Talk-Polywell.org

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/law-abidi ... lization/#
According to TheBlaze.com, a man in CA, who, as far as can be determined, is law abiding and has no history of mental illness had his 3 guns confiscated by state agents in bullet proof vests because, wait for it, his wife voluntarily checked herself into a mental facility due to complications with medication she was taking.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03 ... nfiscated/

mikem1969
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 8:31pm

Now every liberal progressive state will go after the same type of legislation so they can begin statewide gun confiscations of law abiding citizens. They will define one angry outburst a mental illness and go for the guns.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/03/ca ... l-gun-law/

TrooperJohnSmith | March 16, 2013 at 12:10 am

The Soviets figured that if you were in opposition to the great Soviet socialist system and the Workers’ Utopia, you must be insane. We’re squarely on that road, ourselves.

How much longer until us “gun nuts” are considered mentally ill and our love of firearms, and the empowerment they give the common man, an addiction? How long until this whole “inalienable rights” thing is considered a form of delusion, prone to radicalizing a docile populace?

http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/ ... loony-bin/

Ron Wagner • 4 days ago

I am a retired psych RN, MA. Anyone can be committed on the say so of anyone if a doctor in an ER agrees to admit. Once admitted you will probably lose your right to own a firearm, and it will be very difficult to challenge that. No one may actually come to get your guns, but you may be owning them ilegally. It doesn't matter whether you are mentally ill, or just admitted on lies or whatever. ER doctors admit, and ask questions later. They do not want to be liable for ANY possibility of you hurting yourself or others. Never make statements in an ER (or anywhere) that could be used against you by devious or meddling people. Never sign yourself in voluntarily, unless you realize that you will probably lose your right to keep a firearm. Voluntary does NOT mean that you can leave. You may be held for up to three days against your will. That may turn into much longer if the psychiatrist wishes too extend it, although you have the right to a legal challenge. After an admission you will probably not be able to get a job in the military or many other positions. Get help in an office of a mental health professional, not in an ER. ER doctors are usually not qualified for dealing with mental illness or upset people, and lack the discrimination of a specially trained person.

=====

Gaines • 4 days ago

I checked the second amendment. It still reads such that no government is granted the power to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. There are no qualifiers on people and infringe meant in the late 18th century what it still means today. So not matter how you slice it, the Constitution's intent was not to grant California or any other State or the Federal govenment the right to confiscate firearms for any reason what so ever

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

With some commentary by me added.

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.

http://www.randpaulreview.com/2013/02/w ... amendment/

While Liberal California Pushes Gun Confiscation, Bruce Willis Says He Against Infringements on the 2nd Amendment

“We can save lives by curbing the proliferation of guns designed to be fired and reloaded rapidly,” he said. “We can save lives by getting guns and ammunition out of the hands of the wrong people. We can save lives if every gun owner knows how to safely handle those guns. And if we can save lives, we must act to do so.”

http://garydbarnett.com/GDBdaily/?p=1556

The federal government will continue its assault on gun owners, and will use many different tactics to achieve total gun confiscation. What California is doing will creep into other states over time, and restrictions on gun ownership will continue to escalate in the future. It will not happen overnight, but will be an incremental destruction of our rights to possess firearms. Always remember that the goal of the government is to have an unarmed and unprotected citizenry, and one that has not the ability to deter tyranny. Every step toward more restriction of gun ownership is another nail in the coffin of freedom!

http://www.independentsentinel.com/2013 ... fiscation/

The memo asserts that assault weapons are not the major cause of the gun crimes and a ban on them would have little impact, especially given the fact that it would take decades to deplete the supply.

They therefore suggest that gun confiscation is the way to go:

Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective. [Bold by editor]

They want mandatory gun registration of all firearms. This would be a prelude to confiscating other guns.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-va ... al-decree/

“The president is going to act,” said Biden who is heading up a task force that is supposed to make policy recommendations to Obama later this month. The vice president reportedly “guaranteed” Boston Mayor Thomas Menino that President Obama would push through sweeping firearms restrictions before February.

“There are executive orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”