Go Ahead…Shoot Me

I’ve never been a person to shy away from a debate. When I was 8 years old, my mother, exhausted after an hour of verbal sparring with me, threw her hands up in the air in a rare display of lost temper, and screamed, “YOU’RE GOING TO BECOME A LAWYER WHEN YOU GROW UP, I CAN TELL ALREADY!”

She might have been right, but I argued so vehemently with my professors in college, as well as boards of trustees, deans, and even presidents, that I kept getting asked to leave each college I attended…so I never finished.  I doubt law school would be any different.

So I suppose it’s time to enter this debate that is raging from coast-to-coast, as the rest of the world looks on at us like we’re idiots.

On Black Friday this past November, I posted this photo on Facebook:

This photo was originally posted because it is extremely hilarious.  The fallacy that, as a gift for a holiday that celebrates the birth of one of the most famous pacifists in history as well as the central figure of the Christian religion, one might choose a semi-automatic assault rifle…it’s just outlandish.  Sure, if you have a gun-loving friend, this might be a supremely appropriate birthday gift.  But for Christmas?  Come on.  I laughed out loud when I saw it, and assumed that virtually every sane, balanced human being would share this sentiment, so I slapped it on Facebook.

And a few seconds later, I had no idea what hit me.

I must pause here, because the tone of this blog may be such that its target audience immediately begins to assume they know what my stance on the gun control debate is.  So I need to state my stance on guns:

-I have NO ISSUES WHATSOEVER with Americans having handguns in their home to protect themselves from violent invaders, and I have have NO ISSUES WHATSOEVER with Americans having hunting rifles to hunt for sport and game meat.

-I grew up in a rural hunting culture, I have shot a variety of guns, I have hunted, and I’m not some urban coastal liberal who has never seen a gun and is terrified of them.

So please don’t think I’m some raging liberal who wants to make all guns illegal.  But apparently this photo was a clear conveyance of that very thing, because I was overwhelmed with comments like the following:

When a more appropriate response for the original reason for posting the photo would have been:

Nevertheless, people took my posting of the photo as an anti-gun, pro-gun-control statement, so I promptly lost about a tenth of my entire Facebook following, and for the next week, was the subject of a coordinated slander attack, where every photo I posted garnished hate messages attacking everything from my appearance to my sexuality.

Shortly after this, 20 children and 6 adults were slaughtered in an elementary school in Sandy Hook, CT, and the entire nation plunged headlong into the debate that politicians HATE having above all other debates.  So I suppose it’s time for me to enter it, too.

It’s such a vast issue, that it’s perplexing finding an angle to approach it from.  But the first angle is probably the most common, so let’s start there:

I would be quite curious to see how many people who toss around the phrase “2nd amendment rights” could actually quote the Second Amendment.  The Second Amendment states:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This amendment is about the formation of a civil militia, to be used as necessary in times of war to preserve national security.  This amendment had, when it was originally written, absolutely nothing to do with the individual right of a citizen to keep a gun for his own personal use.  PERIOD.  (To be fair, at the time when the amendment was drafted, guns were absolutely essential in every household for personal use in the first place…the founding fathers would never have conceived of a situation where the right to have a gun for personal use would need to be protected.  Having a gun was as necessary as having an axe for cutting firewood, or a bellows to stoke the fire.)

The emphasis of this amendment on military service is further emphasized when you read the original draft of the amendment:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

That last part was removed by some states before ratification because they didn’t want the potential loss of soldiers for religious reasons.  But there are no doubts, whatsoever, that the Second Amendment deals specifically and exclusively with  the organization of an armed civilian militia to protect the security of the country during times of war, when the security of the country is threatened.  (And back then, there were wars almost constantly in this fledgling, sparsely populated country, and militias were necessary because the military wasn’t nearly large enough to fight a well-established and well-armed imperial force.)

Of course, like many items in age-ing documents which were written in a culture vastly different from our modern one (ie The Bible), we have to draw upon the knowledge of those more intelligent and educated than ourselves to INTERPRET a relevant correlation between the intent of the drafters of such a document, and a modern and practical application of that intent.

In the US, that means the Supreme Court, which is the highest authority in the country to interpret the law.  And the Supreme Court is about as divided on the Second Amendment as our citizens are.  The Supreme Court has ALWAYS been divided on Second Amendment issues, and some of the most bitter feuds between Supreme Court justices have been on the interpretation of the Second Amendment.

In 2008 when the court heard the landmark gun-rights case District of Columbia vs. Heller, which is held as the most definitive judgement of the court on the subject of gun control, the justices were split 5 against 4.  The majority (by 1 justice) opinion stated, “…the most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to ‘have weapons.’  …that ‘bear arms’ was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.”  The 4 dissenting judges stated, “The Amendment’s text does justify a different limitation: the ‘right to keep and bear arms’ protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase ‘bear arms’ to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as ‘for the defense of themselves.'”  That’s 5 against 4, but in the Supreme Court, a majority of 1 is all that is needed to decide.  But it was far from a clear-cut decision.

To be VERY CLEAR to those on both sides of this issue, the Supreme Court has NEVER ruled that the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to possess any kind of gun they wish.  While the previous conclusion seems fairly clear-cut, the court clarified in a syllabus:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those ‘in common use at the time’ finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”  (Bolding added by me.)

And here is where the heart of this debate lies.  The gun rights activists seem hell-bent on the idea that the government, and those who are seeking gun reform in this country, want to remove ALL guns from the possession of the people.  Sure, there are many people in this country who believe that no citizen should have access to a gun of any type.  (I am not one of those people.)  But the majority of gun reform supporters are inquiring as to the necessity of a citizen to have a semi-automatic assault rifle.  And this is exactly where the Black Friday Facebook argument led.

Personally, I don’t believe that any civilian should ever have their hands on a semi-automatic assault rifle.  These guns have one purpose, and one purpose only…the killing of humans.  Sure…they CAN be used to kill a deer or a moose or a bear.  But you can kill a deer or a moose or a bear with a hunting rifle.  The ability to shoot 100 rounds without reloading is not very sportsmanlike, when it comes to hunting, and is completely and utterly unnecessary.  Nevertheless, many of you DO wish to have semi-automatic assault rifles for that very purpose:

And here we reach the heart of the issue, which most certainly isn’t about the need to have semi-automatic assault rifles for hunting.  To clarify, the Second Amendment is NOT about the public defending itself from an overzealous government.  Or at least not its OWN government.  As we’ve clearly established, it is about the protection of the country from an invading force through the use of an armed militia.  The framers of the Constitution were forming the type of government that would never need to be overthrown by its own people, because the people control the government.

Now, like anyone in this country, I am fed up with the politics, bureaucracy, and economic corruption in Washington on BOTH sides of the fence.  I don’t harbor any illusions that commerce and business in this country exert more power and influence over the government than the people do.  But the system DOES still work.  There will never be a need, in the United States of America, for the people to forcibly overthrow its government.  (You can overthrow your government each election day.  And the Congress can overthrow the President at any time they please.)  To think that there will EVER be a moment in this country’s future where the people will have to take up arms and overthrow their government is being alarmist, ignorant, and completely out of touch with reality.  Yet so many in this country do seem to think that the government is about to descend with force upon every household from coast to coast and rain apocalypse upon us:

Who is about to enslave us all, pray tell?

The idea that the US government is going to invade your home, harm your family, and take away your liberties is completely ridiculous.  (Still, Smith and Wesson reports that gun sales have increased by 44% since Obama was re-elected.  People are, for some reason, terrified of him.)  It’s time to have a basic lesson in US government.  There are so many checks and balances between the branches of government, it’s a miracle that anything gets done.  If our politicians are so gutless that they can’t stand up to their own party when it comes to compromise on situations like national debt, social security, and healthcare…you think they would have the guts to order their military into people’s homes to take away their liberties?

You can rest assured that in the lifetime of this country, unless you are behaving in an illegal fashion that endangers your fellow citizens, the government will never … ever …  EVER … send the military to invade your home in such a way that you’d need a semi-automatic assault rival to protect yourself from it.  (And if they did, your cache of semi-automatic assault rifles will not be enough to protect yourself from it, anyway.)  The nations of the world do not permit a country to attack its own citizens.  When it begins to happen in third world countries which have systems of government that permit a dictator to order the military into action against its citizens (our does not), like Sudan, or Bosnia, or Syria, the world takes action.

Likewise, if this country ever faces a land invasion from an imperialist force, if the US military doesn’t have enough firepower to protect you and your family, you certainly aren’t going to, either.  The idea that a semi-automatic weapon is required for personal protection is ludicrous.  A handgun will be entirely sufficient to protect yourself from virtually any scenario in which you or your family or property could be placed in danger.  And should the Supreme Court be called upon to clarify the definition of what “dangerous and unusual weapons” might be, I think you’ll find a much more unanimous decision on which guns can be considered “dangerous and unusual.”  A sane and well-balanced human would be hard pressed to come up with a common defense scenario where a civilian would need to be able to discharge 100 rounds in a minute.

Still, it is invariably these weapons that are used in the majority of mass murders that capture headlines and spur people to call for action to prevent them.  And the most reasonable proposals seem to be along the lines of:

Make it harder for criminals and the mentally disturbed to buy guns by requiring universal background checks for all gun transactions.

And here is where this conversation will take a turn that most of you probably didn’t expect.

Because laws aren’t going to fix this problem, no matter what laws come out of it.  The gun used in the Portland mall shooting was stolen from a friend of the shooter.  The guns used in the Sandy Hook massacre were stolen from the mother of the shooter.  In virtually ALL mass shootings, the guns were acquired through illicit means.

Granted, if the manufacture and sale of semi-automatic assault rifles was illegal in this country, and a potential mass murderer had to illegally smuggle them into the country, or manufacture their own, it would be much harder for them to get their hands on one.  But that’s not the situation in this country, and it will likely never be the situation.  If SOME citizens are permitted to have these guns, they will ALWAYS find their way into the hands of people who will wreak havoc with them.  The only way to ensure that semi-automatic assault weapons aren’t used in mass murders in this country, is to remove all the weapons from circulation entirely.  Which is practically an impossibility.  (Can you imagine the mass murders that would ensue if the government tried to get rid of the all the assault rifles in circulation?  This is why the government would never try.)

Like it or not, we’re stuck with these guns.  Even though they are completely unnecessary, and no civilian needs one.  Trying to legislate gun control will be as futile as trying to legislate the war on drugs.  There will always be drugs.  Always.  And the attempt to legislate their legality is a waste of money and time and does more harm to society than good.

This issue will only be fixed when everyone in this country is healed.  People commit crimes like this when they feel like they are rejected by society.  When they feel like they are an outcast.  AND when the rest of us are healed of the terror that makes us want semi-automatic assault rifles in the first place.  No other country in the world has these problems to the extent that we do (there have been 17 mass shootings in this country since the Aurora theater massacre in July, or an average of one every 12 days), and it’s a two-fold issue…the fact that the guns exist everywhere in this country (there are 9 times as many authorized gun retailers as there are McDonalds restaurants), AND the fact that our culture creates people who, when they feel marginalized and rejected, take up such guns to exact revenge upon those they feel rejected by.

One Facebook commentator remarked:

Stephen is sort-of-correct.  Switzerland does not have a military.  Instead, it relies upon a well-armed militia to protect the state in times of threat.  (Sound familiar?)  If a civilian is included in that militia, his or her household will have a semi-automatic (or fully-automatic) weapon in a locked safe, for use ONLY when the militia is called upon.  (It hasn’t been called upon in modern times.)  The gun is provided by the state in conjunction with training on how to use the gun properly and safely.  And ammunition is NOT provided nor permitted for the weapon, but will be provided by the state if the militia is called to action.  So…to be accurate, there is an empty Sig 556 inside many homes in Switzerland that can’t be used without government authorization and that can’t be legally loaded with ammunition.  (Not a significant deterrent for a criminal.)  The fact that Switzerland has a low rate of gun crime isn’t because of this.  Switzerland enjoys a low rate of gun crime for economic and cultural reasons.

The NRA loves their tagline “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”  First of all, in many cases, it’s not true.  Gun rights activists love to say things like, “If that principal had a gun in her drawer, all those lives would have been saved.”  Conservative media have been scouring the country for a scenario where a civilian carrying a gun was able to intervene in a situation and stop a mass-murderer.  And the ONLY scenario the media has been able to come up with actually involves an armed, off-duty police officer.  But even police officers, who constantly undergo gun training under simulated stress, have been responsible for innocent deaths when suddenly called upon to use their arms in the line of duty.  Remember the 8 people near the Empire State Building who were shot by police while police were attempting to shoot the gunman?  Imagine the havoc if the average, untrained, out-of-practice, unaccustomed-to-responding-to-emergency-situations gun owner was called upon to stop a mass murder?  Imagine the death toll if armed citizens in the Aurora movie theater were firing back in the darkness at the gunman in his bullet proof vest?  More than 30 bullets were discharged in 27 seconds, and the entire event was over in 6 minutes.  Scarcely time for anyone to react.

This kind of wild-west approach to the issue doesn’t progress our country to a place where this issue will EVER be fixed.  It is this “bad guy/good guy interfacing with violence” that keeps our culture in a place where mass murders are common.  Arming our teachers, or posting armed police throughout our schools will not make them more safe.  It will breed an entirely new generation of terror-stricken young people who feel marginalized and endangered and will perpetuate such horrors in ever increased numbers.  Ask any teacher.

It is time to take the higher road.  It’s time to stop hiding from erroneous fears of dictators and fascist governments behind semi-automatic assault rifles.  It is time to stop perpetuating the idea that the only way to fight evil is with steel.  There is no such thing as an evil person, and if there is, it’s because we made him that way through neglect, violence, or torture.  People who commit mass-murder are reacting because they are desperate…not because they are evil.  Do you think a teenager would steal a semi-automatic assault rifle and slaughter children if he felt loved and accepted in his life?  We fix this problem when every person in this country feels loved, accepted, and nurtured.  And that’s not accomplished through laws.  And it’s not accomplished by posting an armed guard every 20 feet around the country.  And it’s definitely hindered when we’re up to our knees in machines that have the capability of spreading death in the wrong hands.

Because, whether you realize it or not, your gun affects those around you.  A gun isn’t just a tool.  It’s a symbol.  It changes the way you behave, and it changes the way people respond to you.

Most of my military friends are in agreement with him.  When you put a gun in the hands of a person, it changes them.  And therefore, it changes the way people respond to them.  And you can be assured that the presence of a semi-automatic assault rifle has a much greater impact on those around you than a handgun or a hunting rifle.  When you hold an AR-15, the message you are sending to everyone around you is very clearcut and straightforward: “I can kill you if I want.”  (Whether you intend for that message to be sent, it gets sent loud and clear.)  While some people might also have that response to your shotgun or handgun, the majority will ask if your hunt was successful, or if your aim has improved.  Our country is not ignorant of guns, and most people in this country are not terrified of ordinary ones…you know, the ones that don’t have “assault” in the title.

Let me be clear.  There is no reason for YOU, or anyone else in this country, to have a semi-automatic assault rifle.  But you have one.  And the government isn’t stupid enough to pass a law to take it away from you.  Because that law wouldn’t work in the first place.  All it will do is create more violence.

So our country’s problem with guns…and our country most certainly DOES have a problem with guns…shouldn’t be solved by legislation.

Gun control will not fix the problem.

The problem will be fixed when YOU no longer feel like you need an assault weapon.

The problem will be fixed when marginalized, fragile people feel loved, secure, and accepted.

And more guns on the streets will not help accomplish either.

And more laws on the books will not help accomplish either.

People rejecting selfishness and baseless fear, and instead busting their asses to serve each other, help each other, and care for each other will solve this problem.  Best of all, it’s something that each and every one of us can actively participate in, and don’t have to rely on our government to do it for us.

So regardless of which side of this issue you sit on, the way to stop mass murder is to lock up your guns, stop arguing about gun rights, and start being nice to each other.  Love the people who are hardest to love.  Befriend the people you feel uncomfortable around.  Stop excluding, judging, condemning, and separating yourself from others.  And teach your kids to do the same.  To be friends with the “weirdos” at school.  To take pride in making others feel good about themselves.

If you want to reduce violent crime in this country, let’s set to work on solving the SOURCE of crime.  Poverty.  Inequality.  Marginalization.  Playing cowboys-and-indians will never lead us to a place of peace and harmony.  We have to evolve.  And we have to take EVERYONE with us.  Everyone.

Please feel free to respond respectfully in the comments below.  Let’s not get overheated, which is easy to do with this issue!  Remember that the issue here is human life, and in the past few months, MANY families have lost people who are dear to them.

84 Responses to Go Ahead…Shoot Me

  1. I agree with you Phil. There also are so many cases from Randall weaver to Waco of armed forces coming in to take away guns.

    • Lcromwell, I would love to see an example of when the armed forces invaded a home that was within the lines of law in terms of gun possession. When there is an invasion, it’s because the law has been BROKEN. Let’s not forget that the Supreme Court has clearly ruled for DECADES that the right to bear arms is not unconditional, nor that EVERYONE has the right to bear arms. This isn’t some radical conservative new movement. There ARE gun laws. And when people break them, law enforcement must enforce those laws. ATF did not go to Ruby Ridge to kill Randall Weaver’s wife. They went to remove illegal guns. FBI did not go to the Branch Davidian’s complex to kill 76 people. They went to investigate and remove illegal guns (in addition to investigating MANY other humanitarian concerns). When people fight back, rather than cooperate with the law and related investigations, death happens. Needlessly. The people you’re defending…Randall Weaver…David Koresh…these are not GOOD, law abiding people. These are delusional criminals. Why choose them to defend your point? David Koresh was raping children. And he got 75 people KILLED because of his ego. If he had nothing to fear…hadn’t been raping children, hording semiautomatic weapons and converting them to fully automatic…he could have invited the ATF into the compound, the search and investigation would have been routine, and they could have gone back to their law-abiding, peaceful life.

      But this debate has strayed back into the same back-and-forth we see on the media, and that was NOT my point in posting this blog. My point was that increased laws will not be effective, because existing laws aren’t effective. Criminals will always find a way to put their hands on the kind of weapons that can kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds. The point is that YOU and I need to do our part to help transform our society into one where people don’t feel like they NEED to have guns to protect themselves from a massive invading force. First off…because that force will NEVER come. Second off…because when you live in fear, you do harm to yourself, your family, and everyone around you. ESPECIALLY if that fear translates into hording ridiculous amounts of firepower. Yes…everyone in this country should have the right to have a handgun under their pillow or in their gun cabinet. YES…everyone in this country should have the right to have some hunting firearms to hunt for food and sport. But nobody in this country needs semiautomatic firepower to do anything but protect themselves from some bizarre, imaginary troop of heavily-armed paramilitary forces that are going to invade their law-abiding home, take away their guns, and kill their family. Those people need to be HEALED, because they are living in needless terror. And that fear is damaging their life and the lives of those they care about. When we are ALL living a life centered on love and service…and we’re ALL more concerned with our fellow man than ourselves…and when we’re ALL busting our butts to help out those less fortunate than us…people won’t need these massive guns any more. So instead of screaming at each other in a debate that won’t go anywhere, let’s get down to the business of evolving our race. Because guns and violence…and movements “written in blood” only keep us in the dark ages.

  2. Ben: I didn’t suggest that the Syrian civil war was a good example of why citizens should be armed. What I stated is that it’s an example of how “a lightly armed citizenry can stand up to regular armed forces”.

    I’m not one of the people who believe that a dictator is going to rise to power in the U.S. but neither am I so naive as to believe that voting can overthrow a government. The political power that has been amassed by the Democrats and Republicans is so deeply entrenched that it is virtually impossible to change government leadership in any meaningful way at the national level by voting. Obviously, we can change the talking head who resides in the White House but we can’t change the party juggernaut which controls which talking head is presented to the people as the potential “leader” of the nation.

    If you look at the rate of escalation of our national debt, throwing out the idiots hasn’t worked because, frankly, the incoming idiot has been as incompetent as the outgoing idiot. The clowns we elect have discovered their niche as politicians and once they’ve floated to, or near the top of the public cesspool, they’re willing to spend limitless amounts of our tax dollars to stay there. The bottom line is that we continue to elect people to office whose only skill is their ability to sling bulls–t. Expecting these people to repair our economic system is akin to expecting your chicken flock to design and build a nuclear-powered (but eco-friendly) pizza oven.

    That’s not to say that we shouldn’t keep trying for a peaceful solution to what will eventually become a major problem. Even so, virtually every major change in U.S. policy, including the birth of the nation, has been written in blood and I won’t be surprised if the next change requires more of the same.

  3. Ben, I spent 12 years in the military, including about 18 months in sunny South Viet Nam as a participant in the Southeast Asian War Games (Full Contact Division); I’m well aware of the potential consequences of a meeting between two armed groups who disagree with one another’s point of view.

    However, the issue at Kent State was not about a group of soldiers who made a “stupid decision” but, rather, about a command structure, reaching to the Governor of Ohio, which ignored it’s only purpose for existence – to safeguard the well-being of the citizenry.

    The National Guard was not entering a battle zone nor attempting to quell a riot where life was at risk; it was attempting to disperse a group of college students and did so successfully without a shot being fired. There was no reason for the Guardsmen to have been issued live ammunition. In the unlikely event that they were unable to protect themselves from the unarmed college students with their bayonet-equipped rifles, they may have had to withdraw. Embarrassing, perhaps, but not deadly to either side.

    The Kent State debacle never would have occurred had the Governor of Ohio been wise enough to understand that restraint was required, not a show of force. Of course, the chances of encountering wisdom from a politician is somewhere between slim and none and Slim just took the last train to Clarksville.

    Not being prescient, I don’t share your certainty that the government will never turn on the citizenry though, at this stage of the game, it doesn’t seem to be an imminent threat. Sometime in the future though, the piper will have to be paid for our ever increasing national debt and when that time comes, the chance of civil unrest on an unprecedented scale is extremely likely.

    From my lifetime of observations, the majority of people no longer view the government as a beneficent entity, as was once the norm. It is easy to see how civil unrest caused by a meltdown of our financial system could devolve into civil war. I realize that you don’t believe a lightly armed citizenry can stand up to regular armed forces but history is not on your side; I direct your attention to the Syrian civil war.

    • Phil, the Syrian civil war is a massively bloody affair with citizens dying left and right. How on earth is that a good example of why the citizenry needs to be armed? The more armed the citizens are, the more people die, because the armed offense has to use more violent force against them. There is a VERY established method of overthrowing a government without bloodshed in civilized countries, and it’s called VOTING. And it WORKS. Some people seem to think that some entity is going to rise to power in this nation as a dictator, turn the military against its citizens, and somehow both BENEFIT by that, and retain power indefinitely…it’s just lunacy.

      I agree that civil unrest is likely to rise in this country if we can’t get control of our spiraling national debt and the increasing gap between the rich and the poor. However, if that civil unrest is HEAVILY ARMED, we’re likely to see far more citizens die, than if the civil unrest is in accordance with the vast majority of our patriotic history…PEACEFUL protest. It works. It sends a clear message. And then we all go into the polls and throw out whatever idiot(s) are making horrible, uncompromising decisions that aren’t moving us toward our goals as a country, and give someone else a chance for a few years. And if they aren’t functional, we throw them out, too.

    • Lee, first off, I prefer to receive stories from unbiased sources. On that same page you linked me to, the primary story is a petition to deport Piers Morgan. I don’t get my news from MSNBC, the left-biased news source. NO one should. Just like NO ONE should get their news from Fox. Both are sensationalist sources that love to stir up alarmist movements on both ends. (Just like teaparty.org.) Anyone who gets their information from such dramatically biased sources should NEVER consider their news reliable.

      That said, on teaparty.org, the phrase about the gun “seizure” is stated thusly: “They knocked on the door and asked to come in. About 45 minutes later, they came away peacefully with three firearms.”

      These officers were enforcing the law. We can debate whether or not people with mental instabilities should be permitted to have weapons, if you want. But these officers were simply enforcing the law. And if you think the person in that home who received a peaceful, polite visit from officers simply enforcing the law (according to the source YOU posted here), should have instead turned his firearms against them…I’m not sure what to think. But all you’ve done here is share a story about the law being enforced peacefully and politely. This was not a new thing, and it has NOTHING to do with recent rogue laws being passed by radically liberal governments. California has been doing this for DECADES in accordance with their state laws regarding guns and the mentally challenged or those with previous violent convictions. The only reason this “raid” made news (as opposed to THOUSANDS like it for the past few decades) is because alarmist media sources are seeking out such events to blow out of proportion.

  4. It just happened in California. No trial,no hearing,just enter home armed with 40 ca. glocks and bullet proof vests and seize his 3 guns because he spent 3 days in a mental hospital. Nothing alleged he was a danger to himself or others.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *