California SWAT Teams Conficating Guns

[MSimon]

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=13342

And who did the SWAT teams originally practice on for decades? Don't worry. I won't mention it.

But you can't say I didn't warn you.

=========

Well it looks pretty reasonable for now. If you or some one in your house has had a mental problem you will not be allowed to own a gun to defend yourself. Legally.

Who will be next? Well military veterans have been mooted. Possible PTSD dontcha know. Yeah. I know a drug that is good for PTSD. Alcohol. Except some people get violent on that stuff. So add alcohol drinkers to the mix. I look forward to the day when SWAT teams show up at a bar and check your ID and gun registration against a list. Alcohol purchase will eventually be enough evidence.

===

Some police officers have an idea that might reduce gun violence:

http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/566 ... _KEY=13174

====

Well I AM amused. But I get amusement out of some very morbid things.

Yeah. the above sounds like the ranting of a deranged. Did I mention SWAT teams? Well that warning was deranged. Until now.

[MSimon]

And This was pretty far gone too:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4332

[paperburn1]

one thing to note they are asking people to give up the guns, most obviously because they do not have the real force of law behind them.
The cali law only states that the weapons must be made reasonably secure. But people are being informed in such a way that the feel its required to give up the weapon. As soon a they can set a president then expect the warrants to appear.

[MSimon]

one thing to note they are asking people to give up the guns, most obviously because they do not have the real force of law behind them.
The cali law only states that the weapons must be made reasonably secure. But people are being informed in such a way that the feel its required to give up the weapon. As soon a they can set a president then expect the warrants to appear.

Yes. They will do the easy thing to get people used to it. It is an old trick.

First they came for....

Which is why it is unwise to hate any group enough to be willing to put the government on them. It builds government power which will eventually be turned on those who so gleefully went after the reviled.

Turning vices into crimes is dangerous. This post I did earlier in the week speaks to that http://classicalvalues.com/2013/03/chri ... -drug-war/. You will pardon my use of the "forbidden" term.

The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society. — Thomas Jefferson

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -- Thomas Jefferson

[GIThruster]

Okay so you have a piece that recounts how officers went to someone's home and picked up guns that were surrendered voluntarily, because someone has a serious mental disorder that is never explained in the article.

You're supposed to know better than to put stock in crappy yellow journalism like this before you get out of high school, and yet our resident psycho wants us all to believe this is an example of the police confiscating firearms and telling us "I told you so".

You should be ashamed, simon.

So are you going to champion the position now, that if a psycho threatens the lives of say, those in his family, that his family shouldn't get rid of the family guns before the psycho returns home? That is the kind of position you're supporting here with your childish rhetoric.

[MSimon]

Okay so you have a piece that recounts how officers went to someone's home and picked up guns that were surrendered voluntarily, because someone has a serious mental disorder that is never explained in the article.

You're supposed to know better than to put stock in crappy yellow journalism like this before you get out of high school, and yet our resident psycho wants us all to believe this is an example of the police confiscating firearms and telling us "I told you so".

You should be ashamed, simon.

So are you going to champion the position now, that if a psycho threatens the lives of say, those in his family, that his family shouldn't get rid of the family guns before the psycho returns home? That is the kind of position you're supporting here with your childish rhetoric.

You don't understand the method. The first things done will be reasonable. They will even get some/many of the opponents of these things to go along.

What you have to do is look at the process in light of their general intention.

If you know the history of another prohibition (whose name will remain unmentioned) that is exactly how it was done.

If you can stand to read about the process re: the subject you are tired of hearing about, here is a link to a moderate length bit on the history: the Process

Here is a shorter how to manual on the same subject that shows the process in general terms.
How To

Don't focus on the beginning - look to the end.

What prevents action is that people get in their heads "it can't happen here". Yes it can.

Germany was a civilized nation in 1933. By 1945 it had been reduced to the most monstrous barbarism. It was done in small increments. No abrupt changes. Everything reasonable based on what had gone on just before.

They have a plan and you are a part of that plan - no matter how much you think you oppose it. After all you are reasonable and I'm a wild eyed crazy. They can discount me. They depend on you.

Can it be stopped? If you are any indication the answer is no.

[MSimon]

If you want to see the process more clearly it is in the Bible. Read about Samuel and the people's desire for a King. It is all in there. Humans haven't changed much in the interim.

BTW Samuel was the wild eyed crazy of his time. And what did God tell Samuel? "There is nothing you can do about it. The people have turned away from me. Let them have what they want. They will be sorry"

15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants.
16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use.
17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.

And what is the sin that dives all this? A hardness of heart. Not listening to the spirit. A lack of love. The elevation of the material over the spirit. (your own relation to me is a prime example of that - thank you)

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

And they can not get that power without spiritual wickedness in low places. Our rulers are but graven images of ourselves.

Yeah. I'm nuts. - But pay attention if you can in the coming years. What I see will come to pass. I have been given the dispensation to fight against them until they close the deal. I have made my peace with the powers in the hope of a better time. But will you be allowed that luxury?

[MSimon]

I'm going to start a new thread "How It Was Done" to talk about how that other prohibition was implemented. A short version. In case you are interested.

[ladajo]

Germany was a civilized nation in 1933. By 1945 it had been reduced to the most monstrous barbarism. It was done in small increments. No abrupt changes. Everything reasonable based on what had gone on just before.

Not true at all. You need to study up a little more. The National Socialists moved very quickly to seize and then consolidate power. It was more like getting hit by a bus. Small increments is not an accurate characturization. Kind of like the title to this thread, which I debated several times with myself about clicking on. The other "new" thread, I will not look at. It is joining a growing list of unread threads which I associate with your pathological behaviour regarding drugs.

Does anyone know a way to block threads or mark as read without reading single threads? How about blocking a poster's posts on a particular topic?

[GIThruster]

What you have to do is look at the process in light of their general intention.

If you know the history of another prohibition (whose name will remain unmentioned) that is exactly how it was done.

I'm sorry but that's just not true, neither here nor in Germany. I am not disputing that it may not become true. It is entirely possible such a silent slide may occur, but there is no evidence here of it occurring. It is merely your obsession that is projecting this onto any event it can find to rationalize itself.

There is no link between drugs, firearms and other things one might see prohibited, either here in the US or abroad. You are forming this link based on an obsession.

[Stubby]

Germany was a civilized nation in 1933. By 1945 it had been reduced to the most monstrous barbarism. It was done in small increments. No abrupt changes. Everything reasonable based on what had gone on just before.

Not true at all. You need to study up a little more. The National Socialists moved very quickly to seize and then consolidate power. It was more like getting hit by a bus. Small increments is not an accurate characturization. Kind of like the title to this thread, which I debated several times with myself about clicking on. The other "new" thread, I will not look at. It is joining a growing list of unread threads which I associate with your pathological behaviour regarding drugs.

Does anyone know a way to block threads or mark as read without reading single threads? How about blocking a poster's posts on a particular topic?

I think you would have to click 'mark all read' once you have read the ones you want.

[ladajo]

I think you would have to click 'mark all read' once you have read the ones you want.

Yup, that marked them read without reading. That will work until I can figure out how to block specific topics and possibly specific users in context.

Thanks.

[Stubby]

Pretty sure that you can't block specific threads or users.

[MSimon]

A gun blog chimes in:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/0 ... nters-day/

I liked this comment:

JPT says:

March 14, 2013 at 11:28

Gotta keep showing some of my friends these stories. Unfortunatly some still have their blinders on. A few are just to stubborn to realize the direction things are going but stories like this help out big time. Keep em comin RF.

This was good too:

Skyler says:
March 14, 2013 at 12:36

The first step is to target weak, non-ideological gun owners who give in very peacefully. Once the public is used to that, then target the extreme ideological gun owners that can be counted on to resist and make dilute they are shot very publicly and very dead.

Then all the middle of the road gun owners will fall in line to voluntarily surrender their weapons.

And this:

Chris says:
March 14, 2013 at 13:26

Why is a law prohibiting those with mental illness from owning a firearm bad? Because all it takes is on decision from HHS to say wanting to own a gun is a mental disease. If you want them you are sick. If you have them you are even sicker. We must make you and everyone safe and “healthy”, take your guns and then “rehabilitate” you.

This was the Soviet Method:

scooter says:
March 14, 2013 at 17:18

Denying rights based on a diagnosis? Maybe someone could be too unstable to vote? Too dangerous to pen an editorial? Slippery slope. Take away the voice of those deemed defective and quickly the definition of defective becomes any who disagree. We need to be public and vocal, so any actions taken by the authority is public and worthy of coverage. Media can be our friend, if it is an issue of civil liberties.

[Stubby]

MSimon are you taking a page from the mattman guide book of posting? You really don't have to post the same information in more than one place.