Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gun Confiscation During Disaster

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Gun Confiscation During Disaster

    Originally posted by cattlelackranch View Post
    Saw this in the Irma Thread, didn't want to derail it but thought it deserved discussion. It boggles my mind that people would willingly hand over their guns, maybe it's different in an island nation, but I'm of the mind that you kill anyone that tries to confiscate your firearms - if just 1/10th of people did that confiscation would never be a concern.

    #2
    Nope! No way. That's when a person could actually need them the most.

    Comment


      #3
      [ATTACH]871328[/ATTACH]

      Comment


        #4
        A gun confiscation attempt at my home would be the scariest day of lots of people's lives.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Livin'2hunt View Post
          A gun confiscation attempt at my home would be the scariest day of lots of people's lives.
          TBH, the worst part of that order is "... and any other property..."

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by JFISHER View Post
            TBH, the worst part of that order is "... and any other property..."
            I have to agree with you on this statement.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by JFISHER View Post
              TBH, the worst part of that order is "... and any other property..."
              My wife?

              I bet they give her back real fast

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by JFISHER View Post
                TBH, the worst part of that order is "... and any other property..."

                Agreed and my statement goes for property as well. Anyone who draws that duty is on a suicide mission. I sincerely feel sorry for them.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Direct violation of the 5th amendment...in 2006, moreover, President George W. Bush signed into law the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, which contained an NRA-backed amendment sponsored by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.). The amendment prohibits persons acting under color of federal law, receiving federal funds, or acting at the direction of a federal employee from seizing or authorizing the seizure of lawfully-possessed firearms or imposing or enforcing certain restrictions on firearms during a state of emergency.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Artos View Post
                    Direct violation of the 5th amendment...in 2006, moreover, President George W. Bush signed into law the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, which contained an NRA-backed amendment sponsored by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.). The amendment prohibits persons acting under color of federal law, receiving federal funds, or acting at the direction of a federal employee from seizing or authorizing the seizure of lawfully-possessed firearms or imposing or enforcing certain restrictions on firearms during a state of emergency.

                    Nicely done. The next question is, why is the Governor of V.I. still in office? A direct violation of the U.S. Constitution is the surest grounds for impeachment.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Has anyone checked this for accuracy? To see if the governor really gave this order? Because it's blatantly against the law to confiscate weapons as noted above. This seems like one of those internet scare tactics that get started anytime there is a major event and has no truth behind it

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by texasdeerhunter View Post
                        Has anyone checked this for accuracy? To see if the governor really gave this order? Because it's blatantly against the law to confiscate weapons as noted above. This seems like one of those internet scare tactics that get started anytime there is a major event and has no truth behind it
                        Seems far fetched to me also, but the NRA has bought in. They are the only "reputable" source reporting this. Then again, used reputable in air quotes, because the narrative fits their agenda as though it was tailor made for it

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Im not sure what laws apply in unincorporated territory of the US.

                          I sure wouldn't stand for it here in the United States.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Yes it is accurate and you can do your own research.
                            What is funny (not literally) is that a law to protect the 2nd A is written and is supposed to carry any weight when the 2nd A is being ignored all together.

                            Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by iamntxhunter View Post
                              Yes it is accurate and you can do your own research.
                              What is funny (not literally) is that a law to protect the 2nd A is written and is supposed to carry any weight when the 2nd A is being ignored all together.

                              Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
                              X2

                              I don't follow the logic that a law can protect a Constitutional amendment.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X