gun grabbers who threaten violence against gun owners...

milktree

NES Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
7,924
Likes
11,092
Feedback: 35 / 0 / 0
I've been searching for examples of anti-gun people threatening violence (with guns) against gun owners, but... google isn't helping. I'm doing it wrong.

Can you think of examples that I can google or links to the posts where someone threatens a gun owner, or gun owners in general, while claiming "guns 'r bad, m'kay?"

I already know about stallwell.

Thanks,
 
I've been searching for examples of anti-gun people threatening violence (with guns) against gun owners, but... google isn't helping. I'm doing it wrong.

Can you think of examples that I can google or links to the posts where someone threatens a gun owner, or gun owners in general, while claiming "guns 'r bad, m'kay?"

I already know about stallwell.

Thanks,
Government.
 
Just search for Mark Zuckerberg private guards drawing guns to chase people off of public trails that run through his Hawaii estate and how the charges get dropped in arguably the most anti-gun state in the union.
 
Just search for Mark Zuckerberg private guards drawing guns to chase people off of public trails that run through his Hawaii estate and how the charges get dropped in arguably the most anti-gun state in the union.

I'm having trouble finding links that show the "pull guns" part. I suck at google. :(
 
I've been searching for examples of anti-gun people threatening violence (with guns) against gun owners, but... google isn't helping. I'm doing it wrong.

Can you think of examples that I can google or links to the posts where someone threatens a gun owner, or gun owners in general, while claiming "guns 'r bad, m'kay?"

I already know about stallwell.

Thanks,
look at antifa groups/protests etc
also project veritas - specifically Bernie volunteers/staff threatening armed revolution to stop gun loving conservatives
 
To make ex post facto laws


Please stop using this wrong, the laws they are pushing are terrible, but none of them run into ex post facto issues. Also I am not trying to say that you personally have used this wrong more than this once, but people in general use the term wrong all the time and it drives me nuts.
 
Please stop using this wrong, the laws they are pushing are terrible, but none of them run into ex post facto issues. Also I am not trying to say that you personally have used this wrong more than this once, but people in general use the term wrong all the time and it drives me nuts.

Maybe in VA, but on a national level, they are absolutely pushing such laws and theories
 
Maybe in VA, but on a national level, they are absolutely pushing such laws and theories

Can you link me to even a single law being proposed that would criminalize behavior from before the law's passing? I haven't seen anything like that, but that doesn't mean that it isn't happening.
 
Can you link me to even a single law being proposed that would criminalize behavior from before the law's passing? I haven't seen anything like that, but that doesn't mean that it isn't happening.

Bump stocks. Look it up. I just said that may not be the case in VA, but honestly those clowns are pushing so much garbage I can't keep up.
 
I've been searching for examples of anti-gun people threatening violence (with guns) against gun owners, but... google isn't helping. I'm doing it wrong.

Can you think of examples that I can google or links to the posts where someone threatens a gun owner, or gun owners in general, while claiming "guns 'r bad, m'kay?"

I already know about stallwell.

Thanks,

Anyone who advocates for gun control laws are advocating for the use of violence through government force against nonviolent, up until that point, law abiding citizens. Just because it's the enforcement arm of the government (the police) that will be enforcing the law doesnt mean it isn't violence.
 
Bump stocks. Look it up. I just said that may not be the case in VA, but honestly those clowns are pushing so much garbage I can't keep up.

He's right - bump stocks may be outlawed, and possession of them unlawful after [date here], but they don't say, "You had one before [date here], so gulag for you. That would be an ex post facto law.
 
He's right - bump stocks may be outlawed, and possession of them unlawful after [date here], but they don't say, "You had one before [date here], so gulag for you. That would be an ex post facto law.

So.... what would you call a law that criminalizes posession of something now that you purchased legally?

They can dress it up, but for all intents and purposes it functions as XPF
 
So.... what would you call a law that criminalizes posession of something now that you purchased legally?

They can dress it up, but for all intents and purposes it functions as XPF

No, it violates the taking clause, but it’s not ex post facto.

Ex post facto would be if you went to prison for having done something that was legal at the time.

Like if you went to prison for having owned a bump stock.
 
No, it violates the taking clause, but it’s not ex post facto.

Ex post facto would be if you went to prison for having done something that was legal at the time.

Like if you went to prison for having owned a bump stock.

Right... I get we are splitting hairs. The fact is that you are still criminalizing something that was legal. I'll make sure not to call it ex post facto though. Is it really 'takings' if they can jail you for a felony? It's not like they'll just take it and shake your hand. It feels very ex posty to me, but you guys are doing a great job rationalizing it for the government.

Tl;dr I think it's some nasty gray area that is bullshit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This. Look at Virginia. The goal is s
To make ex post facto laws, and then SWAT you when you tell them to f*** off because you've harmed NO ONE by possessing property.

Government. Government is the violence
I see that SWAT stayed home, spanking their monkeys, when tens of thousands of heavily- armed Second Amendment supporters showed up in Richmond!
 
Right... I get we are splitting hairs. The fact is that you are still criminalizing something that was legal. I'll make sure not to call it ex post facto though. Is it really 'takings' if they can jail you for a felony? It's not like they'll just take it and shake your hand. It feels very ex posty to me, but you guys are doing a great job rationalizing it for the government.

Tl;dr I think it's some nasty gray area that is bullshit.

It is 100% nasty bullshit, my only issue is how common it seems to be becoming for people to use ex post facto in the wrong situations. I didn't even want to call you out on that personally, it's much more a general gripe than directed at anyone.
 
Right... I get we are splitting hairs. The fact is that you are still criminalizing something that was legal.

Yes, that's how laws work. Name a law that doesn’t do that. Before the laws against murder and extortion and selling pot and driving on the left side of the road and slavery, they were all legal too.

I'll make sure not to call it ex post facto though. Is it really 'takings' if they can jail you for a felony?

Yes.

The jail isn't the taking, the taking is "you can't have this thing anymore and we're not going to compensate you".

The jail is for continuing to have an illegal thing after it became illegal. Like booze during prohibition, or texting while driving now.


It's not like they'll just take it and shake your hand. It feels very ex posty to me, but you guys are doing a great job rationalizing it for the government.

Tl;dr I think it's some nasty gray area that is bullshit.

No, it's not. It's very clear. Ex post facto laws are ones that criminalize an act *before* the law went into effect. An ex post facto bumpstock law would make it a crime to have ever bought or possessed a bumpstock, regardless of if you had one when the law went into effect. That's very different from banning current and future possession.

When talking about law, it's important to be precise. If you're not precise, you end up with crap laws and crap enforcement of a lot of "you know what we meant" laws.

Nobody is rationalizing anything, we're explaining legal terms.

The taking is still unconstitutional, and it's still a stupid law. But it's not an ex post facto one.
 
Last edited:
No, it violates the taking clause, but it’s not ex post facto.

Ex post facto would be if you went to prison for having done something that was legal at the time.

Like if you went to prison for having owned a bump stock.

As long as you comply and destroy your properly, nobody gets hurt.

I do remember Maura saying something about "at this time", which implies that she will allow continued breaking of a "law" so it can be prosecuted later.

Maybe not ex post facto, but entirely a rape of Justice.
 
Back
Top Bottom