Posted on 03/17/2018 7:05:16 AM PDT by cyn
I WILL read the article, but first had to say this...
My state specifies that if you’ve been involuntarily committed (Baker Acted) you can’t get a gun. So, does FL have the same law? If so, they’ve backdoored charges that will make sure this guy never gets a gun. Seems unfair. Now I’ll read the article :)
We never learn, give the gov the power to decide if you are competant and if they can then take your guns. Why can’t people learn from what’s in the news today? (FISA)
“The laws - - “
Thank you, you are so correct about the laws. As we all know, the laws are subject to change.
I recall the assault weapons ban of I believe the 1990’s era. My recollection is that those that owned “assault weapons” at that time were made instant criminals, I believe in California.
However my recollection of history is clear enough to know Hitler, Stalin and Mao prohibited civilian gun ownership, and gee whiz, look what happened.
Thank you.
I’ll bet you have one of those S&W 15-22 assault rifles, too!
People that are mental cases are generally pretty obvious.
I am against mental patients or potential mental cases owning guns.
Commit them and remove their firearms.
This is public safety.
I wouldn’t want to live anywhere near an armed person with these characteristics -—
“[He] could not describe the neighbor but stated that the neighbor [can] ‘shape shift, he can change heights and I’m not sure where he comes from’ and ‘to be honest, he looks like Osama Bin Laden.’”
He also told officers that he had to turn off the electrical breakers because “they are electrocuting me through my legs.”
I know a guy that had that exact condition, model citizen but so traumatized by PTSD from his Ranger service in Iraq that he went over and shot up his neighbors washing machine one night out of nowhere, about 2 years ago.
“They” took away all of his guns.
This was way before this new law.
Totally agree with what you’re saying
here.
It can get sticky. Suppose dad and son
live in the same house. The son suffers
from PTSD. There are guns locked up
in a safe, and are jointly owned
and used. Should it be deemed that the
son is not competent to own a firearm,
does dad lose HIS right to own or possess
a firearm? I see many court battles
arising from this new law.
I used to. I was just getting ready to put a bayonet lug and a threaded barrel on it, but I have this fishing boat . . .
I wouldn’t want to live near him either. But the bigger fear I have is Somebody like Obama as President who doesn’t like that I voted Republican last time, so he declares me mentally ill and comes and takes my guns. 10 years ago we would scoff at this scenario ... FISA/Russia ... has proven it is well within the realm of possibility. We cannot tolerate such a law as long as an Obama could become President again.
For the moment...
They do not all have to be away from your property. And you really do not have to do any of this unless you want to.
However, back in the 90’s “assault weapons” ban era, there was an internet site called MOM, which was the Militia Of Montana. It gave instructions on how to preserve weapons in case the left got too much power. Of my collection, I took one rifle, a pistol, knife and ammo and followed their instructions. The weapons stayed into the ground well into the Bush era.
Point being, it was a backup scenario. Two guns that were never on anyone’s books, never to be seen again until I dug them up and they were in perfect firing order.
I’ve noticed many preppers here on FR. Betcha they have similar or better plans.
How about this, then? Wound two birds with one stone. We pay out billions under SSI with plenty of that going for people who claim to be mentally impaired. Let’s make it illegal for anyone claiming to be mentally ill enough for SSI to purchase or be in possession of guns.
What would that accomplish? The mentally ill would not be armed. And people faking mental illness would be giving up their weaponry or getting off the SSI rolls.
...Next it will be the elderly. Already established age limit on the young end and they will say elderly are likely to have poor eyesight, poor coordination, deficient mental abilities, tendency to end their own lives, etc. and so justify no guns after 65 y/o...
OTOH, using liberal logic gun ownership/possession should be limited to only those 65+ because they commit almost no “gun crimes.”
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.