Notes From HPS
BY Herschel Smith
8 years, 10 months ago
“We have received a preliminary copy of one of the most dangerous pieces of anti-gun legislation we have ever seen,” Oregon Firearms Federation alerted its members. “This bill eviscerates due process and turns Oregon into a Soviet style collection of secret snitches!
Remember what TCJ commenter menckenlite said? “Control freaks love psychiatry, a means of social control with no Due Process protections. It is a system of personal opinion masquerading as science. See, e.g., Boston University Psychology Professor Margaret Hagan’s book, Whores of the Court, to see how arbitrary psychiatric illnesses are. Peter Breggin, Fred Baughman and Thomas Szasz wrote extensively about abuses of psychiatry. Liberals blame guns for violence. Conservatives blame mental illness. Neither have any causal connection to violence. The issue is criminal conduct, crime. Suggesting that persons with legal disabilities are criminals shows the nonsensical argument of this politician and his fellow control freaks.”
It’s just that in this particular law, the list of government snitches who can bypass due process protections has grown to mammoth proportions.
A former Marine for gun control. Oh, it’s not worth the time for me to formally respond. I think he’s lying. I don’t really think he is a former anything, most of all Marine.
Gun violence. Because people decide that’s what they want to do, not because of guns.
One commenter thinks there will be civil war in Canada if the newly elected effete boy-ruler tries to confiscate weapons. “The province of Quebec has been the worst – where the mafia practically owned Montreal during the 30s to the 60s and the cops often looked the other way . With the muslim immigrant threat in the 21st century , the mafia days will come across ,in another 10 years,sadly,as “the good old days”. The western provinces (basically politically conservative ) are so fed up with the garbage from the East (Ontario,Quebec and the Maritimes) and their support of Justin Trudeau that there is a growing movement for a call of separation from Canada. Vancouver (on the West or “Left” coast) is viewed as being quite brain dead to any reality. Canada, far from it’s image of being composed of nice little polite “Canuckies” living in little log cabins eating back bacon ,is on the verge of much internal strife and conflict in the coming years. If Trudeau tries to grab guns in Alberta and Saskatchewan there will be “civil war”. Tough times ahead for the whole world and Canada is not exempt from it.Not by a long shot.”
|
|
On January 19, 2016 at 2:49 pm, Ned Weatherby said:
Re: Another alleged “Marine” for gun control:
Right – the bullsit “safety” mantra trotted out once again. And I’m supposed to believe it because the author was purportedly “a Marine.”
My late father was a REAL Marine SSG, – who fought in the battle of Chosin Reservoir in Korea – and he would, I assure you, call
bull. What this “Marine” suggests could actually be much more simple if there simply existed
a list of
people lawfully restricted from owning guns, which list was available to anyone – not
just government functionaries. Currently, the system
works opposite of that. There is a list of everyone – and the computer
has to sort through every name and/or SSN and then determine if there’s a
problem. Imagine how much simpler this would be if a list of people
restricted from owning guns was what was in the database. The database
could be updated daily after every trial or arrest, etc. BTW -it’s
already a
crime to sell a gun to a felon – even in private sales. In many places,
you will see private sellers require copies of I.D. and a sworn
statement that the purchaser isn’t prohibited from purchasing a gun.
Many private sellers will only sell to a person with a CCW permit –
which constitutes a background check.
However, the simple fact is,
even the
felons who attempt to purchase guns from federally licensed dealers are
almost never prosecuted, even though the crime is documented as
soon the felon commits perjury on ATF Form 4473. Clearly, “Sgt Hess,” this matter
has
never been about stopping criminals – neither is it now, nor has it ever been about safety. it’s
instead about eroding rights.
The bullshit “gun show loophole” meme
would have a tad of merit if any of the thousands of criminals each
year who commit perjury on ATF form 4473’s were ever prosecuted.
Instead, anti-rights zealots trot out statistics about how many
“criminals” were stopped from buying guns each year (but not prosecuted) due to the panacea of background checks.
Another
easy government database that could be placed online would be a list of
stolen guns with the serial numbers and descriptions. Why is it that
non-stolen guns – and eligible citizens are checked out, and not visa
versa? And why isn’t a list of prohibited possessors and stolen guns
available to anyone? If it’s a privacy issue, than one would think that non-criminals would have more, rather than less, rights than violent criminals.
Moreover, if someone should be “prohibited” for life from owning a gun, they ought to be in jail. How can
they be trusted with household chemicals and gasoline if they can’t be
trusted with a gun? Your whole idiotic premise is ludicrous, and it’s understandable (for many reasons) that Herschel and some of the Captain’s Journal readers wouldn’t bother to fisk it in its entirety. It’s simply an illustration that one can write so many falsities in a paragraph that it would take too much time and effort to properly rebut. The letter is, in essence, the typical babbling of a Maqama Troll – http://gatesofvienna.net/2016/01/an-encounter-with-a-maqama-troll/ – put up to waste people’s time.
This whole argument is nutty as hell on its face.
On January 19, 2016 at 2:55 pm, Archer said:
OFF also points out that (at least) one virulently anti-gun member of the Legislature is also a doctor. Thus, because under the proposed law doctors and “mental health professionals” aren’t required to have direct contact before reporting it, she would have standing to initiate a “mental health crisis” disarmament on anyone for any reason, including testifying against any anti-gun bill she proposes or co-sponsors.
And the victims of such a disarmament wouldn’t even be trusted with the knowledge of who called it in.
“Chilling effect”, anyone?
On January 19, 2016 at 4:09 pm, Phil Ossiferz Stone said:
Sounds like a beefed-up version of similar legislation they just passed in California.
Our metrosexual blue-state overlords are coordinating with each other. Depend on it.
Keep stockpiling. Prices ought to remain low until Hillary gets nominated.
On January 20, 2016 at 11:11 am, Archer said:
I’ve often said that with CA to the south passing AB 1014 (“gun violence restraining orders”) and WA to the north passing I-594 (“universal background checks”), that we’ll soon be subjected to both. Oregon’s government has a long-standing “keep up with the Joneses” mentality when it comes to comparing our state with the rest of the Left Coast.
It’s already happened with UBCs. Now they can bring on the zero-due-process “protection” orders. Yay! [/sarcasm]