Debbie Dingell (D) and Fred Upton (R) to Introduce Gun Confiscation Legislation – IOTW Report

Debbie Dingell (D) and Fred Upton (R) to Introduce Gun Confiscation Legislation

Breitbart: Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) used an April 2 Fox News Live appearance to announce that she is preparing to introduce legislation to create a federal law allowing firearm confiscation orders.

Such laws, generally referred to as Extreme Risk Protection Orders, are already in place in California, Indiana, Oregon, and other states, and Dingell believes the ability to seize firearms is crucial for pubic safety.

During live broadcast Dingell said, “Rep. Fred Upton (R) and I are looking at introducing … legislation … at the national level.” She added, “I grew up in a home where a man shouldn’t have had access to a gun, and I remember some very frightening moments, and there was ability to deal with it. A family who knows that someone in their family could be a danger to themselves or to others needs to have tool that they can take that gun away.” Keep reading

31 Comments on Debbie Dingell (D) and Fred Upton (R) to Introduce Gun Confiscation Legislation

  1. Wasn’t that how they went door to door in NOLA and took everyone’s guns that they could?

    Due process shmoo process.

    Their intention is to subvert the Constitution. Throw them in prison for breaking their oath and helping our enemies. Traitors!

    15
  2. Debbie was elected to Michigan’s 12trh Congressional district after her husband – John Dingle retired.

    John served himself at the taxpayers’ slush fund 1955 – 2015. Math is hard but it looks like Dingle rode the gravy train for 60 years, born in 1926, and retired at 89.

    Another dynasty.

    14
  3. Upton, in case you forgot, was the RINO Dickhead who pushed legislation banning Edison’s light bulb, a life changing invention that served humanity flawlessly for a century.
    Upton didn’t want you to have lightbulbs anymore because he claimed they would warm the earth and we’d all burst in to flames.

    13
  4. Once in the real world, this will mostly apply to the law abiding, White suburbanites who obey the law. They will try to go after the “Low hanging fruit first”… in other words they will take the path of least resistance because they know if they try to enforce this in the Hood they will be met with accusations of “Racism” and riots.
    Hardly fair and ineffective…. unless you are trying to disarm patriots!

    8
  5. I’m tired of the only recourse for these jerks is to attempt to vote them out. Their decisions have effects nationally and therefore we should be able to petition nationally for their removal.

    8
  6. “… Dingell believes the ability to seize firearms is crucial for pubic safety.”

    Total fabrication.
    She knows that seizing firearms has nothing, whatsoever, to do with “public safety” and has everything to do with furthering the nihilistic/totalitarian agenda – whether ostensibly based on “socialism” or some other false foundation.

    Her (their) aim is the subjugation of America to the forces of totalitarianism.
    PERIOD.
    Is she willing to see the Capitol Police disarmed?
    The United States Army?
    The United States Marine Corps?
    The United States Navy?
    The United States Air Force?
    The United States Coast Guard?
    The FBI?
    The CIA?
    The DIA?
    The SS?
    The EPS?
    The NSA?
    The DCPD?

    Of course not.

    She’s a lying fucking hypocrite. She’s not even willing to venture into public without her heavily-armed security apparatus.

    Why are we deceived by these maggots?
    I know that Michigan has a highly-developed slave-mentality; from decades of Unionism, Socialism, and “Demonrat” tyranny – but really – wake the fuck up!

    izlamo delenda est …

    6
  7. Seizing firearms is crucial to public safety? Try taking them and then get back to me about how safe you feel… it’s hard to properly express yourself with a head wound.

    3
  8. “I grew up in a home where a man shouldn’t have had access to a gun, and I remember some very frightening moments”
    The problem wasn’t the gun but your family. Maybe we should round up you and your family and deal with them accordingly.

    5
  9. A person who is making threats against himself or others should be arrested or Baker-Acted. If probable cause for one of those actions is not present, confiscating firearms is inappropriate.

    3
  10. another professional politician protected by armed security, who is creating a law that some poor law enforcement officer has to try and enforce, when politically expedient.

    how many officers will have to die trying to enforce her law ?

    you can bet it won’t be her at the opposite end of a gun of a persons who doesn’t think he should give up his personal protection will it ?

    3
  11. Uh, they already passed a similar law in Oregon two weeks ago,!and our lesbian governor signed it to great fanfare! Just waiting for it to be enforced so NRA can challenge it.

    2
  12. “I’m introducing a bill….” is equivalent to “I’m up for reelection and need to remind the voters, even though I’ve done nothing to improve their lives, cringe if they dare call my office, and detest their very existence, to please remember to vote for me”.

    But I would be interested to know if we can get an Extreme Risk Protection Order against certain members of congress.

    4
  13. These creatures believe that everyone will wait at home to have their guns confiscated…or die as barricaded suspects. Wrong. If they think that, I have news for them…4GW blood bath. We’ll see how high a price they’re willing to pay…

    1
  14. Once laws like this are in place, it’s not going to be long before every citizen who supports the 2nd is going to be found “mentally deficient”, one way or another.

    2
  15. All it will take is a pissed off wife or GF to file a restraining order or just say “he crazy”, and here come the gun grabbers. But remember, “nobody wants to take your guns”.

    2

Comments are closed.