Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Sigh. Wouldn't you know it? One day after I said I was taking a break from politics, and I come across, not one, but two articles that piss me off so much that I have no choice but to rant about them.

You know how anti-gun Democrats claim that stricter gun laws will not lead to gun confiscation? Well California is living proof that they're full of :iconfluttershysqueeplz:!

The state has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and recently, it's governor signed legislation that will allow law enforcement to confiscate guns from over 20,000 citizens who had bought them legally.

Yes, you read that correctly: California is going to be confiscating legally-owned guns!
California plans to confiscate guns from 20,000 people who bought them legally but have since been disqualified because of criminal or psychiatric problems, boosting the state's relatively tough approach to gun control.

Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation on Wednesday allocating $24m generated by fees taken from gun buyers at the time of purchase to the crackdown, the first in a series of gun control bills following the Sandy Hook massacre.

"This bipartisan bill makes our communities safer by giving law enforcement the resources they need to get guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous individuals," said Evan Westrup, a spokesman for the governor.

California's Bureau of Firearms has identified about 20,000 people who illegally possess about 40,000 handguns and assault weapons, a list which grows by 15 to 20 daily.

The bill, known as SB140, directs $24m from the Dealers' Record of Sale fund, a fee on gun purchases, to the state's Department of Justice.

The money will pay for an extra 36 agents to help clear a backlog using a a database that cross-references a list of gun owners with those disqualified later from owning guns. Budget cuts had slowed the effort.

Of course the government isn't trying to take away our guns--except, of course, THEY TOTALLY :iconfluttershysqueeplz:ING ARE!

Okay. Sure. This legislation is aimed at criminals and psychiatric nutcases who probably shouldn't be owning guns in the first place--just like the PATRIOT ACT is only aimed at terrorists who pose a threat to national security! But it doesn't take much imagination to consider how this can easily be used to confiscate weapons from law-abiding citizens.

And before you get your hopes up that the NRA will rush to our rescue, you may want to sit down for what I'm about to tell you next.

The NRA recently elected a new president, Jim Porter, who claims Obama is a "fake president" and calls the Civil War "the War of Northern Aggression."

So not only does this organization think the best way to prevent school shootings is to transform our schools into maximum security prisons and to ban violent video games, but their new president is a neo-Confederate birther.

Sometimes I wonder if the NRA is really a Democratic front in order to make gun owners look bat:iconfluttershysqueeplz: insane! No other organization does a better job of discrediting responsible gun ownership.

Gun-taking fascists to the left. Gun-toting racists to the right. If this is what the country has come to, we are royally :iconfluttershysqueeplz:!

And with that, I am officially stepping away from politics for a good month. If I have to be exposed to anymore bat:iconfluttershysqueeplz: insanity like this, I'm going to die from an aneurysm from sheer stupidity.

IMMA GONNA GO INSANE!
Add a Comment:
 
:iconcorvuscorax92:
CorvusCorax92 Featured By Owner May 4, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
As a side note on Porter, in his defense, the so-called Civil War really was a war of northern aggression; secession is the essence of liberty, right down to individual, and the USA disregarded it (of course) to crush the CSA. I don't support slavery by any means under any condition, but no other country needed a massive aggressive war to abolish it.

If you have no freedom of exit, what liberty do you really have? Secession is a necessary--but not sufficient--condition of liberty.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner May 7, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I somewhat understand that, but it didn't help that the South supported slavery.
Reply
:iconcorvuscorax92:
CorvusCorax92 Featured By Owner May 11, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
No, of course. I'm not defending slavery; but keep in mind, there were legal slaves held in the US at the time as well, and for a few years afterward, their bondage protected by grandfather clauses. The anti-slavery crusade began as a political ploy to keep Britain and France from siding with the CSA (from which they received cotton at agreeable prices, compared to the protectionist policies the US establishment wanted). Lincoln made it clear what the slavery issue meant to him: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery."
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner May 23, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Funny how most historians overlook that. So much for honest Abe.
Reply
:iconcorvuscorax92:
CorvusCorax92 Featured By Owner May 23, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Yep. The worst presidents are lionized and glorified, while the best are marginalized and smeared. Of course, the best out of a group of thugs are still thugs, but those least thuggish barely get a word of mention.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
At this point, I don't consider most presidents to be good. The closest one I can think of is Calvin Coolidge, and like you said, he's demonized.
Reply
:iconcorvuscorax92:
CorvusCorax92 Featured By Owner Jun 9, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Or Warren Harding, and when did we ever hear about him in school? I just watched this video about the way his administration handled the Forgotten Depression of 1920-1921--that is, by not handling it, and letting the market correct itself: [link] Interesting stuff.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Jun 10, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Funny how that is. It's like history is written by the winners.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icondrybonesreborn:
DryBonesReborn Featured By Owner May 4, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
"Christianity is a psychiatric disorder" (Not really, but the DSMV can be changed). Thus, all guns from Christians will be gone. I can see where that can lead.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner May 4, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Which is why I shudder to think what would happen if someone like Dawkins or Harris took political power.
Reply
:icongrimdrifter:
grimdrifter Featured By Owner May 5, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Speaking of which, guess who the government has chosen to consult on matters of faith? It may have some interesting implications.

Oh wait... this is your month off.. don't read those, have a nice break :D
Reply
:iconmobilesuitsonic:
MobileSuitSonic Featured By Owner May 5, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
He didn't get his way: [link]
Reply
:icongrimdrifter:
grimdrifter Featured By Owner May 5, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Thanks for the update :D
Reply
:iconpalemeno:
Palemeno Featured By Owner May 4, 2013
Now that is a very scary thought.
I still say we must not forget what Hitler did.
We must learn from history or we will repeat it.
And I don`t think anyone wants to experience that again.
And I`m not just talking about the Jews.
I have a pistol in my car all the time.
My husband has many guns and will probably buy more.
He does not hunt but as a collector originally for years, he now
purchases guns to protect us incase the government does get more corrupt. Better safe than sorry.
Reply
:icongrimdrifter:
grimdrifter Featured By Owner May 4, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Have a good month off! See you tomorrow.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner May 4, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
LOL!
Reply
:iconravajava:
Ravajava Featured By Owner May 4, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
So, you're telling that the insane and criminals should be allowed to own guns on the off chance that the legislation will be abused to confiscate guns from not criminals and the mentally insane.

By that logic, we shouldn't allow police to arrest criminals on the off chance that the power will be abused and everyone will be arrested :iconfacepalmplz:

No, the California legislation makes complete sense, and furthermore, I think you are extremely misleading in your title and opening when you act as if the state is taking away everyone's guns.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner May 4, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Do you seriously believe there are 20,000 criminals and mentally-insane people in California? I know it's a big state, but that's just a farfetched number.

This is how it starts. They say they're only going after the criminals or the terrorists, and then they come after normal people. That's how it's always been.
Reply
:iconravajava:
Ravajava Featured By Owner May 4, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Not really. Considering California has 185, 000 violent crimes a year, extrapolate that to 10 years and it would only make sense that you have 20, 000 firearms owned by criminals. In fact, those numbers almost seem startlingly low :shrug:

For now, nothing seems sinister. Let's not ignore a common sense idea because it could possibly, in the future, be abused by a government with malicious intent. We will never fix any problems that way.
Reply
:iconmike-the-cat:
Mike-the-cat Featured By Owner May 5, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
GUNNSSSSS...SKAWWWWIIIIEEEE!!

Sounds like common sense to me. :V
Reply
:iconmike-the-cat:
Mike-the-cat Featured By Owner May 4, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
"No, the California legislation makes complete sense"

It's an ex post facto law. :iconfacepalmplz:
Reply
:iconravajava:
Ravajava Featured By Owner May 4, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Doesn't matter. According to Calder v. Bull, retroactive laws can be passed so long as it isn't criminal law. Also, as extra legal padding, thanks to the precedent established by the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, retroactive laws can be passed in a scenario like this.
Reply
:iconnamezong:
namezong Featured By Owner May 4, 2013
And "coincidently" they have recently included new form of "mental disorder" to their alredy sprawling and obscurely-worded multitude.

Those considered hostile to authority have already been tagged as sufferers of “oppositional defiant disorder” under the the DSM-IV-TR Manual.
The definition of this mental illness is, “a recurrent pattern of negativistic, defiant, disobedient. and hostile behavior toward authority figures that persists for at least 6 months.”

If the psychiatrists use the ODD illness on regular adults then I am sure many disgruntled tax payiers and those that no longer consent to be governed would be forcefully medicated, forced to accept being a slave to society, or stay in a mental prison institution complex for the rest of their days.
Well, or at least arbitrarily stripped of the Second Amendment rights.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner May 4, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
This is the same crap Stalinist Russia did. If you disagreed with the majority party, then it was because you had a mental disorder, and you were sent to be treated.
Reply
:iconnamezong:
namezong Featured By Owner May 6, 2013
You are mistaken there. Stalinist Russia shot/imprisoned those gov considered dangerous/harmful.
Its under later, "softer" general secretaries that the medical imprisonment was practiced ("punitive medicine" as it was called).
Reply
:iconionosphere-negate:
Ionosphere-Negate Featured By Owner May 4, 2013
Exactly. Lower the bar for what is considered a mental disorder, and bam: Total control.
Reply
:icontakisan111:
Takisan111 Featured By Owner May 3, 2013
So much for that break.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner May 4, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Back on it.
Reply
:icon1fireycat:
1fireycat Featured By Owner May 3, 2013  Student Artist
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner May 4, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Tell me about it.
Reply
:iconthekyguy:
TheKyGuy Featured By Owner May 3, 2013
Well, you know what they say, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." As you said, it only starts with criminals and the mentally insane, but it only builds up.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner May 4, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Sometimes slippery slopes are not a fallacy.
Reply
:iconravajava:
Ravajava Featured By Owner May 4, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
But where has it built up? The UK has only gotten freer since banning handguns at the start of the 20th century, Australia by all measures is more free than the US and has some of the strictest guns in the world, as are Canada and Germany.

Give me a modern example of where this ridiculous slippery slope has happened?
Reply
:iconmike-the-cat:
Mike-the-cat Featured By Owner May 4, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Hahahahahahahhaha....

Oh wait, you're serious?

Let me laugh harder......HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Two years after the ban, the crime rate rose about 40%. About a decade following the handgun band, the crime rate rose about 340%. Thanks for the laugh, by the way, I needed that.

Damn, this is too easy. X3
Reply
:iconravajava:
Ravajava Featured By Owner May 4, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
What I find hilarious about the British stat is that I've yet to see a single British source repeat even remotely similar numbers.

For example, in England and Wales, gun crime has decreased over 70% since 2003 according to a committee in the House of Commons.

If you can provide me a reputable British source that reaffirms your numbers, then we can have a rational discussion.

Until then, I call BS.
Reply
:iconmike-the-cat:
Mike-the-cat Featured By Owner May 4, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Hahahaha...What about total crime rate? Even if the gun crime rate isn't lower thanks to loose restrictions, the TOTAL crime rate in America is only a quarter of Great Britain's.

Way to be intellectually honest. :V
Reply
:iconravajava:
Ravajava Featured By Owner May 4, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Actually, you are being intellectual dishonest. Non-violent crime has nothing to do with guns, so it's irrelevant. It isn't like guns are going to cause or prevent forgery :P A lot of that also has to do with police confidence and how many crimes are reported. Hence, gun crime rates, homicide rates and gun homicide rates are some of the few relevant statistics here.
Reply
:iconmike-the-cat:
Mike-the-cat Featured By Owner May 4, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Total violent crime, you dolt. Involving knives, molotov cocktails, or homemade bombs. :iconfacepalmplz:
Reply
:iconravajava:
Ravajava Featured By Owner May 4, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Which is the stat I used. You used crime overall.

So... be a bit more careful when you throw around the insults ;)
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconjedisenshi:
JediSenshi Featured By Owner May 3, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
Do you really want someone who has a criminal record &/or psychiatric problems to OWN a weapon. Is the 2nd amendment really more important than a person's life? What if it was a domestic abuser or a paranoid schizophrenic you REALLY want them to exercise their 2nd amendment. When do we start caring more about people than guns. Guns were created for one thing & one thing only & that was to KILL.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner May 4, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
The point is that the left claims that gun control won't lead to gun confiscation, that the government is not coming for people's guns, when crap like this proves them wrong.
Reply
:icontakisan111:
Takisan111 Featured By Owner May 3, 2013
I think the real issue is where is the line drawn? Some people with psychiatric problems are fairly mild compared to others. Is it just the people with problems now? Or does it extend to everyone with a history with mental illness even if they have since recovered? If the second, anyone who's ever seen a shrink might qualify. Depression is a big one. I know a lot of people who've suffered from that. Most are better now. Depression sometimes requires extensive therapy and/or medication and it's a very common and easy to suffer from, even if you have no other mental health issues on record. It seems like it would be easy to label someone crazy during such a sensitive situation just to take away their property.

What people mostly have a problem with about these bans and reposessions is that they feel a lose of control, that they are no longer responsible for themselves. There are plenty of people that do deserve to have their weapons taken from them but it shouldn't be the goverments job to choose who gets to keep their guns and who doesn't. The goverment is full of corrupt douche bags with agendas who I wouldn't trust with a weapon anymore then I'd trust a drunkard or a paranoid schizo. What's worse is that many weapons used in crimes and killings are bought illegally since no reputable dealer would sell to people like them. I'm willing to bet if we took out the illegal dealers, gun crime and deaths would go down. I'm not sure why we aren't doing that instead.
Reply
:iconflipswitchmandering:
FlipswitchMANDERING Featured By Owner May 3, 2013
Should we do background checks on alcohol purchases? What if a crazy person drinks? Do you want crazy people consuming alcohol?
Reply
:iconjedisenshi:
JediSenshi Featured By Owner May 3, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
Now you are just getting ridiculous. Comparing something that was design to KILL to something that wasn't. And yes drinking & driving does kill but let stay real & not delve into outrageousness.
Reply
:iconflipswitchmandering:
FlipswitchMANDERING Featured By Owner May 4, 2013
what point is the point of your 'designed to kill' remark? You keep saying it.


"To Kill" can also mean "to defend", or "To save a life".....a life saving attribute alcohol can not accomplish.

"And yes drinking & driving does kill but let stay real & not delve into outrageousness."

So it is not whether or not something can kill, even if it kills people in the thousands, but rather 'what it was designed for.' ...That is not a good argument, especially when you leave out guns can save lives. Alcohol can not.
Reply
:iconnamezong:
namezong Featured By Owner May 4, 2013
Since any behaviour can be attributed some mental disorder, it is very easy to ban amyone you dont like from owning guns under such clause. You dont like government? Oh, you have “oppositional defiant disorder”. No guns for you. Etc.
And guns are made not only as means of attack, but as means of defence from attack too - the best way to stop a mass shooting is to shoot the maniac. No wonder that most mass shootings are conducted in "gun-free zones".
Its you gun/right-of-self-defence hating liberals who helped to kill all those people!
Reply
:iconflipswitchmandering:
FlipswitchMANDERING Featured By Owner May 3, 2013
By the lefts standards...This journal entry makes you a 'paranoid conspiracy theorist.'

Meanwhile they believe conservatives want to lynch all minorities and lock women in kitchens to scrub floors...But yeah, the left is not crazy nor do their conspiracy theories sound idiotic.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner May 4, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
They have standards?!
Reply
:iconflipswitchmandering:
FlipswitchMANDERING Featured By Owner May 4, 2013
ha!
Reply
:iconravajava:
Ravajava Featured By Owner May 4, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
I don't think he's a conspiracy theorist, I just think he is paranoid.

As a left winger, I can happily assure you that 99.8% of us don't think that.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×

More from DeviantArt



Details

Submitted on
May 3, 2013
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
1,788
Favourites
3 (who?)
Comments
71
×