Gun Talk

[Fuzz]

https://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/04/robber-attempts-to-hold-up-bank-with-plastic-gun-gets-shot-in-the-face-with-a-very-real-357-magnum/

Armed with a realistic plastic replica handgun, a 34-year-old man on Friday attempted to rob a bank in Trimble, Mo., according to police. Unfortunately for the robber, one of the bank’s employees was able to retrieve a very real Smith and Wesson .357 revolver and shoot the suspect in the face, effectively ending the robbery attempt.

[StoleIt]

Waiting for someone to charge the guy with manslaughter because he "only" had a plastic gun in 3...2...

[HeloDude]

But according to Ed Shultz, a civilian has never stopped a shooting...

[Guest BODNadmin]

Gob bless America!

Indeed!

[HeloDude]

https://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/10/Mark-Kelly-Gave-Pro-Gun-Control-Testimony-In-Col-One-Day-Before-Before-Buying-AR-15-In-AZ

This is how it works for the liberals, especially their elites--do as I say, not as I do. This is as bad as if a conservative was fighting for pro-life issues and then went out and got an abortion.

This is why I laugh at the guys on this board who are hypocrites...you preach and throw your support one way, but then do something different when it comes to your own lives.

[nsplayr]

Seems like he was buying it to make a point about how easy it is to get background checks accomplished. Not exactly hiding it either, as the pic and the explanation was posted by him on his own facebook account.

Doesn't make sense to me though if you advocate that these weapons should be banned that you then go out and buy them, even if "to make a point."

[HeloDude]

Doesn't make sense to me though if you advocate that these weapons should be banned that you then go out and buy them, even if "to make a point."

He brought it up on his FB after he got caught...that's why what he said 'doesn't make any sense'. He's a hypocrite, regardless of what happened to his wife. And of course he can buy a legal firearm in a State that supports our Rights, just like all of us non-criminals can (at least for now)--so what would he have been trying to prove? And who buys a gun just to turn around and give it to the local police? Is he going to try to buy all the firearms available just to turn them all in?

And this is the BS from his FB page...you know, the one he posted 3 days after he made the purchase:

Looks like the judiciary committee will vote on background checks next week. I just had a background check a few days ago when I went to my local gun store to buy a 45. As I was leaving, I noticed a used AR-15. Bought that too. Even to buy an assault weapon, the background check only takes a matter of minutes. I don't have possession yet but I'll be turning it over to the Tucson PD when I do. Scary to think of people buying guns like these without a background check at a gun show or the Internet. We really need to close the gun show and private seller loop hole.

Oh, and did he coordinate with the Tucson PD prior to the purchase? And if he did, did he in fact make a straw purchase if he lied on the NCIS form? Oh, and there is no 'loop hole'--it's just the way the law is, nothing secret/tricky about it.

I can only hope that he gets in front of another legislature and tries to spew his propaganda so that he can be grilled for his hypocrisy.

[StoleIt]

Seems like he was buying it to make a point about how easy it is to get background checks accomplished. Not exactly hiding it either, as the pic and the explanation was posted by him on his own facebook account.

Doesn't make sense to me though if you advocate that these weapons should be banned that you then go out and buy them, even if "to make a point."

Yea. because that is a worthwhile comparison. Decorated Navy veteran with no felonies or history of mental issues successfully buys a gun. Who would have thought?!

[nsplayr]

Yea. because that is a worthwhile comparison. Decorated Navy veteran with no felonies or history of mental issues successfully buys a gun. Who would have thought?!

Can you clarify? Not sure what you're saying here. It's not surprising that he cleared a background check, it's surprising that he would buy weapons he advocates banning, even if he was "doing it to make a point" which seems to be what his FB post about it implied.

[StoleIt]

Can you clarify? Not sure what you're saying here. It's not surprising that he cleared a background check, it's surprising that he would buy weapons he advocates banning, even if he was "doing it to make a point" which seems to be what his FB post about it implied.

Seemed like, from the article & FB, he is doing it as a publicity stunt to show how easy it is to purchase weapons. Thus, with his history, it is not surprising he cleared a check and went on to purchase two firearms.

And if his purpose is to then go around and sell them, that would be illegal since he isn't an FFL. Which I am assuming worse case, the article said he was going to turn them into the PD...whatever that means. All very unorthodox all around.

[nsplayr]

Yea, agreed.

[Buddy Spike]

Yea. because that is a worthwhile comparison. Decorated Navy veteran with no felonies or history of mental issues successfully buys a gun. Who would have thought?!

Well, in fairness, he is a liberal so the "mental issues" thing is questionable.

[Hacker]

Oh, and did he coordinate with the Tucson PD prior to the purchase? And if he did, did he in fact make a straw purchase if he lied on the NCIS form? Oh, and there is no 'loop hole'--it's just the way the law is, nothing secret/tricky about it.

This scenario is not a straw purchase, nor is it indicative of a lie on a 4473.

He is purchasing the rifle for himself -- what he does with it after he purchases it, including giving it to the Tuscon PD, does not constitute a straw purchase by any definition.

[HeloDude]

Touché, I stand corrected. I was referring to the question "Are you the actual buyer of this firearm?". I thought there was a law against buying the firearm if you knew/planned that you were going to turn around and transfer it directly to someone else (not including a gift)? I'll step aside and allow M2 to answer (and anybody else with an FFL).

Thanks for keeping me honest. That being said, he's still a hypocrite and I don't believe his story one bit. Again, why buy 2 firearms to turn around and to give one to the PD? Not to mention the fact that most firearm homicides are committed with a handgun--looks like he gave the wrong one up.

[Hacker]

For the past 20-30 years, handguns were the FEBA for the gun control debate. Since Heller took handgun bans off the table, gun control advocates have had to shift their efforts elsewhere.

This is why, at least in this latest 2012-2013 gun control push, it is scary looking guns (which are not used in any significant number of crimes) that fires are being focused on. If it weren't for Heller, I guarantee that some sort of handgun ban would be part of the legislative push.

[M2]

This scenario is not a straw purchase, nor is it indicative of a lie on a 4473.

He is purchasing the rifle for himself -- what he does with it after he purchases it, including giving it to the Tuscon PD, does not constitute a straw purchase by any definition.

Yep, as long as the firearms were for himself, there's nothing illegal about it under Federal law (and Arizona as far as I know).

He's an idiot though. This proves nothing...law-abiding citizens are allowed purchase firearms in free states.

It would have been a good case if he wasn't eligible, but passing a background check should enable him to purchase firearms!

Hell, he could have asked me; I would have told him that.

And he's full of shit about this stunt as well. I'm glad he's being publicly embarrassed about it. Just shows you how ridiculous the liberal anti-gun efforts will go to make-up bullshit to defend themselves...

[HeloDude]

https://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/11/Schakowsky-Assault-Weapons-Ban-is-Just-the-Beginning

Here's another one...more specifically for the leftists who like to say 'nobody is trying/wants to take your guns away'. The folks who believe this are just following the party line (ie "tell people we don't want to take their guns away"...regardless of what they say when they don't know they're being recorded) or they're too stupid to believe that people in government do not believe you have the Right to own firearms.

Just another example for guys like One...because Cuomo, Dem Missouri legislators, what Obama said in the past, etc is not enough to prove that if there was an up or down vote that they thought they could get passed without hurting them (or their party) politically, many would vote to outright ban the ownership of firearms.

[M2]

Well, Bloomberg can't even get his soda ban past the judicial muster, which probably causes more deaths than guns in NY anyway (58% adults in NYC and nearly 40% of public-school students in eighth grade or below are obese or overweight, and more than 5,000 New Yorkers die from it every year. There were only 237 gun-related homicides in the city in 2012), so perhaps common sense just may prevail after all...

Cheers! M2

[brickhistory]

Best headline not used on this story:

https://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/st-petersburg-police-shoot-man-they-say-was-suicidal/2108146

Glock, paper, scissors.

not my joke, but one of the best in a long time...

[HeloDude]

And for my lovely folks on the left...yes One, this includes you:

https://www.bloomberg...html?cmpid=yhoo

Unbelievable. Here's what I find most disturbing:

They had better luck in nearby Upland, where they seized three guns from the home of Lynette Phillips, 48, who’d been hospitalized for mental illness, and her husband, David. One gun was registered to her, two to him.

“The prohibited person can’t have access to a firearm,” regardless of who the registered owner is, said Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office.

So if I'm a legal gun owner and I have a wife or a child who has been hospitalized for mental illness (which I would say is a good thing because that means they are at least getting some sort of help/treatment), then I can't have any of my firearms even if it's in my own house? What's to stop the government from going as far as to say that unsupervised children can't have access to firearms, and thus, you're not allowed to have any firearms in your house? Why aren't the government officials going to all the houses with those people who have been convicted of a DUI or have enrolled themselves in an alcohol rehab program from attempting to enter your house and start searching for alcohol? Those people who may have alcohol problems may then drink and then get in a car and kill somebody, so we should do something about it, right? Drunk drivers kill quite a bit more people each year when compared to homicides with a firearm.

Now as a responsible citizen, I'm all about keeping firearms out of reach/secured from children, and I would definitely extend that in my house if someone was mentally unstable. But now the government can attempt to come into your house (article seems to say that they can't forcefully come into your house without a warrant, thank goodness at least for the 4th Amendment), but still--they are trying to come into your house, just because you have a firearm and somebody who has been hospitalized for mental illness?

This right here is one of the many reasons why gun owners do not want a national registration. There are people who want and are trying to take people's guns away. And if you're ok with the above article, I then ask--how far can the government go? What's their limitations when it comes to 'protecting' you?

[StoleIt]

Hmm I'm slightly on the fence with this one.

If Adam Lanza's mom didn't have any firearms then the kids ability to shoot up the school would have been greatly reduced. While perhaps a long shot, this proactive law does make a lot more sense for violent felons who may have already legally owned a gun but then got convicted. What are they odds they just turn in their guns after the conviction?

Dangerous ground I admit...but I'm really 50/50 on it.

[HossHarris]

You sir are a dumbass

[StoleIt]

So...you prefer convicted felons maintain their access to firearms?

Or you trust them to follow the law and turn in their firearms if they owned them prior to the conviction?

[Vetter]

Jesus Fucking Christ. Where do these people come from?

[HeloDude]

Hmm I'm slightly on the fence with this one.

If Adam Lanza's mom didn't have any firearms then the kids ability to shoot up the school would have been greatly reduced. While perhaps a long shot, this proactive law does make a lot more sense for violent felons who may have already legally owned a gun but then got convicted. What are they odds they just turn in their guns after the conviction?

Dangerous ground I admit...but I'm really 50/50 on it.

You surprised me on this one man...sad really.

By your logic, the government should confiscate your firearms because someone in your family 'may' becoming mentally unstable, your children 'may' get a hold of one of your firearms, somebody (a previously convicted felon) 'may' break into your house and steel your firearms (the excuse Chicago officials used for years to ban handguns btw)...

Where's the line? Why not do the same thing with alcohol?

As for convicted felons...so if one of your parents was a convicted felon and you allowed them to take residence with you and in your home, you'd be fine with the government coming to your door to take YOUR firearms away? What if your wife went to the doctor for depression and they labeled it as 'mental illness', what then? That's essentially what you're saying if you agree with what happened in the article. It's basically guilt by association.