Taurus Firearm Forum banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,638 Posts
ATF = After the fact. That was funny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ozzy and glenwolde

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,821 Posts
So they are going to take their guns even though they have committed no crime with them?

Oh, they are a "prohibited" person?

Does that make it OK? Is that even logical?

"We the government have deemed this individual to be too dangerous to possess firearms. Due to our inability to perform our own duties and keep up with all of the laws we create, we allowed this person to buy a gun anyway. We will now take it from them."

"Yet, we will leave them free to walk the streets as a free person. A person that is free to own knives, chainsaws, poison, gasoline, matches, explosives, rope, axes, plastic wrap, baseball bats, ice picks, the list is endless. We feel they are too dangerous to possess a firearm so we take one item away from them yet leave all those above and many more."

If a person is too dangerous to possess a firearm they need to be in an institution or jail.

Convict them or leave them alone.

Nothing else makes logical sense.



Sent from my LG-K425 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,960 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Beware, this is what is in the reciprocity concealed carry bill. Courts and agencies decide if you are allowed to have a p firearm.
You can thank Paul Ryan for this one.
I think he doesn't want it, so he mucks it up so no one wants it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,442 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,908 Posts
On a similar vein...We all know there are anti gunners out there who want them gone, period. Last night Tucker Carlson had someone on advocating almost that. As much as we all know they're out there, I've really never heard anyone say the words. He thinks classes of guns should be banned AND confiscated, or "bought back" by the government. He actual comes off as a sane, intelligent person until you hear his words. Of course like most anti-gunners who doesn't know the difference between a scary "assault" rifle and a semi auto 30-06 deer rifle. Spoiler alert there is none. Well actually the deer rifle is more deadly. Tucker asked him if he was prepared for a civil war lol. Anyway interesting interview.

 
  • Like
Reactions: darbo

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,196 Posts
So... Let me get this straight... The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was faulty, allowed thousands of criminal or otherwise criminally insane individuals to purchase firearms which they should not have been able to, (which in one recent instance resulted in a mass shooting) yet these people haven't been incarcerated and are free to walk the streets in spite of being so potentially dangerous?
I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense at all to me... If they're that dangerous, then they shouldn't be walking free, and the fact that they are (or were supposed to be) banned from owning firearms doesn't make them any less dangerous! Heck, if anything, their inability to own firearms only increases their potential for death/destruction because if these folks are intent on harming others, then their ban from owning firearms would likely prompt them to use potentially more destructive weapons like homemade explosives (i.e. Pipe Bombs) or incendiary devices, (i.e. Molotov Cocktails) ergo if they have been found to have such extremely violent tendencies that they are banned from owning firearms, then they ought to be incarcerated.

Furthermore, attempting to retrieve firearms from these individuals is likely to provoke a violent response, thus resulting in the potential injury/death of Federal Agents as well as the civilian population.
Hopefully they're sending S.W.A.T. Teams to retrieve these weapons and that once these individuals inevitably respond with violence that they'll be taken in, locked up, and kept that way for their own safety as well as others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,841 Posts
On a similar vein...We all know there are anti gunners out there who want them gone, period. Last night Tucker Carlson had someone on advocating almost that. As much as we all know they're out there, I've really never heard anyone say the words. He thinks classes of guns should be banned AND confiscated, or "bought back" by the government. He actual comes off as a sane, intelligent person until you hear his words. Of course like most anti-gunners who doesn't know the difference between a scary "assault" rifle and a semi auto 30-06 deer rifle. Spoiler alert there is none. Well actually the deer rifle is more deadly. Tucker asked him if he was prepared for a civil war lol. Anyway interesting interview.

I think the message of the interview here is completely true but the way he went about making the guy look like an oaf was distasteful. Don't call for a respectable conversation on a possible resolution and then turn around and behave that way. I mean, I agree with the guy but there's a better way to go about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,137 Posts
So what happens when one of these people who wasn't supposed to be able to purchase a firearm tells the confiscators they sold it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,908 Posts
So what happens when one of these people who wasn't supposed to be able to purchase a firearm tells the confiscators they sold it?
Yeah sold it, lost it, it was stolen. Those guns are never coming back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,841 Posts
Yeah sold it, lost it, it was stolen. Those guns are never coming back.
I've heard some forum members lost their collection in a boat accident in Key Largo. Things happen ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,908 Posts
I've heard some forum members lost their collection in a boat accident in Key Largo. Things happen ;)
Oh Lord the FBI would never buy that lame story! Obviously a lie. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: jtg452

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,711 Posts
Oh Lord the FBI would never buy that lame story! Obviously a lie. :D
It's at least as believable as the ATF's excuses for Fast and Furious.:p

I'm waiting for announcement that Granny Bloomberg or the Brady Bunch have started the law suits against the shops that followed the law and gave these folks their guns after the 72 hour window for the FBI to complete the background check closed.

That 72 hour window was put into the legislation intentionally and for a specific purpose. It keeps the Feds on their toes and working to do the checks instead of delaying every purchase until they 'get around' to doing the check. As it stands, the default answer to every NCIC check is 'proceed' unless specifically told otherwise.

When you call one in, there's only 3 answers you can get, 'Proceed', "Delay', and 'Decline'. If you get ''Delay', you have to wait 72 hours for an answer back. If you don't get an answer back in 72 hours, then it is automatically changed to 'proceed' after a 3 day wait instead of cash and carry with an instant confirmation.

If you do away with that window and make the background check time frame open ended, then every purchase is at the FBI's pleasure because the mandatory background check will be completed at their leisure.

The Texas shooter passed NCIC background checks because one Federal department (the US military, specifically the Air Force) wasn't following the law and informing the other Federal department (the FBI) of a conviction of a crime (domestic abuse) that would have led to his purchase getting a 'Declined'. That's not a failure of the existing system. It was a failure of entering the proper information into said system at the Federal level.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,711 Posts
It's more believable than the lies Comey told to protect Hillary.
What? You don't believe that Loretta and Slick Willy were swapping pictures and tales of their grandkids?

In a private jet? On the tarmac of an airport clear across the country from where they both live? Of course they were! you know how grandparents are. If you sit beside them for more than 60 seconds, they are pulling out pictures of the grandbabies.
What else could they possibly be discussing?
:icon_rolleyes::blink::ponder::c-yes2:
 
  • Like
Reactions: TonyC2639

·
Moderator
Joined
·
22,942 Posts
Honestly, I don't give two warm buckets of hamster vomit about the Phoenix phabrication. The corruption was obvious months before that for anyone who cared. The only thing remarkable about the tarmac tango was how brazen it was.

What I don't believe are all the cases in which obviously good people with years/decades of dedicated service to our nation made a simple error and their careers were ruined over it. The sailor in the sumbmarine is one of the better known examples. When you're a nobody, the fact that the law in question doesn't require intent to establish guilt means one innocent slip, and your career is over. But when Jame-vacuum-spine-Comey is looking out for you, you can sign something acknowledging the security requirements, refuse offers to be handed a government Blackberry, set up a series of servers in your home, and that's not intent - which, again, the law doesn't require to establish guilt.

James Comey, if you ever read this, I hope you know that there are tens or hundreds of thousands of people who have decades of knowledge that shows you are a duplicitous, self-righteous, cowardly traitor to the nation you deceitfully vowed to serve. And it's only the rules of use that prevent me from expressing myself even more clearly, which is probably for the best. You turd.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top