This Might Be The Beginning Of Them Coming For All The Guns

If the SHTF I always figured Oakland would be able to hold it's own against any kind of martial law due to the sheer amount of firearms, I guess that's starting to change. I find the lack of disclosure on this disturbing. only 2 suspects are mentioned and they are the ones with the drug charge. what about the other 88? something about this seriously doesn't set right with me especially the whole "this will continue indefinitely" part


"taking 92 guns off the street only represents "the tip of the iceberg" in terms of the number of illegal guns in Oakland and promised "there will be more seizures."

"the seizure of 92 guns and a large quantity of illegal drugs was so successful that it will continue indefinitely"

considering how ridiculous the gun laws are here in the first place one can only imagine whats going to end up on their list next or how much ammo we wont be able to have. about a month ago you could buy ammo from amazon now it seems they only carry a few rifle rounds and pellets for airguns

am I the only one that thinks that there should be a defined country wide standard for what the laws are in the first place? If I want an assault rifle I shouldn't have to move to another state or join law enforcement if i've already proved i'm a responsible gun owner

whats your take on it ATS?
www.ktvu.com...

Originally posted by AzraelBane
what about the other 88? something about this seriously doesn't set right with me especially the whole "this will continue indefinitely" part

"taking 92 guns off the street only represents "the tip of the iceberg" in terms of the number of illegal guns in Oakland and promised "there will be more seizures."

considering how ridiculous the gun laws are here in the first place one can only imagine whats going to end up on their list next or how much ammo we wont be able to have. about a month ago you could buy ammo from amazon now it seems they only carry a few rifle rounds and pellets for airguns

am I the only one that thinks that there should be a defined country wide standard for what the laws are in the first place? If I want an assault rifle I shouldn't have to move to another state or join law enforcement if i've already proved i'm a responsible gun owner

whats your take on it ATS?
www.ktvu.com...

I don't personally think this story is very vague, and I don't think it suggests that law-abiding gun owners have reason (from this article) to assume there is a risk to us. Er... them. Because I don't own guns.

I think a country wide standard of gun ownership laws is a horrible idea. I like my state's laws, I think Cali's law is ridiculous, and forget about New York. At this time, I am grateful for each state's individual power to establish it's own laws.

The article didn't seem to me to only incriminate two individuals, it offered a list of some of the charges:

Haag said 60 of the people arrested face federal charges such as conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute narcotics, attempting to interfere with interstate commerce through robbery, unlawful dealing in firearms and assaulting federal agents.
Alameda County Chief Assistant District Attorney Kevin Dunleavy said the other 30 people arrested will face state charges for illegal possession of drugs and guns as well as probation violations.

Further, these people were involved in ILLEGAL gun ownership. That has nothing to do with those law abiding gun owner.

I think a country wide standard of gun ownership laws is a horrible idea. I like my state's laws, I think Cali's law is ridiculous, and forget about New York. At this time, I am grateful for each state's individual power to establish it's own laws.

I would love to see us all with the freedom of nevada or texas for that matter

Originally posted by MojaveBurning
Further, these people were involved in ILLEGAL gun ownership. That has nothing to do with those law abiding gun owner.

2nd Amendment to the US Constitution A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The way I read this, there should be no such thing as an ILLEGAL gun.

reply to post by AzraelBane


Absolutely! But I don't think it would happen, because states with stricter laws would not want to "give a little" to find a happy medium for everyone. So we'd get stuck with something stupid, like one long gun per household and concealed carry only with no magazine. Or something stupid along those lines.

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by MojaveBurning
Further, these people were involved in ILLEGAL gun ownership. That has nothing to do with those law abiding gun owner.

2nd Amendment to the US Constitution A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The way I read this, there should be no such thing as an ILLEGAL gun.

Fair point! I should rephrase my earlier statement to say: They were involved in illegal dealing of firearms.

Not keeping, or bearing... dealing. Make sense? Meaning, maybe they were selling these guns to convicted felons or something...

I am grateful for my state's gun laws (Arizona).

Gonna be tough to create some cheesy gun control law here!

reply to post by MojaveBurning


Uhh wouldn't "shall not be infringed" mean that there should be no laws concerning selling guns? As for the convicted felon part, it would apply as well.

I'm not attacking you personally. I'm just trying to make a point. When you get the Supreme Court of the US making exceptions to the Constitution, it kind of makes me nervous.

reply to post by JIMC5499


It's okay, I see the point you're trying to make. I know it's hypocritical of me, but I DO believe that SOME gun laws should be in place. There are just some people who simply should not have the right to own guns, and some law I think is good, if it keeps guns from their hands. Think the kids who shot up Columbine all those years ago, or the DC Sniper (I think that's what he was called). If there are NO laws, I think it'd be a little too much like the old Wild West. Make sense?

reply to post by MojaveBurning


I understand what you are saying, but, it's who gets to determine who doesn't have their 2nd Amendment right that distirbs me. Gun laws are redundant. If you kill somebody, you get convicted of murder. We don't need a second law that is applied if you use a gun to kill somebody.

Most likely they are linking pot to guns as a tool to get them.As long as weed is a schedule 2 substance they can tag you with that.It's what I have been telling the people here when the get a "medical card" it just identifies you as a user and thus you cannot legally buy a gun because you are violating the stipulations of the legal documents you must sign to do so.

Originally posted by MojaveBurning

If there are NO laws, I think it'd be a little too much like the old Wild West. Make sense?

The real old West where crime rates per capita were lower than they are today or the fictional Hollywood version that never existed?

Originally posted by JIMC5499
reply to post by MojaveBurning

 

Uhh wouldn't "shall not be infringed" mean that there should be no laws concerning selling guns? As for the convicted felon part, it would apply as well.

I'm not attacking you personally. I'm just trying to make a point. When you get the Supreme Court of the US making exceptions to the Constitution, it kind of makes me nervous.

yeah you're right!!....that whole thing about giving women the right to vote is the worst exception so far. (sarcasm)

Originally posted by jimmyx

yeah you're right!!....that whole thing about giving women the right to vote is the worst exception so far. (sarcasm)

That's a proper amendment.

So far the US government has been too chicken to amend the BOR regarding the 2nd. They just pile on these "infringements" knowing the SCOTUS is also too chicken to actually rule one way or the other.

They have been trying to chip away at gun freedom for decades. It doesn't matter what law they pass there will never be mass gun confiscation as it would cause a revolt and they know it. In fact I wish they would pass a federal law banning all private gun ownership...

Get rid of them full stop. There is simply no reason to own a firearm, even people who need them for work should be forced to store them away from their home.

reply to post by Citybig


We have to counter the government and adversaries who would invade us.This is an obvious reason to own and train in the use of advanced firearms.They must know we can fight if we have to against might makes right mentalities.

I spend my time building directed energy weapons for self defense.

Firearms are so "19th Century".

Why leave bullet holes? How crude.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by jimmyx

yeah you're right!!....that whole thing about giving women the right to vote is the worst exception so far. (sarcasm)

That's a proper amendment.

So far the US government has been too chicken to amend the BOR regarding the 2nd. They just pile on these "infringements" knowing the SCOTUS is also too chicken to actually rule one way or the other.

Susan P Anthony and the Suffergete Movement

thanks Mr. Professor,,,,,

forever ingrained in my memory :0 it was a Thesis thing,,:

who knew,,

He was a good,,the best History Teacher i ever had the pleasure of listening too.

Came back from,,ww2 crippled,,,but his MIND,,,very much in tact .
his physical disabilites, of course,,etc,,,,led too the usuall bias's at the time.,,


The French Revolution,,John Locke,,critical thought etc,,,brilliant.

Thank u Sir.

ya i know 2 points for spelling,,lol