Cold Dead Hands: Gun Nuts Demand 2nd Amendment Rights For Zombies

Note: This is not a joke. Fox News is reporting that police in Buffalo, New York are collecting guns from the estates of deceased firearms registrants. And the ammosexual radicals are furious. The Fox story begins by stating that…

“A plan by police in Buffalo, N.Y., to begin confiscating the firearms of legal gun owners within days of their deaths is drawing fire from Second Amendment advocates.”

Zombie Charlton Heston

It seems like it should be unnecessary to point out that dead people cannot be “legal gun owners.” But that’s how Fox frames the issue. Even Charlton Heston conceded that his guns could be taken after he had died. The article goes on to quote Tom King, a gun rights group representative, claiming that the heirs are not told that, under the law, they can sell the weapons or apply to have them re-registered. However, there is no confirmation of that claim. In all likelihood the heirs must be told of their legal options and probably are.

King also asserts that the law is the latest example of authorities targeting law-abiding gun owners. Once again, dead people are not law-abiding gun owners, so the law cannot be targeting them. And the heirs, absent a registration in their name, are not in compliance with the law.

The Buffalo Police Department held a press conference to explain that the policy is intended to keep firearms out of the wrong hands. When a registered owner dies, the weapon often is not safely secured by surviving family members, if they even know that it exists. It is also not traceable in the event it is stolen or used in a crime.

A pro-gun website was quoted in the article as saying that this is “the camel’s nose under the tent to get at every firearm they can.” That is a typically paranoid response by gun nuts who seem to think that dead gun owners are a significant constituency of Americans whose constitutional rights must be protected. Let’s call them 2nd Amendment Zombies.

Naturally, the right-wing media circus has come to the defense of this newly christened special interest group of Departed-Americans who are being discriminated against. The story is spreading fast to outlets like the Tea Party News Network, conspiracy king Alex Jones’ Infowars, and Glenn Beck’s TheBlaze.

This law is just common sense. It is no different than title rights to cars or houses or other similar property that cannot remain in the name of the deceased. Eventually all gun owners will die and, without enforcement of this statute, every gun would become unlicensed and untraceable. The fact that gun nuts are getting worked up over this demonstrates the extremism of their views. They don’t bother to spell out their alternative, which is apparently to allow the registrations to lapse and let thousands of guns go unaccounted for.

Therein lies the true agenda of the NRA-theists. They are already suggesting that, due to this law, 2nd Amendment “patriots” should decline to register their guns so that the feds won’t know about them when they die. Their worship of guns is so fanatical that it extends to the afterlife, and they will oppose any registration policy that interferes with the free distribution of guns to anyone who wants them, including criminals, the mentally ill, and terrorists (and, yes, the NRA has opposed legislation prohibiting gun purchases by those on the terrorist watch list).

Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

What’s next for these lunatics? If guns can remain registered to corpses, then why not allow new weapons purchases to be registered in the name of a recent migrant to the hereafter or a favorite departed uncle? Why not just register all your guns to Jesus? Maybe I shouldn’t give them any ideas.

Or as Dennis Hopper says in Land of the Dead: “Zombies, man…They creep me out.”


17 thoughts on “Cold Dead Hands: Gun Nuts Demand 2nd Amendment Rights For Zombies

  1. Take guns out of it – call these guns private property. Are you suggesting the “authorities” have a right to take what they want from the heirs of the deceased? This could eventually be applied to any property – as usual – you’re on the side of authoritarian government over the people – and I’m not talking about the dead, but the living. The people of this country really aren’t safe with your beliefs. Are you sure you’re not the extremist?

    • Take guns out of guns? How does that work?

      • It’s PRIVATE property – doesn’t matter the form of the property. Does the concept of private property compute? Or is that something that doesn’t exist in your world?

    • Unregistered property CAN be appropriated by the government if only to prevent disputes of their ownership. If the deceased party does not leave a will or any documentation as to said property that property can be altogether appropriated.

      This already happens with other sorts of property. You’re also naive in implying that the property left behind by deceased automatically becomes the property of somone else. Since anyone can lay claim to it, such a notion is the very thing that necessiates wills and causes custody dispute.

      And here we are talking about firearms, dangerous items which, sometime no one is even aware of. The possibility of them falling into the wrong hands is very high. But yeah you continue to scream property rights without caring about that one bit.

      • You are spot on in your analysis. Steve is as loony as the most wild-eyed gun nuts. That’s why I don’t bother to even respond to his pathetic taunts about me being a communist. He is just making himself look stupid, so I give him room.

        But the fact is that an heir might be a five year old child or a violent felon. Steve thinks they should get legal possession of a Glock if the owner dies. What happens if the law-abiding, gun-owning parent of a drug dealer dies, or a kid who has converted to Islam and taken up with Al Qaeda? Steve thinks they get to be the proud owners of a new arsenal.

        Hell, a kid could shoot and kill his own parents with their gun, making him the the new owner of it, according to Steve.

        • Ok you two – is this confiscation or just holding something until the rightful owner is determined? Maybe it’s the language used to convey the information. If it’s being held until such time as the rightful owners can be determined – I’m not sure that is a police matter. If a court order was issued due to the lack of a will or clear passage of ownership – fine. Why just the guns? But that isn’t what the article says – of course it was the Fox quote that was provided and I understand the way they report isn’t always clear. So which is it here? Are these police acting with some law that permits this or are they just taking this property away? You are so willing to explain away this type of action – maybe it isn’t as you suggest – my accusation is still valid – we are not safe with your kind of ideology since you always take the side of the state over the people – which you clearly do here – of course maybe all the facts aren’t reported and this isn’t a “confiscation” – how about some follow up -oh wait – there is no need since it’s ok being that it’s the authorities and they have full right to do anything they want – right or wrong.

  2. What a bunch of dipsharts. Their dead, so what if the guns are taken. If not specified in the will, something probably will happen to them anyway. Better be clear about things like that, than leave it to chance.

    • Do you read what you write? In your world – anything not spelled out in a will can be taken by the state? Is that really what you want? That rationale can be applied to any property in your comment – is that really what you want?

      • It actually already happens, seems like you don’t know. Let me ask also, who owns property rights to an item not covered by a will? Anyone who claims it? Well then if you die I can claim your house as mine as much as anyone else if your will doesn’t cover it.

        You keep harping about property rights an calling others communists. Yet you fail to answer this question which demands an answer. If not the government, who gets the property of a dead person that is NOT covered by a will. Under what grounds can the claim be considered legitimate?

        • Steve also keeps harping on the red herring crap that I am in favor of state control of everything. He’s like a broken record that keeps repeating the same lies.

          Actually, it’s my positions that are supportive of people’s rights and the right of people to govern themselves. Most polls on most issues agree with me, particularly on gun issues. It is Steve who is a slave to the dictates of corporations and vested lobbying groups and wealthy elitists, but he is too dumb to see it. So just expect him to regurgitate the same talking points over and over again. That’s all he does and it’s really getting boring.

      • Well, no, certainly not. However, if no relatives are left, then what?

  3. Can one of you leftists tell me where private property rights fit into your ideology? Or doesn’t it exist?
    I’ve called you all communist before – I try to figure out how close I was with that accusation or if it’s fair at all. Mark insists he isn’t, but constantly defends the right of the state to do whatever it wants – including infringing on individual and private property rights – so long as the intentions are good in his mind. Articles like this one just prove that I’m pretty much right on the money. It’s good to be right.

    • Can you tell me whose “private property” is an item not covered by a will belonging to a now dead person? His own? But said person is now dead and can’t “own” anything. If not the deceased then whose property is it and under what grounds does it become said person’s property?

      Btw if anyone can claim it that means it is no longer private propery. You hatred for this site and the left has caused you to yet again accuse others without considering the consequences of the alternatives that are quite conveniently listed in the article. You’re very much like the gun nuts in the article in “honoring rights to a ridiculous degree” to the point where you don’t even see how circumstances can necessiate the outcome listed above.

      • It’s not a hatred of this site – it’s a hatred of an ideology that puts the right of the state to do what it wants over the rights of the people. Get it right. I actually admire a person who can openly advocate such a vile position such as what is normally put forth here – we are all subjects of the state and we must just accept how we are ruled over since it’s all for the public good. The sheeple must comply – that may be ok for you, but don’t expect everyone to just fall in line.

  4. Almost makes me wish zombies were real, just to see how this would play out in the courts. Would lawyers argue that mindless, murderous, zombies still own property of any sort?

    • I’ll bet the NRA does. I even bet there are mindless zombies, aka “ammosexuals” who think they should be allowed to possess weapons.

Comments are closed.