- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Shooter bought guns himself. Passed 30 FBI background checks.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 2:55 pm to Ace Midnight
Posted on 10/3/17 at 2:55 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
nation's 100 million or so guns
Closer to 275 million
1
Posted on 10/3/17 at 2:56 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
10+ guns in 6 months should trigger something, don't you think?
I could possibly be on board with that, but what does the "trigger" do at that point?
Guy was apparently passing every check with flying colors. What then? Okay, you cut him off at 10. How does that prevent this really?
Posted on 10/3/17 at 2:56 pm to mmcgrath
So if I decide to be a hunter again and I go out and buy 3 for Deer, 2 for bird, some for squirrel, and a couple of skeet/pigeon rifles yet I have broken no law or caused any issue and passed all background checks. I should not be allowed to purchase?
That goes against everything in the Constitution and the reason for the 2nd amendment is not so we can go hunting, but to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government.
That goes against everything in the Constitution and the reason for the 2nd amendment is not so we can go hunting, but to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government.
This post was edited on 10/3/17 at 2:58 pm
Posted on 10/3/17 at 2:58 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
10+ guns in 6 months should trigger something, don't you think?
To paraphrase an old saying: "I'm not afraid of the guy that wants 28 guns. I'm afraid of the guy that just wants one."
Posted on 10/3/17 at 3:00 pm to Rougarou13
quote:
Closer to 275 million
Fair enough - I stand corrected. Obama did sell a lot of guns.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 3:00 pm to Kino74
quote:
They did the worst job possible with Hillary and as for background checks, they have had issues long before this incident.
There was no "issue" related to this incident based on current facts. He had nothing on his record that would have red-flagged him or prevented him from acquiring guns.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 3:02 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Didnt Ms Cleo pass away a couple of years ago?
She didn't see the IRS coming after her before she died anyway.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 3:09 pm to tigerterrace
quote:ever heard of a collector?
Maybe something should be in place to say that if someone has registered more than 10 guns that person should have to be registered as a dealer or investigated further.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 3:13 pm to someoneBEE
One would think that by the time he'd submitted 27 background checks, someone should be asking, "Why is this guy buying 27 firearms requiring background checks?" Then he's on 28. Then 29. Then 30. That IS his background by then, don't you think?
Posted on 10/3/17 at 3:15 pm to TennesseeFan25
quote:
Then the fricking system that’s constantly touted doesn’t God damn work. Make all the excuses you want, but this changed so many families forever and it’s bullshite
How would you suggest that we test people for guns? He had no prior record, no mental health issues, and no inkling of any thought of doing this. He passed all background checks.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 3:16 pm to narddogg81
quote:A collector who specializes in retail purchases of common rifles? No.
ever heard of a collector?
Posted on 10/3/17 at 3:17 pm to TBoy
quote:
Why is this guy buying 27 firearms requiring background checks?" Then he's on 28. Then 29. Then 30. That IS his background by then, don't you think?
Do you know how many people in the south have that many firearms or more? Hell im relatively young and I’ve bought at least 15-20.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 3:17 pm to TBoy
I think by background check that means what he's bought from a FFL. Honestly he did the most legal thing by going to the same few shops.
NV & TX has some of the loosest laws when it comes to buying and what you can obtain. Regardless if it was 1 gun or 27 , the guy could have killed more with just one weapon.
Btw I'm pro gun , but just pointing this out.
NV & TX has some of the loosest laws when it comes to buying and what you can obtain. Regardless if it was 1 gun or 27 , the guy could have killed more with just one weapon.
Btw I'm pro gun , but just pointing this out.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 3:19 pm to momentoftruth87
quote:
the guy could have killed more with just one weapon.
This, I’m not really sure what the amount of guns he had matters.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 3:20 pm to TBoy
quote:
One would think that by the time he'd submitted 27 background checks, someone should be asking, "Why is this guy buying 27 firearms requiring background checks?" Then he's on 28. Then 29. Then 30. That IS his background by then, don't you think?
So what? I have well let's just say SEVERAL hundred guns. I'm no danger to anyone simply because I HAVE The guns. Hell several of them are fully automatic (I have the appropriate paperwork thank you very much)
Here's a question. How can the very same people who oppose requiring ID to vote turn around and say "we need to make it harder on people who are legally buying guns?"
Now, I could possibly get on board with the FBI having a talk with a person who's suddenly bought 5 or 6 semi automatic assault weapons and the ammunition to go with them in a very short time frame, but just a blanket of "you bought 6 guns, time to investigate you?"
Posted on 10/3/17 at 3:21 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:An additional level of screening. The current background checks only require a clean record.
I could possibly be on board with that, but what does the "trigger" do at that point?
Guy was apparently passing every check with flying colors. What then? Okay, you cut him off at 10. How does that prevent this really?
Additional screening would pick up on the fact that he was buying one or two guns at a time at different gun shops. Such a pattern would indicate that he was trying to avoid detection.
Also you it could trigger a closer watch on the guy. Immediate alarms should go off when he purchases large amounts of am and even more guns at different gun shops, bump fire stocks, mounts, etc.
He had explosives at his home. A home visit could have caught that.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 3:22 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
A collector who specializes in retail purchases of common rifles? No.
I have SIX AR15s. Among other guns. Does that make me dangerous? Of course it doesn't.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 3:26 pm to someoneBEE
The theory of the system is that it keeps 'bad guys' from buying guns.
Before 2 days ago he wasn't a 'bad guy'.
The system worked.
Before 2 days ago he wasn't a 'bad guy'.
The system worked.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 3:27 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
An additional level of screening. The current background checks only require a clean record.
Additional screening would pick up on the fact that he was buying one or two guns at a time at different gun shops. Such a pattern would indicate that he was trying to avoid detection.
Also you it could trigger a closer watch on the guy. Immediate alarms should go off when he purchases large amounts of am and even more guns at different gun shops, bump fire stocks, mounts, etc.
He had explosives at his home. A home visit could have caught that.
I bet if we did this for being eligible to vote we could cut way down on voter fraud! It's a brilliant idea! Let's do this, requirements for casting a ballot!
I bet it would also work for those wishing to speech publicly too! Or for the Elks and Moose and Kiwanis and Shriner's to hold assembly!
Posted on 10/3/17 at 3:32 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
An additional level of screening. The current background checks only require a clean record.
Additional screening would pick up on the fact that he was buying one or two guns at a time at different gun shops. Such a pattern would indicate that he was trying to avoid detection.
Also you it could trigger a closer watch on the guy. Immediate alarms should go off when he purchases large amounts of am and even more guns at different gun shops, bump fire stocks, mounts, etc.
He had explosives at his home. A home visit could have caught that.
Frick this. Too invasive. We don't need the federal government coming to our houses and investigating us because we legally purchase firearms, ammunition, and accessories. Where does it stop?
If you buy some fertilizer should the fed come out to make sure it's for your garden?
If you buy booze should the cops follow you home to make sure you're being responsible?
The answer is no. The only one to blame for this is Paddock and making up reactionary regulations won't bring anybody back or stop the next attack. The last thing we need is more invasions of our privacy.
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News