They Just Grabbed My Neighbor's guns

[RobertEarl]

""He was a law abiding citizen who had kids and a family. But the cops came in and took all his guns.""

How come we never hear stories like this? Because it has never happened.

So why do all the gun lovers keep saying the government is going to grab their guns? Seems they are deluded and stupid.

[Drale]

1. Because Faux "news" keeps telling them that is whats going to happen

and if your told something enough, your going to start believing it

[patrice]

2. Why do they say that? It's propaganda. Goebbels's Big Lie. nt

[LVdem]

3. I find it best to ask one simple question before engaging in conversation with a GOPer:

"Who attacked us on September 11th?"

If they get that wrong I'm done. Otherwise, I will patiently and methodically tear their lame arguments to shreds. Case in point: co-worker says he has the right to have an assault rifle because he needs to protect himself when the US Army comes to kill him. I told him if the US Army wanted him dead he would never know what hit him. One second he'd be there, the next he's not.

Fish in barrel.

[LibertyLover]

40. Just a quick question -

has your co-worker ever explained why the US Army would want to kill him? It could be a fascinating insight into the "thinking" of GOPers. Just saying.

[LVdem]

45. No he hasn't...

Other than being a little far right minded, he seems fairly rational... that's probably a contradiction isn't it!!!

[DirkGently]

4. Because the bunker mentality sells weapons & ammo?

Really, if you're hunting, or even defending your home, you don't need the level of firepower they need people to buy.

[Cha]

5. It's The Lie NRA perpetuates because they know

the suckers will suck it up.

There was scene on The Good Wife on Sunday with someone out in the Streets yellng about the 2nd Amendment and They Would Not Let the Gov take their guns away!

[Scootaloo]

6. Wishful thinking.

There's this whole mythological ideal of the "brave defender" squaring off against "forces of evil." In every case you will find that these knuckleheads held this fantasy before purchasing even one gun, that they dream of "taking a stand" - against the "thugs," against the "feds," against the Cuban-Russian invaders, whatever. They purchase an armory to bolster and accessorize these fantasies. They secretly want the ATF to come banging on their door, so they can show "the government" what-for.

If it were something they feared rather than something they relished, they would avoid, instead of encourage. That is, if they actually were afraid of the government coming after them for their weapons, they would divest themselves of those weapons and not collect more. That's what people do when they fear something, they act to avoid it. Instead these people buy more and talk themselves up louder about how it'll be a dark day in hell, yadda yadda.

[Beartracks]

10. Makes sense. They're acting out a "brave" fantasy because they know...

... it's not going to ever happen.

Of course, when they violate some law or start menacing the peace, etc., the authorities will have to step in, and THEN... they can claim they were right all along!!!! Self-fulfilling asshattery.

===================

[defacto7]

7. Plant the lie...

Reap the benefits!!!

That's what capitalism is all about.

[Ikonoklast]

8. They did it to me.

With no legal reason to do so, my firearms were confiscated by the local police dept.

They got sued so quickly and such a stink was made about it they quickly apologized and returned them to me.

I still sued the city, the police department, and every officer that was part of that theft.

I won.

[SheilaT]

9. Really?

[safeinOhio]

16. So we have nothing to worry about.

The court (government) is there to protect us from the government. So, you didn't have to have those guns to protect you from it. Looks like your guns didn't protect you, or did you fight them off with them?

[Ikonoklast]

37. And where did I assert that as the reason for my ownership of firearms?

Be careful when building Straw Men in such dry weather, one spark and your argument blows away in flames.

It still cost me time, money, and a great deal of stress to enforce my rights, which were taken from me without due process.

[Javaman]

24. What prompted them to do such a thing? nt

[Marrah_G]

26. Curious as to what they said their reason was

[Ikonoklast]

36. I was going through a divorce at the time, my then-wife thought that calling the police on me

was a valid tactic to build support for her position going into proceedings.

For any reason, no reason, made-up reasons, they police were called to my residence thirty-five times by her. Not once was I arrested, not once was I cited for anything, not once did they even really do anything but tell me that I had to leave my own residence because "the woman usually gets the house in deals like this anyways."

I was told by my attorneys to not leave the residence or my children for any reason, no matter what.

I wasn't about to.

She opened my gun safe by taking the keys from me while I was sleeping, and called the police the next day to come get them.

No restraining order was issued, nothing was adjudicated whatsoever, they just came to my house when I was at work and not only took my property, but also firearms that belonged to other people, not owned by me, that I kept for them in my safe.

They took the 1863 Colt's musket that hung over my fireplace, it belonged to my father but was given to me to display, when I saw it missing the next day I checked the gun safe, saw the door left open, and knew what she had done.

Now, this is after a previous court order was issued keeping either of us from disposing of any property in any way until after the divorce was finalized, or ordered to by the court.

Fairly standard order in a contested divorce case.


The PD chief refused to acknowledge what they had even done, refused to give me an inventory of what they had confiscated, refused to do anything without a court order.

Everyone that was involved in losing property without due process filed a police report for theft, and informed their insurance companies.

I got a court order, all right.

So did the others individuals involved.

So did the insurance companies.

The PD still stalled returning everything until the court sent a county bailiff along with a Sheriff's deputy to the local police department with a summons and served them with it.

There was one pistol one of the police officers wanted, and wanted badly. It was held back for him because the PD said I could not prove ownership, although I produced the original bill of sale (which I have for every firearm I own, along with copies kept elsewhere), the original box it came in, and pictures and serial numbers photographically recorded of each item for insurance purposes.

Even when finally handing it over to me, the PD chief asked me if I wanted to sell it, the shithead.

The judge was not very happy with his previous orders to return everything being ignored by the PD.

He was *not* happy at all.

The upshot was, without any valid reason whatsoever the police department had taken sides during an ongoing civil legal matter, involved themselves with no reason to, and ended up getting into a disastrous situation of their own making.

Soon after this happened, the court served my ex with a order to vacate the premises, to leave immediately.



After ever thing was said and done, sole custody of my three children was given to me, as was the house, everything in it, and all the vehicles except one.

[Marrah_G]

38. Sounds like an awful ordeal

I hope you and your children are doing well now.

[Ikonoklast]

41. It was a very rough time for all of us.

Thank you, yes, we all got through it with some help from some very fine people.

My ex had and still has some very serious mental issues that she initially tried to control, but it overwhelmed her and took over her life.

What happened to her is an indictment of our current health treatment system for those suffering from mental illness.

[maxsolomon]

49. the PD erred on the side of caution

when faced with a volatile divorce, removing firearms from the situation reduces the potential for violence. it doesn't seem they did it well, but i'm comfortable with this response as a model.

it's what we did when my BIL was losing it, and i'd have been fine with the sheriff keeping them safe, instead of having to store them at my dad's house.

[Ikonoklast]

54. PD acted unlawfully with no basis for what they did.

Any potential violence and actual violence was all coming from my ex-wife.

She was removed from the residence by court order the very next day after the Guardian Ad Litem interviewed my children and then had an emergency meeting with the judge.

The local PD looked rather foolish after that. They didn't have a leg to stand on.

[maxsolomon]

64. so, you got them back - did you miss a hunting trip in the interim or something?

i'm trying to understand the harm you suffered in temporarily losing access to your firearms.

based on my experiences in these situations, NO ONE should have access to firearms. not the crazy partner, not the aggrieved partner who's stressed and angry.

[LanternWaste]

39. Cool story, bro'. Please proceed.

Cool story, bro'. Please proceed.

[Ikonoklast]

43. I really don't care if you believe me or not. It is, in fact, a matter of public record.

If you think things like this do not happen in this country, you are living in a fool's paradise.

[DollarBillHines]

51. Doesn't it feel really cool to be all-knowing?

'specially on Friday night.

[Mojorabbit]

11. It happened after Katrina

Lots of video of it out there. It still amazes me they spared the manpower to do this when so many people were desperate for help

[jmowreader]

15. Yeah, the president ordered that

Now understand, the president the NRA says is going to grab your guns any second now was a state senator during the gun grab.

[premium]

22. Uh, no,

the president didn't order that, Mayor Ray Nagin ordered it.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-08-nra-katrina_N.htm

The city, Nagin and the police chief were all sued by the NRA and the SAF and were forced to return them.
Bush most certainly didn't order any confiscation.

[Mojorabbit]

48. I believe a local authority ordered it.

My point is that it has happened in the past. I am not making a judgement on anything else. It has nothing to do with Pres. Obama.

[Herlong]

12. Divide and conquer then attack from the rear

Your gun nut neighbor has one thing. His vote.

You have one thing. Your vote.

WE spend OUR votes and send them to Washington.

Giving them have all the power. (a Republic)

Then you spend all your time attacking the people you need to keep the people you place in power in line.

Divide and conquer. Attack from the rear.

[jambo101]

13. Way too many simpletons

In the USA who believe the government is for some reason out to get them,what rightie media feeds them is taken as the real truth,they live in a delusional alternate reality where being psychotic is the norm,

[Spitfire of ATJ]

14. What I find funny is Republicans grab their guns in fear of black home invaders,...

....but black people are overwhelmingly the ones who want to get rid of the guns.

Point that out to a Republican and they will say, "Of course!!! So after the guns are gone they can break into our homes and we can't stop them!!!"

[hack89]

17. You will ban guns to save 300 lives but not to save 30,000 lives?

when I hear that gun controllers do not want to ban guns beyond assault weapons , that is the thought that crosses my mind.

[baldguy]

20. So you must agree that we need more stringent controls on handguns. Right?

Whose handguns should be confiscated first?

Or are you trolling?

[hack89]

21. Just asking for a honest discussion

If banning handguns is the ultimate answer then say it. If not, answer my question.

Criminals should have their handguns confiscated first.

[jmg257]

23. Wouldn't capacity limits have an affect on SA handguns?

Magazine and/or capcity restrictions are part of most AWBs I have read.

[hack89]

25. Technically yes. Realistically no

since no proposed legislation is retroactive and there are hundreds of millions, if not billions of high capacity magazines in circulation, it is hard to see how it will make much difference.

But my question was somewhat rhetorical in nature. We keep hearing that no one wants to take away our guns except for assault weapons. If we take gun control advocates at their word that their only concern is to save lives, that statement doesn't make sense. Logic dictates you have to ban handguns to significantly reduce gun violence. Which is why I look at the OP with a somewhat jaundiced eye.

[jmg257]

27. A law like the SAFE Act in NY mandated that (just about) all mags with greater capacity then

10rnds be removed from civilian ownership, (and 7 rounds only be allowed in the future).

Seeing that would also make a difference in limiting lethality of pistols, why is it opposed? Aren't gun owners & the NRA interested in saving lives too?

WOuld you support it?

"The {NRA & NYSRPA law suits} challenge takes aim at two key provisions of the law: a lower limit on magazine capacity and an expansion of the state's assault weapons ban"


I do see the point of arguing the new 7round restriction, as that will render many arms useless due to lack of such devices (why the limit will apparently will be rolled back to 10), but why not support limited grandfathering?

[hack89]

28. It would not reduce gun deaths in any meaningful manner

considering that the majority of gun deaths are suicides. The majority of murders do not have multiple victims - mass shootings (greater than four victims) are extremely rare. And of course there is the basic fact that criminals will have all the large capacity mags they want - they don't obey gun control laws.

Magazine size limits are just nibbling around the edge of the problem. They are an emotional response to a rare event that completely ignore the real issues regarding gun violence.

So what happens when magazine limits have no impact on gun violence? What is the next step? The OP says it will not be a comprehensive gun ban. Do you agree?

[jmg257]

29. Of course criminals don't obey laws. But does that mean we remove the

capability of the state to charge them with a crime when they do? We want to remove any deterence for getting penalized for illegal behavior? If no one is allowed to have 15 round mags, it makes policing of them much easier when circumstances allow. No need for born on dates, or "mine was grandfathered in" - its all or none. Like unregistered handguns in NY - you have one you get charged - steeply. How many will take the chance of losing ALL gun rights AND go to jail just to ignore a part of a law they don't agree with?

How many more times are we going to tolerate these "rare events" because they are emotional? Why not just try to deal with them, before the next rare event - which we ALL know is coming. Magazine limits are a step we can take that can limit the lethality of the weapons used, without placing any undue hardship on gun owners. Ignoring them doesn't seem the right course; getting rid of them all *IF* going that route resolves much of the "there are already so many out there" arguments.

Strict magazine limits WILL have an affect of gun violence, especially when combined with other laws like UBC, registration, harsher penalties, expanded the roles of restricted owners (domestic offenders, felons etc.) etc..

[hack89]

30. You are missing the point of my original question

We are talking about banning guns. The OP says no one will take away our guns. Why should I believe that gun control advocates will stop at assault weapons?

My original question: You will ban guns to save 300 lives but not to save 30,000 lives? Care to answer it? Will you specifically commit to never supporting a ban on semi-automatic handguns? A simple yes or no in the subject line would suffice.

[jmg257]

31. I answered that. I pointed out that your point was flawed because "banning guns",

in this case via laws banning/registering assault weapons, include capacity limits, which do affect handguns too.


Personally I will committ to never supporting a ban on (most/typical) semi-auto handguns, and to never being in a position where my committment really matters (i.e. I will never be charged with the task of substantially reduding the number of deaths & injuries due to handguns)

[hack89]

32. So how do magazine limits reduce suicides and typical murders?

seven bullets are more than enough to commit the vast majority of gun violence in America.

I understand your desire to "do something" but you sure are dancing around the core issue here.

[jmg257]

33. Again- I already answered that:

Strict magazine limits WILL have an affect on gun violence, especially when combined with other laws like UBC, registration, harsher penalties, expanded the roles of restricted owners (domestic offenders, felons etc.) etc..

Not dancing around the issue at all, you simply & repeatedly seem to be ignoring all my fine boogying.



ETA:

Numerous suicides are part of 'murder-suicides', by spouses, ex-boyfirends, etc. Limiting their access to guns will also limit their ability to successfully commit murder & suicides with guns.

[hack89]

34. Those laws would be effective and I can support with the exception of registration

they will do much more to reduce gun violence then banning rifles or magazines.

I am just skeptical that the calls to ban guns will stop at rifles. Banning is the core of gun control - too many refuse to accept the idea of responsible gun ownership. You can certainly see that here at DU.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

47. Are you sure? I do not believe that to be the case.

My understanding is that about 30,000 Americans are shot to death every year, of which about 10,000 are suicides.

[hack89]

50. About 20,000 suicides a year - our suicide rate is nearly 3 time our murder rate.

The gun debate has focused on mass shootings and assault weapons since the schoolhouse massacre in Newtown, Conn., but far more Americans die by turning guns on themselves. Nearly 20,000 of the 30,000 deaths from guns in the United States in 2010 were suicides, according to the most recent figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/us/to-lower-suicide-rates-new-focus-turns-to-guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[leftynyc]

19. Because they're paranoid losers

who live their entire lives in fear. It's the only explanation.

[no_hypocrisy]

35. Because the gun lovers leave out the other part of the story like

the cops were called because of a complaint of domestic violence. Weapons are always removed until the matter is resolved.

[TeamPooka]

42. they will only grab the guns if someone is growing marijuana too.

[Cleita]

44. Capital letters on the STUPID. n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

46. It would be a good thing if it did.

Remember, until he started killing people, Adam Lanza was a law-abiding citizen, more or less.

Thirty thousand Americans are shot to death every year, many more are injured by guns.

Repealing the second amendment and taking away guns from law-abiding and non-law-abiding citizens alike would massively reduce that number.

Gun control compatible with the second will probably not reduce it much.

My view is that it would be a price well worth paying.

[hack89]

53. Yours is the honest approach

if you can make it through all the hurdles required to amend the Constitution, then you can be sure that you have the true support of most Americans.

[RobertEarl]

56. May be honest, but extreme

There is no real reason to repeal the 2nd. It just needs to be used better and the gun nuts need to get behind doing so.

Some will say that putting controls on the use of the weapons won't do anything but that is a fucking lie. It has been proven that controls work.

My OP here was to point out the lie about the government just grabbing guns for no good reason, which is the idiotic basis for the gun nuts not doing their part for gun control.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

57. "It has been proven that controls work"? I do not believe that to be the case.

"It has not been proven that they don't", I would accept, but I do not think you can possibly have the evidence to support your stronger claim.

[hack89]

58. Lets discuss banning guns

my original question still stands. Why ban guns to save 300 lives but not to save 30,000? You cannot argue that bans are not a big part of the gun control agenda - why wouldn't banning handguns be a logical next step?

Perhaps saving 30,000 lives is a good reason. In which case, perhaps gun owners may have reason to be concerned. Perhaps in exchange for supporting gun control, an iron clad guarantee that there will never be a ban on handguns would be useful.

[hack89]

61. So why are cities like Chicago fighting so desperately to keep their bans?

perhaps a national preemptive law is needed. Don't give local government the option. Just a thought.

[jmg257]

62. Sorry Hack, darn iPad is multiple posting again... nt

[jmg257]

63. Maybe get A new constitutional amendment...then you know you have the true support

Of the people.

[jmg257]

60. An iron clad guarantee? Like the 2nd and Heller & McDonald?

Don't know how much more iron clad you can get then the constitution, with SCOTUS backing.


Eta:
"The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster."


I guess you could get another amendment passed, then know you have the true support of the people.

[Life Long Dem]

52. There is something drastically wrong in America when...

Saw it on Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/AddictingInfoOrg https://www.facebook.com/Republicansareidiots1?group_id=0

[krispos42]

55. Because first they need to find he has a joint on him.

THEN, using that excuse, they send in a SWAT team.


Duh! Gotta play by the rules.