Skip to content

Gun Confiscation has begun in New York!… or has it?

July 18, 2014

The YouTube video yesterday is linked to in this video. Hopefully you have watched it as it will speed up the time you might spend on this post.

Our moderate apologist writes the following:
As noted in the first line of Undersheriff Demond’s response, the NY SAFE Act requires mental health providers to notify the State Police if individual with firearms are deemed to have mental health issues.

Obviously, the gentleman speaking the video, George Covello, seems to think that the (temporary) confiscation of this couple’s firearms pending a hearing is a sign of a wider confiscation effort.

Put bluntly, I strongly disagree, both as related to the specific instances mentioned here, or in a wider context.

The author then goes on to explain how the bill requires mental health professionals to report people who have sought counseling so that the state can make the determination about whether or not they have the right to self defense.  The author also notes that the confiscation may be temporary, assuming that these people meet the standards of the state to get them back.  What’s wrong with this picture?

God gave this man the right to self-defense.  The state has no role to play at all in determining whether or not he should be allowed to own firearms.  I’ve already linked in prior posts to articles discussing how some have called on CPS to take children from Christians for believing that God created the world in 6 literal days.  I’ve already linked in prior posts to articles where the FBI is targeting “Constitutionalists”.  Must one be forced to harken back to Soviet gulags full of dissidents there for the mental illness of disagreeing with the state?  Might we also remind people of the “reeducation camps” instituted by Pol Pot?  Those who support these infringements of this man’s God given right to self-defense are an enemy of God and enemies of the Republic and unworthy of protection by the laws of this country.

What happens if something were to happen to this man or his family while the state is making their judgement about whether or not he is competent to use these tools to defend himself or his family?  Will the state post State Police or County Sherrifs full time at this man’s residence to ensure the same level of preparedness that this man and his firearms could have provided?  Will the state be liable if, as a result of this investigation, harm were to be committed against this man and his property?  I think we all know the answer to that question.

How about the presumption of innocence?  Is confiscating his firearms equivelant to presuming that he is innocent?

May God curse all of the fools involved with this case:  the Sheriffs office, the officers who took the man’s guns, Bob Owens, the boot licking traitor that would sacrifice this man’s freedom so others might feel good about “safety” while making people less safe.  May God destroy all of these fools and all of the fools who have supported the policy.

The only possibly good thing to come out of this is that the Sheriff refused to go get the guns.  However, UndersSheriff Craig Dumond’s response indicates his complicity in this matter when he wrote this:

To insinuate the court is somehow an active participant in confiscations is inappropriate… they are following the law (as we all are because we have no choice) and procedures set forth accordingly.

The court has a capacity to have said that this act was unConstitutional and refused to comply.  I believe that one of the primary values of the Nuremburg Trials was to relegate the “I was just following orders” defense to the trashheap of society.

The next paragraph is almost as bad:

In regard to the components of the Act relating to mental health issues, Sheriff Mills supports these components as well as the NYS Sheriff’s Association. We do not support many of the other provisions of the (anti) Safe Act and feel the law is severely flawed and violates many aspects of our 2nd Amendment rights.

The sheriff’s office is going to support the government’s role in determining the mental health compentency of individuals to keep and bear arms?  This maggot is unworthy of any public trust and should be fired immediately.  What good is a law enforcement officer who won’t enforce the ultimate societal law of the land, the Constitution?    And then he goes and pulls another act of cowardice by standing behind the NYS Sheriff’s Association who don’t support some provisions of the Safe act, but I have no doubt that had the court ordered them to go confiscate these guns, that they would have done so as good “law-abiding” citizens.  Or should I say, “comrades”?

Then how about the author of the story?  This guy is unworthy of any trust by advertisers or any people running this site.  Look up the word Quisling.

The Delaware County Sheriff’s Department is clearly no fan of the NY SAFE Act—calling it “the (anti) Safe Act” in their response—but they and the NYS Sheriff’s Association who strongly disagree with the act overall, acknowledge that the mental health components of the act save lives.

There is no credible information that the mental health provisions of the NY Safe Act are being used to permanently confiscate firearms from citizens.

Look at the staggering level of blind faith in the “goodness” of the state by this author.  Look at the naivete of the author in this “acknowledge that the mental health components of the act save lives”. How is it possible that this statement can be made?  Really?  How can it be proved that by confiscating arms from these people exercising their God given rights that someone else wasn’t murdered in cold blood?  Is it even possible that such a claim could be made by a mentally competent human being?  I expect not.

But when people in our community keep crying wolf and insisting that mass confiscations are beginning every time someone suffering mental distress is relieved of their arms as the should be in isolated instances, they are doing none of us any favors.

I hope the author has his guns taken “temporarily” while it can be determined that he is sane.  If I were on that “sanity panel” I’d vote against him.  I’ll say again that agents of the state or any level of government have no business determining any one’s right to keep and bear arms.

No one should have the ability to deprive someone of the tools with which to defend themselves.  The defense is FREEDOM!  Those around the person, those most aware of the dangers and risks involved should arm themselves so that they are sufficiently prepared should this person “snap”.  It is only in freedom that any true protections to the public may be made.


No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: