It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California Now Confiscating Legally Purchased Guns

page: 6
84
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Lil Drummerboy
No offence to the OP, But...
when I see this in more local papers and news outlets I will believe it.
Not saying MSM, but local. Something about this article and its source
says fear monger. Anyone here in California hearing this on the streets?


MSM will not mention events like this.

Here is another news source: (dated Aug2012)

www.redflagnews.com...

This is really happening in California. Events like this deserve our attention. If we do not stand up and voice our concern, this could spread. California, NYC, NJ have shown they do not care for the Bill of Rights and the majority citizens do not seemed concern.

I am a Florida resident, most LEOs here respect the Constitution and our right to bear arms. With concerned citizens like me, confiscations like those in California and NYC will never happen in my state without strong opposition.
edit on 1-12-2013 by jrod because: fixed link




posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
One thing to remember is we are 50 United States and this means we will have States like Cal that will do things we do not like, but the key thing is it is done at the State level. Cal is so different than the rest of the country that they might as well be another country, but they voted the people in office, so they will need to live with their misery.

What I see as a couple of scary trends is how lawmakers are dreaming up ways to limit who can have guns. We are seeing where they will say if you have anything on your record you will lose you guns. If "we" deem you to have any kind of mental issue you will lose your guns. If you have any kind of domestic issue you will lose you guns.

All this starts to include just about anyone they want and so they can confiscate at will. We all know there is a fine line between all this, for we do not want criminals, mentally ill and people with serious anger issues with guns so how do we define it all?

The one and only way is through a history of action, threat is not enough. We can't say "I feel you are a threat" when there isn't any history to support that threat. I know we do have had resent killings where there was no past history before the killings, but we also must understand that we can not go down the road of thought police, even though we have in many areas already.

Here is an interesting case....

Zimmerman had a spat with his girl friend that he says threw things around in his appt. She said that he waved a shotgun around and he says he never touched it, but she knows he has one....

The cops came to his apt and took all his guns due to this...do you all think they have the right based on what they know?

This is how I see people loosing their rights, one at a time...almost like McCarthy era where if you tell me 5 people who are communist you will not lose you job. I can see how people under pressure will tell authorities about their neighbor, friend, co-worker, family member etc. to justify confiscation.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I was thinking this yesterday but I tend to stay away from that rhetoric online...but if what is reported here is true this IS the moment that it is most necessary to defend our nation from tyrants. Keeping your guns and rights is worthless if we don't use them. As I said before I'd rather die free than live under tyrany...so when they come to my door I only have lead for them. I hope all who know me would tell the tale far and wide and I hope the same would be done for anyone in that position.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Here you are wrong, both myself and my children (son and daughter) in the state of missouri are required to have completed a hunters education course : mdc.mo.gov... (I must say I do not mind this, I believe it is a good thing)

You may not have to register a gun in the state of missouri but you ARE required to have proof of ownership and date of sale/purchases associated with your guns.. and if by chance you purchase a gun that has been previously used in a crime your gun will be confiscated and any monies you spent on the purchase will not be refunded.

If you want a conceal and carry permit you must pay a fee of 100.00 and it is only good for 5 years. You must renew every 5 years and if you do not renew on time then you have a 10.00 per month late fee to pay.

While Missouri has many freedoms, it is not as open as you seem to think. I also sold many firearms at a yard sale when I needed the cash, the purchasers at that sale were three, the sheriff, one probation officer, and one gun collector. However, all rules are abided in such sales and receipt of sale(s) were given and proof of ownership was shown.

Also, what happens when everyone who wants the right to bear arms has to congregate in only two or three states? This is not good...



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
And they are doing good, I don't know how many cases of public shooting need to happen at someone's first defect in their brain before some serious measures are taken. Less Wild West and being more civilized.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   

jrod

Lil Drummerboy
No offence to the OP, But...


I am a Florida resident, most LEOs here respect the Constitution and our right to bear arms. With concerned citizens like me, confiscations like those in California and NYC will never happen in my state without strong opposition.
edit on 1-12-2013 by jrod because: fixed link


Really? they "respect" the Constitution? WHAT VERSION HAVE YOU BEEN READING?


do they participate in CHECKPOINTS?
DO they right REVENUE GENERATIN tickets, ever?
do they/ have they ever violated ANY of the bill of rights?

I will shoot you down with this ONE STATEMENT.


"If the people let government decide
what foods they eat and what medicines they take,
their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state
as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson


do any of these redcoats ever arrest people for drugs?

THEN THEY ARE THE ACTORS of TYRANNY... THEY ACTUALLY CARRY IT OUT WITH THREAT OF VIOLENCE AND DEATH..

most destestable acts imho..

arresting people for something that is KNOWN as a medicine, and can be BOUGHT in STORES in other states!

yeah, that constitution they respect is ..."PAY, PENSION, BENEFITS"
edit on 1-12-2013 by HanzHenry because: bb

edit on 1-12-2013 by HanzHenry because: bb

edit on 1-12-2013 by HanzHenry because: bb



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   

ImpactoR
And they are doing good, I don't know how many cases of public shooting need to happen at someone's first defect in their brain before some serious measures are taken. Less Wild West and being more civilized.


...and you advocate the confiscation of arms that are legally owned and carried? Perhaps you should become acquainted with the "Knockout game." The Wild West was never as violent as our society is now.
edit on 1-12-2013 by wills120 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ImpactoR
 


While that many look good on paper, the reality is gun restrictions only hurt law abiding citizens. Criminals will only laugh at the gun laws.

Communism works great on paper too, but we all know what has happened when it was attempted.

As a previous mentioned the pro-gun crowd and anti-gun crowd both want the world to be safer. The anti-gun crowd has more of an idealist view and believes the more laws and confiscations can achieve this. The pro-gun crowd has a more realist view and believes that more laws and confiscations only hurt law abiding citizens, do little if anything to deter criminals from obtaining guns and leave the law abiding citizen defenseless against a criminal with a gun, imho.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
This sounds like they are preparing for civil war ....



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   

ImpactoR
And they are doing good, I don't know how many cases of public shooting need to happen at someone's first defect in their brain before some serious measures are taken. Less Wild West and being more civilized.


A question.

If every law-abiding person turned in their weapons, would crime cease?



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   

wills120

ImpactoR
And they are doing good, I don't know how many cases of public shooting need to happen at someone's first defect in their brain before some serious measures are taken. Less Wild West and being more civilized.


...and you advocate the confiscation of arms that are legally owned and carried? Perhaps you should become acquainted with the "Knockout game." The Wild West was never as violent as our society is now.
edit on 1-12-2013 by wills120 because: (no reason given)


Boom.. that's it.

the knockout game. If someone didn't want a gun before, they do now!



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   

beezzer

ImpactoR
And they are doing good, I don't know how many cases of public shooting need to happen at someone's first defect in their brain before some serious measures are taken. Less Wild West and being more civilized.


A question.

If every law-abiding person turned in their weapons, would crime cease?


didn't you know this already? when law-abiding people follow the law, there is no crime.

People never were robbed or killed before guns man.. come on dude, get with it.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


In Vermont, you do not need a license to carry, concealed or open. Hunter's safety is offered to anyone free of charge, and is only mandatory if you intend to get tags. There is no registration of firearms, either. The only places you can't carry firearms are schools and government buildings (or other private property that policy prohibits). These laws are all in one of the most liberal states in the country, oddly enough. Our gun violence levels are second only to one other state, and any time there is a shooting it's big news. Most of the time they occur it's the out-of-state drug dealers.

Vermont is the shining example that guns are not the problem, since we have almost no laws governing them, and at the same time we have almost no gun violence. Our poverty level is low, we have no urban areas, and no gangs. I think the problem is cities, not guns.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by HanzHenry
 


I admit that in Florida with it's for profit prisons and extreme cannabis laws we are not truly free, no state is. We do not have insane gun laws so at least we can protect ourselves and do not have to worry about johnny law kicking down our door because we are known to have guns and our name or our type of gun was flagged.

Also I do not have to register my guns here, so if a confiscation on a national level were to ever happen my guns essentially do not exist to them. (unless they can figure out who and where I am through my ATS posts)

It doesn't take much to trick the average person into giving up their rights and it is almost impossible to get those rights back.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   

kabfighter
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


In Vermont, you do not need a license to carry, concealed or open. Hunter's safety is offered to anyone free of charge, and is only mandatory if you intend to get tags. There is no registration of firearms, either. The only places you can't carry firearms are schools and government buildings (or other private property that policy prohibits). These laws are all in one of the most liberal states in the country, oddly enough. Our gun violence levels are second only to one other state, and any time there is a shooting it's big news. Most of the time they occur it's the out-of-state drug dealers.

Vermont is the shining example that guns are not the problem, since we have almost no laws governing them, and at the same time we have almost no gun violence. Our poverty level is low, we have no urban areas, and no gangs. I think the problem is cities, not guns.


I have always gotten tags. So we did the mandatory course here.

It is always noticeable that states have less violence when there are less restrictions on guns. That has been proven over and over again. I agree with you about cities always being a problem, almost all crime happens in cities... when crime happens in rural areas it is big news because it is almost unheard of.

I am getting ready to leave Missouri for Virginia come spring time (I am a chicken and do not want to move in the middle of winter to the mountains!)... I do often wonder what their laws are like. I have been told though that in the mountains there do not seem to be much in the way of laws. I am happy with that.
edit on 1-12-2013 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   

HanzHenry
this 6'2" 245lb former marine has all I need to deal with you.

I’m guessing you were not an officer? Just cannon fodder as you spouted so much BS it nearly made my head explode.



HanzHenry
. AMERICA BEAT THE TAR out of the redcoats.

Not really. It was about even, the French and Spanish are what won the war. They landed troops in the USA and America was just not worth the effort at the time when more important areas like the sugar islands were at stake. If they had not got involved the revolution would not have got past valley forge, Washington’s men would have all frozen to death without the French supply’s.



HanzHenry
And ALSO SAVED FROM HITLER'S wrath of air raids.

That’s a joke right? You do know the British complety beat the German Air force before you yanky doodles even declared war let alone got there planes into the Britain.

Its the French that you saved, but to be honest you owe them for your country existence



HanzHenry
STILL allowing a MONARCH to strut around and be worshipped.

You do know most brits can’t be arsed with the queen? Anyway you have your own Aristocracy, they just don’t have lord or Sir in front of their name, but you still have powerful families that control most the wealth and political power. *Cough* Bush Kennedy Clinton *cough*



HanzHenry
KEEP BOWING to scum with a crown

I dont bow to anyone, no one is forced to. Look at your president first with his SS goons.


The fact that you have so many stars show how pathetic the US school system is. At least in the history department.



O by the I support the American people right to bare arms, if that what you guys want it your right to keep the 2nd amendment.
edit on 1-12-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)


edit on 1-12-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


I responded to all that nonsense with Kenectic (? on spelling) and was told my responses were off-topic... Therefore, I don't think it should be allowed to be brought up again if we cannot respond.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   

OpinionatedB
reply to post by crazyewok
 


I responded to all that nonsense with Kenectic (? on spelling) and was told my responses were off-topic... Therefore, I don't think it should be allowed to be brought up again if we cannot respond.


But he original post remains?

If it remains it should be repsonded to or I call mod Bias.


Anyway I mentioned at the end I support your 2nd so its on topic sort of



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   
DP
edit on 1-12-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


yes the original posting does remain... yet we cannot respond to any of it.



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join