How’s that going to work out?

I have to laugh at this:

Until recently, sheriff’s deputies notified offenders they weren’t allowed to possess firearms but gave them 24 hours to turn them in.

There was no mechanism, however, to make sure that the gun was actually turned in. Local law enforcement and state law enforcement officials would go house to house to enforce the laws as resources allowed, but the
process was expensive, slow and potentially dangerous.

The sheriff’s office is now working with the Office on the Status of Woman and others to develop a comprehensive plan for making sure everyone required to surrender their guns does so in a manner that’s safe for officers, according to Suzy Loftus, assistant chief legal counsel for the sheriff’s office.

So, going house to house and confiscating is considered dangerous? Who would have guessed?

So, now, they are going to “develop a comprehensive plan” where people surrender their guns “in a manner that’s safe for officers”.

Wow! These people are really stupid.

Apparently they are unable to conceive of the response, “No. Your move.”

7 thoughts on “How’s that going to work out?

  1. The honor system among thieves and the people who depend on them for jobs.
    Professional courtesy?

  2. I’ve got a better idea. How about we draft all the politicians and activists who voted for this law and send them out to collect the weapons.

    • Isn’t that very sexist? Since there are no genders and biological features are merely anomalies, why would this agency discriminate against all the zhes and zurs and such?

      @ Windy – I’d hesitate to call those “offenders” who are now prohibited to possess a firearm “criminals.” Consider that if a guy looks cross-eyed at his partner in California, he’s likely to be placed on the prohibited person list.

      • Using the authoritarians’ logic, it would be impossible for any woman, or women’s organization to be sexist, just as it is impossible for any black person or black people’s organization to be racist.

        You’re simply not suppose to ask such a question. Even thinking about it is a direct assault against women’s rights. If you’re aghast at some of the horrible things women do, you need look no farther than the horrible things men do to make women do what women do.

        Get rid of the men (toxic masculinity) and the problems are solved (but those sexist bastards have more guns…)

  3. They are angling for registration. They want to be able to check someone’s name against a database of firearms that they own. When turned in, they’d be marked off the database. Because criminals follow the laws. Works perfectly well for drugs right, only people with prescriptions can get them.

Comments are closed.