Gabriel Giffords open to gun confiscation

Yeah, we go through this every few weeks and someon on the left always says that NO ONE is in favor of confiscation of guns. I'll even grant that no one in leadership is in favor of gun confiscation. Then it gets modified by someone saying that it is not all guns that should be confiscated but only some guns. Here we go again.

In the state of Washington they have a proposed bill going to be voted upon. It will allow the state to confiscate guns from those that they deem to be irresponsible or unreliable (they have yet to make a real definition). It is being hyped by Gabriel Giffords who a is close personal friend of Hillary Clinton.

So for all the leftists, here is a state that wants to power to confiscate guns from a newly created class that has nothing to do with crime (interesting, isn't that?) but more to do with percieved mental problems (but not necessarily rising to the level of an illness). I don't think the argument of the left can be put forward anymore.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-confiscation/

Had you been shot in the head your perspective might change.

My position is well thought out, well reasoned, and guided by logic. If I were to be shot in the head and my opinion suddenly changed...was that the bullet or new information?

Yeah, we go through this every few weeks and someon on the left always says that NO ONE is in favor of confiscation of guns. I'll even grant that no one in leadership is in favor of gun confiscation. Then it gets modified by someone saying that it is not all guns that should be confiscated but only some guns. Here we go again.

In the state of Washington they have a proposed bill going to be voted upon. It will allow the state to confiscate guns from those that they deem to be irresponsible or unreliable (they have yet to make a real definition). It is being hyped by Gabriel Giffords who a is close personal friend of Hillary Clinton.

So for all the leftists, here is a state that wants to power to confiscate guns from a newly created class that has nothing to do with crime (interesting, isn't that?) but more to do with percieved mental problems (but not necessarily rising to the level of an illness). I don't think the argument of the left can be put forward anymore.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-confiscation/ Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

First, I assume that I am the primary person on the left to whom you are referring. Let's assume that is correct.

Second, I can't believe how incorrect many of your statements are.

I have always made such a statement about a politician proposing a law banning handguns in the U.S., not among a small subset of the population in a single state.

Here is what is being proposed in Washington:

"The orders — “Extreme Risk Protection Orders” — would be similar to California’s Gun Violence Restraining Orders, inasmuch as they would allow “family or household members” to petition a judge to order the temporary confiscation of firearms from another family member or person living in the household."

Yes, very subjective. But you have overlooked in my opinion, the exact wording in the proposed protective order. It is important to point out that this would be a "protective order" which would be brought about by "family or household members", not simply a person outside the home but someone who is very familiar with the situation, and the confiscation would be "temporary".

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this protective order. Subjective yes, but since the determination of whether or not the person in question is "irresponsible or unreliable" is being done by someone very close to the person in question, and the protective order is being approved or denied by a judge, and the confiscation would be temporary, I am fine with it.

JD, people like you have been consistently making statements that guns should not be banned but they should be kept out of the hands of people who are more likely to commit crimes. This protective order would attempt to do just that, on a temporary basis.

An addition -- a woman in the family lives in Austin and most definitely owns a handgun. Over the years her mental health has declined to the point where no one in the family would trust her with a gun. So shouldn't concerned family members, hoping to protect the woman from hurting either herself or others, try to confiscate the handgun(s)? She is now in a home for people with mental problems.

.....was that the bullet or new information? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

New information ...

...... first hand knowledge of the physiological effects of lead poisoning.

Had you been shot in the head your perspective might change. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Tell us your perspective?

Jim

Tell us your perspective?

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Trying to seize or ban some types of guns is wrong, however i cannot find a way to trash GG for what she has gone through.

what is yours?

Yeah, we go through this every few weeks and someon on the left always says that NO ONE is in favor of confiscation of guns. I'll even grant that no one in leadership is in favor of gun confiscation. Then it gets modified by someone saying that it is not all guns that should be confiscated but only some guns. Here we go again.

In the state of Washington they have a proposed bill going to be voted upon. It will allow the state to confiscate guns from those that they deem to be irresponsible or unreliable (they have yet to make a real definition). It is being hyped by Gabriel Giffords who a is close personal friend of Hillary Clinton.

So for all the leftists, here is a state that wants to power to confiscate guns from a newly created class that has nothing to do with crime (interesting, isn't that?) but more to do with percieved mental problems (but not necessarily rising to the level of an illness). I don't think the argument of the left can be put forward anymore.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-confiscation/ Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I know any use of the letter G U and N in close proximity to each other brings out the emotional reactions on both sides, but how about acknowledging:

1) Your description of the proposal was not quite complete/objective

2) No one ever said there weren't extremists on the Left. Just as there are extremists on the right. One person proposing it and a gun victim endorsing it is not exactly the imminent catastrophe you make it out to be.

Should one nut case RWW proposing something then be acclaimed to be the mainstream Rep position? Of course not. Same thing here.

Trying to seize or ban some types of guns is wrong, however i cannot find a way to trash GG for what she has gone through.

what is yours? Originally Posted by i'va biggen

I don't think any conventional Single Shot, Bolt Action or Semi Auto Firearm that fires conventional ammo available to the public for sport or self defense should be banned or regulated, and Mrs. Gifford needs to stay out of it.

Jim

Can someone please tell me how a more strict gun law will keep a criminal from illegally obtaining a gun? Will making illegal possession of a firearm more illegal scare him strait?

I'll tell you what. Lock up people who have proven they are a threat to society, leave them in jail, then I will listen to what you have to say. I will probably still disagree, but at least I'll listen.

Can someone please tell me how a more strict gun law will keep a criminal from illegally obtaining a gun? Will making illegal possession of a firearm more illegal scare him strait?

I'll tell you what. Lock up people who have proven they are a threat to society, leave them in jail, then I will listen to what you have to say. I will probably still disagree, but at least I'll listen. Originally Posted by goodman0422

America has adequate gun laws and adequate laws pertaining to criminal acts that involve guns. The problem right now is Politicians, MSM are on a public campaign. Not to change laws but rather public opinion pertaining to gun ownership and availability of guns in America. So needless to say they exploit incidence of mass murder whether it be actual occurrences or false flag staged events. They really would like the vast majority of public opinion to be "We need to get rid of guns in America"

Jim

"We need to get rid of guns in America"

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

That's so far down on the list it's hardly worth mentioning.



More people have died as a consequence of her holding office ...

............... than me holding a firearm.

It is unfortunate what happened to her but the gun did not shoot her.

No shit?

That's so far down on the list it's hardly worth mentioning.



More people have died as a consequence of her holding office ...

............... than me holding a firearm. Originally Posted by LexusLover

You're right about that. Hillary Clinton is crazier than a shit house rat. If she becomes president nobody is going to listen to her, lol.


Jim