A Red Flag Law On Steriods, CA Govenor Signed Today

we have it on video, would you like to see it... I thought all Americans knew he said this

 

full video of Trump recommending just this

"President Donald Trump Says Take Guns 'Early' Without Due Process"

 

These liberal legislators who are trying to subvert the laws to satisfy their activist goals must be forced to pay all costs incurred by affected parties due to changes they made to the law that get struck down, as they invariably do. I think that would put a stop to this problem.

 

Of course- you did leave out the qualifier; the fact he was speaking about the mentally disturbed people with guns who are likely to pose immediate threat.
Police have done this for all our history- you pose a threat with guns, you are told to put the gun down first- we will talk about the situation afterward. That is a function for order. Common sense.
That has nothing whatsoever with gun seizure, the objective of anti-gun people- and of course clearly illustrated today after years of denial.

Trump came into the presidency without the years of political experience that is common. He may have actually assumed to some extent that there were some honorable people left in the media and congress, but should have known that anything he might say that could be twisted into an attack WOULD be twisted into an attack.

Gun owners have always been in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of unstable people. Nothing new there- it is the government who has blocked efforts to do that, not the gun owners or NRA.
Laws insuring medical privacy prevent psychologists and social workers from reporting the information, and it never gets to the records used in background checks. How smart is that?

The Parkland shooter was reported to the FBI, twice for telling people he was going to shoot up a school. The sheriff and others knew it too, and nobody- not one of them- took action, despite clear probable cause. How smart is that?

 

The BSO was dispatched to Cruz's home twice because he threatened neighbors with his rifle, however because of Sheriff Israel's light touch policy when it came to arresting young people, he was neither arrested, nor was his rifle confiscated.

 

Yes. There were multiple warnings of imminent danger with Cruz and nobody chose to act. I was amazed how little attention this aspect of the situation received from the media.
Of course after the fact, acknowledging that negligence would have been a virtual confession of incompetence; thus the choice of action was again- to blame the weapon chosen, and the fact that guns even exist.
This is what happens when people believe in coasting along, taking the easy road, evading responsibility and accountability rather than meeting it. Not just on guns- on fiscal responsibility, security, all kinds of things.

 

If a burglar comes into your home and steels your guns, it's criminal theft. If the government comes in and steals your guns under authority of some bogus law, they taut it as a moral victory. There is no simpler way to underscore the lie and the outright bigotry.

Furthermore, the circular reasoning that CA legislators can act illegally, then push to disarm the very people they have acted illegally against falls into the category of "self-fulfilling prophecy". These nutso liberals act in ways they know will anger their constituents, then they pass bogus laws to enable them to steal citizens' property and to label them crazy for being angry about it. Newsom and democrat liberals in that state and everywhere have become very dangerous people.

 

Hmm ... one wonders if gangs, who possess guns outside the law anyway, would use "red flag" laws to facilitate gang interests.

 

Yeah, that was very concerning though I don't think that's what he meant literally. Nevertheless, he didn't have to pander to the media-fueled panic, if there actually was any, since he's so far ahead of any democrat going into the 2020 election.

I think increasingly, politicians and the media are basically living in their own little fake universe, falsely assuming that whatever they push the citizens agree with or that it simply doesn't matter. What are citizens gonna do about it? is possibly what they have come to be thinking.

 

This is what you get with red flag laws and politically motivated police higher ups.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/10/16/elderly-crossing-guard-guns-seized-red-flag-law/

 

Ex girlfriends have more ways to get revenge now. Yay CA!

 

I hope he gets a few.

LoL @ "gun violence restraining order" when they shrug and kill you with a knife.

 

Poor guys getting their manhood I mean guns taken away from them unfairly.

 

Yes, very troubling, but since I haven't heard anything recently he must have dropped the issue. I also consider his bump stock ban unconstitutional.

 

As do the sheer number of individuals who have refused to surrender their private property.

 

Gavin could become a hero here. He is dumb enough to sign legislation that SCOTUS could use to knock gun control back 80 years.

 

Interesting that you connect firearms to masculinity. Why is that?

 

There is no connection between firearms ownership and perceived masculinity.

 

Explain such BS to her, and do it politely.

 

Once again, there is no connection between perceived masculinity and firearms ownership.

Nor does the factually-deficient citation presented on the part of yourself in defense of such a nonsensical comparison, serve to verify the comparison or otherwise demonstrate it as being factually accurate. It is nothing more than the ramblings of those who have no comprehension of the subject, and are simply engaging in wild speculations based on their own limited and factually-inaccurate understanding of the real world.

 

Below sound like your average Trump voter.

 

Yet again, and do read carefully this time around. There is no connection between perceived masculinity and firearms ownership.

Nor does the factually-deficient citation presented on the part of yourself in defense of such a nonsensical comparison, serve to verify the comparison or otherwise demonstrate it as being factually accurate. It is nothing more than the ramblings of those who have no comprehension of the subject, and are simply engaging in wild speculations based on their own limited and factually-inaccurate understanding of the real world.

If a claim is going to be presented on the part of yourself, then it is the responsibility of yourself to have the evidence to actually back up the claim when it is contested on the basis of factual merit.

The above citation on the part of yourself is nothing more than random speculation, presented by those who refuse to accept the possibility that more citizens of the untied states are purchasing and owning firearms than ever before. They refuse to accept such a possibility, so instead they claim current firearms owners are simply stockpiling tens of millions of firearms to justify the sales numbers. To justify such nonsensical speculation, they must present the ridiculous notion that firearm owners, always males according to them, are doing so on the basis of feeling that their masculinity is being threatened by homosexuals and empowered females, and more firearms somehow makes them more masculine as a result of this perceived threatening. Such is nothing more than utter nonsense, nonsensical speculation, and outright stupidity on those who not only present the notion, but who voice their support of the notion.

Come back with actual evidence to back up the claim being presented on the back of yourself, or recant the claim entirely.

 

You do not seems to enjoy living in the real universe where the percent of gun ownership had been roughly the same for over thirty years and where guns in the homes had proven to be a larger danger to the home owners then anyone breaking into their homes.

 

What is yet another flawed theory proffered by the GCA's.