MNGunTalk.com

"Buy guns illegally". I for one dislike the phrase "illegal guns" because that implies the guns themselves are contraband. And how many news articles about police raids on alleged drug dealers and gang members feel compelled to add that "guns were found/seized". Only in Kalifornia is it likely that the guns themselves are actually illegal.

Lumpy wrote:"Buy guns illegally". I for one dislike the phrase "illegal guns" because that implies the guns themselves are contraband. And how many news articles about police raids on alleged drug dealers and gang members feel compelled to add that "guns were found/seized". Only in Kalifornia is it likely that the guns themselves are actually illegal.

Maybe I need to set up a sanctuary house where these “illegal” guns can flourish and live their lives.

Ghost wrote:

Lumpy wrote:"Buy guns illegally". I for one dislike the phrase "illegal guns" because that implies the guns themselves are contraband. And how many news articles about police raids on alleged drug dealers and gang members feel compelled to add that "guns were found/seized". Only in Kalifornia is it likely that the guns themselves are actually illegal.

Maybe I need to set up a sanctuary house where these “illegal” guns can flourish and live their lives.

The politically correct phrase is "undocumented guns".

I have long declared my safe as a "Santuary Safe" where all guns are welcome. Even Glocks!

I hope the Dem's choke on the report. Just like the swap meets. I looked at one to buy and was required to fill out the paperwork, just like buying at cabelas. But of course those 2 idiots won't go on national tv and tell the public their findings!

So.... Can we arrest them for attempting an illegal transfer or is that not politically correct?

Holland&Holland wrote:So.... Can we arrest them for attempting an illegal transfer or is that not politically correct?

Unless they were actual prohibited persons, would the transfers have been illegal? They were representing themselves as prohibited in order to attempt to get someone else to allow a supposedly illegal transfer to occur, but does that misrepresentation in fact make an otherwise legal transfer illegal? I'm absolutely with you in spirit, but I'm curious whether an actual crime would have been committed in this case, or just something that was perceived to be a crime by one party in the transfer.

andrewP wrote:

Holland&Holland wrote:So.... Can we arrest them for attempting an illegal transfer or is that not politically correct?

Unless they were actual prohibited persons, would the transfers have been illegal? They were representing themselves as prohibited in order to attempt to get someone else to allow a supposedly illegal transfer to occur, but does that misrepresentation in fact make an otherwise legal transfer illegal? I'm absolutely with you in spirit, but I'm curious whether an actual crime would have been committed in this case, or just something that was perceived to be a crime by one party in the transfer.

Seriously you don’t think they are prohibited?

I am guessing if anyone actually looked into it you would find some laws broken.

But they were not intending to break any laws and that is all you need on the left.

Holland&Holland wrote:So.... Can we arrest them for attempting an illegal transfer or is that not politically correct?

Bet it would depend on who was charging them. I have a neighbor while on the farm shot someone's dog, they called the game warden and the guy said that he thought it was a Wolf stocking his livestock, he was charged for shooting a Wolf and now lives in town. Oh wait, a Democrat, it's ok then. I can't understand why they get away with everything.

When personal freedom is being abused, you have to move to limit it."
- Bill Clinton

Holland&Holland wrote:Seriously you don’t think they are prohibited?

I'm not assuming facts not in evidence and asking a (mostly) theoretical question out of curiosity, that's all.

As seen on TV cop shows if you are selling drugs ( to an undercover cop) that are in reality soap, they still get arrested.

andrewP wrote:

Holland&Holland wrote:Seriously you don’t think they are prohibited?

I'm not assuming facts not in evidence and asking a (mostly) theoretical question out of curiosity, that's all.

In theory, if there is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, it should at least be investigated. Facts in evidence are for the trial...

The Anti's are complaining that the problem with the test was that they volunteered information that would disqualify them from being able to legally obtain a firearm. They want them to go back and lie to see if that changes the outcome. . .

harryset wrote:The Anti's are complaining that the problem with the test was that they volunteered information that would disqualify them from being able to legally obtain a firearm. They want them to go back and lie to see if that changes the outcome. . .

So then they will be surprised if a person who is not prohibited is able to purchase a gun???? How would that make sense? Or are they saying they will have prohibited people lie? Sounds like fast and furious has become slow and slightly annoyed.