist stories. Looks like this one originated with Breitbart a few days ago.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Just rolled my eyes so far back I needed my husband to smack the back of my head to free them.
That's not too extreme is it?
Yeah your ideas about what democrats want is too.