Hands I mean heads up california

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   
That's right, everybody who thinks the Feds will never come knock'in
and pointing and taking by force have a good look.



See there is a reason why they call it a police FORCE. Because they
are the suckers who are given a comfortable life to FORCE the rest of
us to comply. I love how countries brainwash their people from the start.
Make everyone think the first thing everyone in the country needs is good
police FORCE.

Can't we just have police ? Sooner or later they will have
their way. They will be the only ones with firearms, and then they'll made
to use them more and more. Which is what we are seeing currently in
todays world. More and more the cops seem to be out right murdering
people. While murderers are to much trouble to find.

Synopsis :
Video shows how cops in San Francisco are moving on legally registered gun owners.

Link
is to a newsreel centered on an apparent random murder victim
just last Sunday night in Victorville Ca. police have no leads in the
senseless murder of 26 yr old kid and AM PM employee.

This Chican was try'in to live an upstanding life. Support his family
and he's gun down for it. Really psses me off.
edit on 21-8-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   
California and New York are the laboratories for ass-hat ideas. Maybe they should get a special award for their stupidity.

As far as cops go we would be better of without almost all of them. Never needed them, would never call one and whenever I see one my main concern is if the steroid freak is going to freak out and beat or kill someone. We would be much safer to go back to just having US Marshall's, locally elected Sheriff's and that's it. IMO.
edit on 21-8-2013 by Bassago because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Man, major cities in California are jacked. Glad I live in a more remote area of the state. I have family down south and dread every time I have to go there.

But, my paranoia knows no bounds.



posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


So do you actually know the reasons that each of these people had their guns taken away?
Does Infowars?
Did they bother to investigate the reasons why these people had their guns removed from their home or is this one of those threads where we pretend that there isn't a single justifiable reason that some people simply shouldn't have a gun period?

Seems like some of them needed their weapons taken.....
Source

In California, officials are ramping up a unique program that identifies and seizes guns from people who are prohibited from keeping them. Under state law, a legally registered gun owner loses the right to own a firearm when he or she is convicted of a crime or becomes mentally ill.

Last year, state agents seized nearly 2,000 firearms, but implementing the gun seizure program is a painstaking job. In a recent operation, a caravan of four unmarked trucks traversed the bedroom communities of San Francisco’s East Bay. The trucks carry nine state agents wearing bulletproof vests and armed with .40-caliber Glock pistols and Tasers. They’ll spend the next six hours looking for illegal guns, explains Special Agent Kisu Yo of the California Department of Justice.

Yo’s team will visit the homes of 11 people who are considered Armed and Prohibited Persons, people on the so-called APPs list. They are all people who at one time purchased firearms legally, but have since run afoul of the law, Yo says. “Such as maybe a felony conviction, mental health commitment, they received a restraining order, domestic violence restraining order — some type of a misdemeanor conviction that prohibits them from possessing firearms.”


11 people? 8 guns? That's it?
One of them is a convicted felon on probation, who wasn't home, and they also caught two guys with outstanding warrants. You want these guys to have guns without knowing what they did or why they are losing them?

Frankly you are going to have to do better to convince me this is a big deal as there are many valid reasons to take guns away from some of these people. And the guy interviewed in that video isn't doing anyone any favors...

NPR Article
Disarming prohibited persons in California
edit on 21-8-2013 by Thorneblood because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


In reply to everything, look at OWS. A lab of ideas on martial law.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Thorneblood
 


They can take your guns for having a misdemeanor now?
When thats done, whos next? Speeding ticket holders? Parking violations? Jaywalkers? Detention from High School?
Where does it end?



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 02:42 AM
link   
i wish i could understand this concept but i just can't.
cops who beat their spouses get to keep their jobs and guns, why should any FREE citizen be 'prohibited' ?

if they are too big a risk to have a gun, then they are too big a risk to be in public.
perhaps we should round up the cops first ?



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Yes, specifically for a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction but not for other misdemeanor convictions.

Smart Gun Laws
Here...for the record



Federal law establishes the baseline regarding the types of persons who are ineligible to purchase firearms. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922, prohibits the sale of firearms to any person who:
Is underage;2
Has been convicted of, or is under indictment for, a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year;
Is a fugitive from justice;
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance;
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;3
Is an illegal alien;
Has been dishonorably discharged from the military;
Has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship;
Is subject to a court order restraining him or her from harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner, his or her child or a child of a partner or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child;4 or
Has been convicted of a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence.5


So if a police officer is convicted of said crime, then i imagine they would take their gun. That is debatable of course but if said spouse is aware of gun laws then i imagine they could sue for such action to be taken.


Persons subject to restraining orders are prohibited from possessing firearms provided that the order: (1) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; and (2) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child, or by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury. 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(8). For more information on the prohibition on purchase and possession of firearms by persons subject to a domestic violence protective order, see our Domestic Violence and Firearms policy summary. [↩]

18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1), (d), (x)(1). Federal law does not prohibit persons with other misdemeanor convictions from purchasing firearms. Misdemeanor convictions have been found to be a risk factor for future criminal activity among handgun owners. Garen J. Wintemute et al., Prior Misdemeanor Convictions as a Risk Factor for Later Violent and Firearm-Related Criminal Activity Among Authorized Purchasers of Handguns, 280 JAMA 2083 (1998). For more information on the prohibition on purchase and possession of firearms by domestic violence misdemeanants, see our Domestic Violence and Firearms policy summary. [↩]


Hope that helps clarify it.
edit on 22-8-2013 by Thorneblood because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Thorneblood
 





Did they bother to investigate the reasons why these people had their guns removed from their home or is this one of those threads where we pretend that there isn't a single justifiable reason that some people simply shouldn't have a gun period?


Two points,
First I agree with a lot of your post Thorne. However, I do think the video was fair
minded in it's explaination of just who was on the new list of APPs. So if you
want more, just like anything else you're free to look for it.
I went ahead and posted this thread, because of the progression I believe
they're making, to that inevitable total gun ban, everyone by now should obviously
see coming. It's coming in grinding increments. And you failed to deny that yourself,
in your post. So do we meet half way ? I think we do until you state otherwise.
edit on 22-8-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bassago
California and New York are the laboratories for ass-hat ideas. Maybe they should get a special award for their stupidity.

As far as cops go we would be better of without almost all of them. Never needed them, would never call one and whenever I see one my main concern is if the steroid freak is going to freak out and beat or kill someone. We would be much safer to go back to just having US Marshall's, locally elected Sheriff's and that's it. IMO.
edit on 21-8-2013 by Bassago because: (no reason given)


GOP'ers in Louisiana are not immune from ass-hat disease, either
bobcesca.thedailybanter.com...

right...Katrina is the fault of Obama, who was a freshmen in the senate at that time. 29% blame obama, 28% blame bush...and get this....44% DON'T KNOW!!!......it was only 8 years ago....can't fix stupid



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 





it was only 8 years ago....can't fix stupid


Very true, stupid goes to the bone. But completely politically corrupt is an inheritance.
edit on 22-8-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


They will NEVER ban guns in totality in this country, ever.
There is far too much profit in it, for one, and more to the point we as American's love our guns so much that we have television shows about people who make guns, people who test fire guns and video games that up until very recently featured real models of guns with all the necessary information provided by gun manufacturers.

(I think COD is phasing this out for royalty reasons if i remember the story correctly.)

Let's face it, while there are many responsible and intelligent gun owners in this country there are also lots of idiots, bastards and out right criminals who should be armed with little more then butter knives.

Every state has it's own militias, many of which are filled with veterans from every war imaginable and all of which train on a regular basis in the use of them in numerous real world situations.

Lightfoots
I personally know the guy who runs this one, he is one of the best people i have ever met and his group meets at my restaurant regularly for meetings, fully armed. Much love for the Lightfoots, seriously, they offered me a position in their organization.


On top of all that, the logistics of actually coming door to door and confiscating every gun in this country should be enough to convince you it will never happen.

Warrior4God13 - and if Infowars wanted to interview someone then they really should have chosen a person with a bit more credibility then this cat. I have no doubt he is exaggerating things to fit his argument. (The cops told him that even if the "meth head" next door has his drugs laid out on the table then they wouldn't be able to do anything about it? Really? Does that even sound logical to you?)

edit on 22-8-2013 by Thorneblood because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-8-2013 by Thorneblood because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Thorneblood
 


As much as I wish you to be right and if you are ?
That wouldn't be any kind of a loss for me.
But the logistics being an impossible task,
I see as a very naive idea. You play a numbers
game that in reality has more to do with ratio.
edit on 22-8-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


So you can foresee people in the bible belt just giving up their weapons easily?
How about Chicago, South Central L.A. or New York?

We might have one of the best militaries on the planet but even they would hard pressed to push through some of the neighborhoods in these cities collecting guns without some serious casualties. TPTB are smart enough to know that if you just leave well enough alone then they can keep doing what they please as they please with little actual resistance from the citizens of our country.

They start coming for guns then they are going to have a new civil war on their hands that makes the first one look like a game of laser tag.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Thorneblood
 


I don't see casualties as a deterrent in any way.
I for see casualties. But hopefully you'll be right.




laser tag.


See I believe you're correct again, but what you see as a deterrent. I see as just another
cause. That's why I made referrence to " SUCKERS ".
edit on 22-8-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Now see, this is why you really gotta love Infowars. They take a pretty sensible story headline talking about them rounding up ILLEGALLY owned guns, and AJ waves his magic wand and POOF, police state shock troops are coming fer yer gunzzzzzz

Sorry, I'd rather read the actual article and story, not the bloated sensationalist, and dishonest, infowars version.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 





I went ahead and posted this thread, because of the progression I believe they're making, to that inevitable total gun ban, everyone by now should obviously see coming.


So, let me ask you then, are DUI checkpoints and license checks an indication that they are going to strip your 'right' to own a motorvehicle?

No, of course not, unless of course, you aren't a law abiding citizen. I think it's about time something is done with the illegal trade of guns. Even in Canada I can get a handgun cheaper than a bag of XXXX. Most crimes are committed with guns that aren't legally owned, stolen or otherwise. In fact, I'd even say this is a step towards protecting law abiding gun owners rights.

But hey, I'm crazy like that. Carry on, continue "Jonesing" this story up.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


All a matter of perspective.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
According to the Huffington Post there are 88.8 firearms per 100 ppl....
Infographic
How many guns American's own

Some estimates place it as high as 300 million guns just in our country alone, or close to one gun for every man, woman and child. If even half of these were confiscated for whatever reason then you would still be able to arm over 100 million Americans.

How could anyone contend with that?
What army in the world could beat out 100 million armed citizens?
edit on 22-8-2013 by Thorneblood because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Thorneblood
 


Seems to me they've already started hacking away at those numbers.
And I know you will agree that no one expects this to happen in one
day, one week, one month etc. The point I'm making is I see the goal
they've set. And handicapping past performance of these goal setters,
well, I'm sure of your intellect enough to know you see where I'm
coming from. You make strong points. I just find it hard to have
faith in them.





top topics
 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join