Guntersville wants to take your guns.....

well, seems like i remember the "citizens" SHOOTING AT the cops and first responders.... but, i'm sure they can just dodge the bullets and keep on working!

Finally, Crash admits he supports gun confiscation.  Thats what i'm hearing, correct?  That you are saying its ok to collect them from all law abiding citizens in an emergency since there is a risk of someone illegally misusing them?

nice try... i merely explained the basis for the bill.. gun nuts and their wild ideas.

Here you are Crash - video with examples of the police in New Orleans confiscating guns from citizens and stating that 'no one will be able to be armed, we will take ALL weapons...'

 

http://www.military.com/video/...trina/2083834238001/

oh for pete's sake... let's not take guns from people shooting at the police and first responders... that would infringe on their 2nd amendment rights!

You are much smarter than this - they arent taking guns from people 'shooting at the police and first responders.'  Thats already illegal, so why this ordinance?  

 

Because they are going to take guns from everyone BEFORE you commit a crime with it, just like N.O.  

 

I can only guess you are trying to deflect from that truth because this is undeniable evidence that they are trying to take away guns.  Just imagine, now, a central registry that would allow Guntersville authorities the ability to pull up a list of gun owners to conduct these 'seizures' in an emergency.  That is what is being floated around congress as part of the universal background checks......

Crash: Please provide a link to any source supporting your claim that civilians shot at police and first responders. I sure can't find any and the officers I know who were there don't recall it ever happening. In fact it was the NOLA PD who were convicted of killing unarmed civilians on the bridge.

The only information I could find were sources saying the cops THOUGHT they were being shot at from Danziger Bridge http://www.npr.org/2011/08/18/...-buoys-police-reform when it turned out they had if fact not been fired upon and simply made up that claim as an excuse for gunning down innocent survivors. For Pete's sake!

Police say when they arrived, at least four people were shooting at them from the base of the bridge. Officers took positions and returned fire. The official police report identifies two sets of gunmen going up the east side of the half-mile-long bridge.

http://www.npr.org/templates/s....php?storyId=6063982

 

not that facts would mean anything.

you "pro-gun" activists can spin it any way you wish... do you really think someone is going to come take your guns? i mean honestly, you really think someone will show up to take your guns?

What part of the story did you not read, Crash?  That's exactly what Guntersville wants to do during emergencies.....

That's exactly what New Orleans did during Katrina....

IF it saves lives.. what's the problem? you have a problem with saving lives? you have a problem with providing safe working conditions for emergency personnel? i understand the situation... how can you not see the situation for what it is?

Crash, your 'evidence' was from 2006. The article I cited was fro. 2011, and this one, also from 2011,  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...erdict_n_919502.html shows that the "shooters" were fabricated.

Retired Sgt. Arthur "Archie" Kaufman and the other four men also were convicted of engaging in a brazen cover-up that included a planted gun, fabricated witnesses and falsified reports. The five men were convicted of all 25 counts they faced.

Because citizens in an emergency have no reason to ever doubt those wearing a uniform aren't there to help them...

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012...es-family-terrified/

http://www.click2houston.com/n...c2wsx4z/-/index.html

http://www.riverdalepress.com/...=&content_class=

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.co...sion_by_fake_po.html

 

even when it comes to soldiers

http://main.aol.com/2011/09/30...vasion_n_988783.html

If it saves lives?  Did you really just say that?  If it saves lives, why not let the police search your house without a search warrant?  Because its against not only the constitution, but everything America is built on.

I can't believe you just posted that.....

Here I thought you were just against assault rifles and high capacity magazines.  In reality, you are against the freedoms that the constitution guarantees.  Smh....

This bunch of anti-gun nuts are the same ones that never have a kind word for the police, AND raise  **** if they have to take a precious two minutes out of their "busy" schedule to show their proof of insurance and license at a dui roadblock.

 

YES! 

Best, its a mentality that goes far beyond guns. If they honestly feared being hurt or killed in some random event then they would be spending their time and effort on trying to outlaw booze. They say we don't "need" guns but by not going after booze (which causes or leads to 10x as many senseless and needless deaths and injuries each year) they are in fact saying that we do "need" booze and we "need" to get drunk and climb behind the wheel of a vehicle. So you see, it's really not about guns at all.

It's about power and control!

It makes NO sense. How did such a dumb *** even get in the office in the first place?

 

Now you tell me, just who are they going to "disarm" when they go into a place like this to look for  injured people?

common sense.. it escapes most.. as evident, here, in this thread!

The article states there is already such a law on the books in Tuscaloosa--all those Tide fans can be dangerous I suppose.

There is already a law on the books written in 1955 so there is no need for a redundant law...

 

The Code of Alabama, 31-9-10, Section C 2 states:

A law enforcement officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer’s official duties may disarm an individual if the officer reasonably believes that it is immediately necessary for the protection of the officer or another individual. The officer shall return the firearm to the individual before discharging that individual unless the officer arrests that individual for engaging in criminal activity or seizes the firearm as evidence pursuant to an investigation for the commission of a crime or, at the discretion of the officer, the individual poses a threat to himself or herself or to others.

Uh-Oh!  Now it is time for the NRA crowd to come on here and be appalled that this 57-year-old confiscatory, unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms is actually a  part of the Code of Alabama.  The many confiscations and other infringements resulting from this communist-inspired statute somehow seem to have been overlooked by the arch-defenders of our precious gun rights!

 

Excuse me for now--gotta get a napkin to wipe off the sarcasm that oozed from this post.

I have no idea what you just said.  If you are inferring that I am a member of the NRA because I post a law that is already written and express my opinion that a redundant law is simply not necessary then please let me clarify, I am not a member of the NRA.  I'm not sure how being or not being a member of the NRA has anything to do with my expressed thought...

 

I'm sorry if that upset you...

holy cow! their rights are already "infringed"!

prepare for the apocolypse!

Well upside, maybe you could contact the mayor and give her a dose of your "sarcasm", and ask her just what she has in mind, unless you're too busy reading all the anti-gun nuts posts proclaiming "it's about time we had us sum of them laws to protect us from all them people shooting people tryn to hep."

The Apocalypse is already happening... it's called progressive liberalism in America.

somebody has got to pop that republican bubble... they're starting to asphyxiate! on second thought... it's probably just them drooling.. and all over their shiny helmets!

Talk about asphyxiation... every time a lib Dem chimes in I hear the sound of flapping leathery wings and smell the fumes of burning sulpher!

The Guntersville Ordinance article does not mention that the officer must 'reasonably believe[s] that it is immediately necessary for the protection of the officer or another individual' to disarm the individual.  All that I saw mentioned was needed as a prerequisite (in the article) was an emergency situation.  Beternwho, I thought you would be a little more educated about the subject before posting on it.  We are not talking about an officer disarming someone during a traffic stop or another situation such that the individual might be a harm to the officer.  We are talking about disarming citizens in an emergency situation solely based on the fact that there is an emergency situation - just as they did during Katrina.

___

It is YOU who need to pay closer attention to what is written.  I wrote absolutely NOTHING about the Guntersville ordinance.  I simply pointed out I would expect the NRA pro-gun crowd to have drawn a bead upon that existing 57-year old State gun control law if they had known about it. In your hair-trigger compulsion to condemn the Guntersville proposal, you apparently confused the existing 1955 law with the proposed Guntersville ordinance. I will stop now, since I have run out of allusions to firearms operation.

I guess I mistook your implication about the fact that the NRA has 'overlooked' the current 57 year old state law as a reference to the current ordinances legality and reasoning that is being discussed here in this topic. 

 

I didnt 'confuse' the state law with the Guntersville Ordinance at all.  In fact, Tamela posted the information on the state law questioning why Guntersville would even need an ordinance like that (since state law allows disarming of citizens in situations where safety is in question).  You are the one who jumped in and added your opinion about the state law being overlooked by the NRA.

~~~~~~~~~

That IS the reason I posted...because state law already allows for actions to be taken is situations where safety is concerned.  There is no need for a 'blanket' disarmament ordinance due to natural disasters to ensure "safety".

Has anyone actually seen the ordinance? The full text? I can't find it anywhere. All I have been able to find is the news reports or blogs. Would be nice before we all get tore up over something to know what it actually says.....

I couldnt find the text last night either, Jank. 

 

Either way, the state already has a law in place allowing for disarming citizens for safety reasons.  A city has no reason, that I can think of, the have any powers beyond that. Especially in the state of Alabama, where it has been made clear that Handgun laws are to be left to the state itself, not individual municipalities. 

 

Tuscaloosa has passed this, but last I heard it was being challenged.  The issue with these laws is that, most of the time, they are not challenged until something happens to trigger the law to be used.  By then, its too late.  It goes back to some of the other discussions on DC and Illinois - it takes decades to sort things like this out because too many law abiding citizens sat idly by and didnt prevent the laws from being enacted in the first place......

Just spoke with the Guntersville City Clerk, there will be a special meeting called today to withdraw the proposal from consideration....