Posted on 05/03/2013 5:27:10 AM PDT by Altariel
Until recently, the FAA banned all airmen from taking any anti-depression drugs. They insisted it was better to have depressed, suicidal pilots flying airplanes rather than mellowed-out pilots on Prozac flying them. They recently changed their policy for reasons not announced.
Principled~:” What an excellent 2 min video. I mean excellent.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F1nPSNnaBo
Yes , but it needs to be shortened to under 60 seconds to get televised air time.
And yes ,.. there will be blow-back
I've considered this line of thought in the past... say one comes into a situation whereas agents of the gub'mint are violating your rights or posing a serious threat your or your family's life.
You stage a successful defense.
When the event is taken apart and recast/retold by the gub'mint, no matter the reason for their engagement (including wrong address/persons) would the defense given make you a "a dangerous individual" thereby retroactively justifying the gub'mints actions?
I’m a binary thinker on this. There are two issues here that I see.
1. People, due to crimes they have committed or other reasons no longer have the right to posess a firearm. One can agree or disagree with the reason, on an individual basis, but we all agree that there needs to be some sort of criteria allowing the state to prevent some people from posessing a firearm. So, in principle I am not concerned about this part.
2. They are taking guns away from these people. This part is the problem, but not because they are taking the guns, per se. It is because they apparently “know” that these people have guns. I have a problem with that. It is why I am against registering guns. It’s why I will only purchase from private parties. I don’t want the government to know what items I keep in my home. It’s none of their business.
The problem is that if the state gets too “agressive” they can find all sorts of reasons to prevent a person from owning a gun - thanks to the squishy mental illness caveat
I thought the Democrats had a super majority in California.
I wonder how many Republicans actually voted for it to make it bipartisan.
AS it has been said, they’ll never tell the military or police to attack a patriotic American, they’ll call them “Domestic Terrorists” first.
In Kali’s case, they will say they are no longer “qualified” to possess firearms.
“Sorry officer, I lost those guns in a canoeing mishap. Yep, all 22 of them.”
At which point you are arrested and beaten to sh*t. That statement is for children that think these thugs are playing games, and they aren’t.
And I still have my guns. Eventually, everybody takes a beating. It wouldn't be my first.
“And I still have my guns.”
So? Standing at your doorway with your arms in the air and an M-4 pointed at your head telling them that childish story isn’t using them.
That's not the situation I would intend to use them. I pick my battles more wisely than that. And I'll still have my guns. But hey, it you want to turn yours over go right ahead.
/johnny
Bump
That only becomes a problem when you agree with this:
but we all agree that there needs to be some sort of criteria allowing the state to prevent some people from posessing a firearm.
Shall not be infringed really does mean something, that's why it is the only right that is written that way. Otherwise it becomes subjective when you think that "some people" should be prohibited their God Given rights....
ping
Forget Mexico, put the fence around the California.
They should not be able to move and take their crazy ideas with them. Ask Colorado.
The do not issue warrants for these confiscations. They go to peoples homes and ask them to come inside. Then they pressure them to turn the guns over.
Most people do not know enough to say “Do you have a Warrant?” Then “Come back when you have one.”
The first step of resistance at your house is to say NO! to entry without a warrant.
Thanks TM
Have a great weekend!
California is like some strange foreign land.
That only becomes a problem when you agree with this:
but we all agree that there needs to be some sort of criteria allowing the state to prevent some people from posessing a firearm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.