Defining “crazy” in an increasingly mad world run by PC fascists. The danger of gun seizures.

If a guy is nuts, then he’s nuts.  But if he is saying things that the progressive machine disagrees with and THAT defines him as nuts, then we have a problem.

In Florida the first case has been ruled on and served.

The guns and ammunition of a 56-year-old Lighthouse Point, Florida, resident were confiscated by police in what is reportedly the first such seizure under gun control laws signed by Gov. Rick Scott (R) last week.

The Orlando Sentinel reports that “four firearms and 267 rounds of ammunition” were taken from the man, and he was “taken to a hospital for involuntary psychiatric treatment.”

The seized firearms were listed as “a Ruger LCP .380 pistol, an M2 Mauser .45 pistol, a Charter Arms .357 mag snub nose revolver and a Mossberg 500 12-gauge shotgun.”

The paper notes that “the civil ruling removing his access to guns and ammunition was granted under … new legislation — which permits confiscating guns from people who have not been committed but are deemed a potential risk to themselves or others, according to the order signed by Broward’s Chief Judge Jack Tuter.”

The details in the story indicate the guy was crazy.  IF the story is accurate, this is a case where maybe the guy should be held for observation.

Lighthouse Point police made the request on March 14, one week after they were called to conduct a welfare check on the man, who they said was behaving strangely at his condominium building. Authorities said it was the latest in a series of encounters law enforcement had with the man, though he has no prior history of arrests in Florida. He had some prior arrests in Pennsylvania, records show.

Police were called after the man turned off the main electrical breakers to the condo building in Lighthouse Point, court records show. The South Florida Sun Sentinel is not identifying the man because of his medical condition.

The man told officers he “was being targeted and burglarized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a neighbor who lives in [his] building,” the judge wrote in his order. “[He] could not describe the neighbor but stated that the neighbor [can] ‘shape shift, he can change heights and I’m not sure where he comes from’ and ‘to be honest, he looks like Osama Bin Laden.’”

He also told officers that he had to turn off the electrical breakers because “they are electrocuting me through my legs.”

There are two problems with seizing guns from “dangerous people”.  First, who decides what is dangerous? In California, if you ask your school would it be as proper to have students let out of school to protest FOR gun rights, you get suspended.

A California high school teacher says she was “aghast” to learn she was placed on leave over comments she made about National School Walkout Day.

Julianne Benzel, a Rocklin High School teacher, said that administrators’ decision Wednesday followed a debate she held in her history class about the nationwide school protest supporting gun control reform, news station KOVR reported.

She said she never discouraged students from participating in the 17-minute walkout on Wednesday, but school administrators told her they disagreed with her remarks.

“I just kind of used the example, which I know it’s really controversial, but I know it was the best example I thought of at the time — a group of students nationwide, or even locally, decided ‘I want to walk out of school for 17 minutes’ and go in the quad area and protest abortion, would that be allowed by our administration?” she told the news station.

The history teacher claimed she was only trying to encourage discussion among her students.

“I didn’t get any backlash from my students,” Benzel said. “All my students totally understood that there could not be a double standard.”

On National Walkout Day, she received a letter from the human resources department notifying her that she was being put on paid administrative leave.

Benzel, who has since retained legal counsel, said the school’s decision has raised questions about First Amendment rights.

You go along with that Nazi looking David Hogg kid’s agenda- you are a hero.  And safe to have guns, while your national spokesman tries on Nazi like arm bands.  See the problem? (Here’s a question. If he’s a senior and the Freshman building was targeted, was he there? We are warned not to question these kids, but I have to point out is this guy an actual “survivor”? Or just a Schumer/David Brock opportunist? I say this because he doesn’t act like a person who just survived a mass shooting. That or he’s a sociopath.)

James Woods said it best: You might have a little trouble getting Jewish Americans to embrace this look. Do you have some shiny jackboots and brown shirts to go with it? Guessing maybe you skipped history class while you were shilling for the @DNC… https://t.co/I4gPFmR3FS — James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) March 10, 2018

But the bigger issue has been pointed out by my MENSA bright buddy.  His question is simple. If a person is deemed to be so dangerous in his behavior or thought that the government thinks they HAVE to violate his rights and take his guns, then why does the government let that person go free?  Isn’t it dangerous to let a guy who is bent on harm to wander around where he can arm  himself with another gun, or get a knife, or a sword, or get in his car, or maybe drive a semi-truck with a fuel tanker rig into a a building and set it off?  If he is SO dangerous, why is he free? Unless the goal is to slowly seize guns and retard the resistance to gun control.  Remember, to the Left, trained by Mao, this is a long march.

My friend’s thinks if the argument is based on the threat then the people in charge would have to face the reality of incarcerating or hospitalizing thousands of “dangerous people” in a mental facility. Which means BUILDING more mental facilities, staffing them, funding them, etc.  That’s billions of dollars in expenses nobody wants to pay for.  So is the real effort to help the mentally unstable? Or is it a back door way to discourage gun ownership and seize weapons?

In addition, he pointed out once again our national leaders, who are NEVER in the cross-hairs of their bad decisions, are going to create bad policy that will end up forcing violent confrontations between the police and citizens.  If government starts confiscating guns and even one in a thousand say “no way”, you could start hundreds of gunfights where none were ever going to happen. Worse, good people on both sides will get hurt. Again, not the Chuckie Schumer types or the Bloomberg types, but only the grunt patrolman serving a seizure order and the guy who says no.  That’s just crazy.

Everybody says something has to be done.  The truth is sometimes doing nothing IS doing something.  Wait until the dust settles, have a fact based debate about the issues.  Then  figure out what SOLVES the problem, not just keep you elected.  Here’s a guy who should learn that lesson.

Image result for Marco Rubio

Sometimes doing nothing is doing something. Learn the facts, do the right thing.

 

 

This entry was posted in politics and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply