Guns safe?

tbburg

New member
No, that's ATFe head-games. F-troop has been doing dumb crap they shouldn't be legally allowed to do forever. No grand conspiracy here. Individual ATF agents simply want high conviction rates.
 

SBrad001

New member
Ok, so what exactly is illegal about checking dealer records and the purchaser to see if it was a legal transaction and purchase?

Isn't it illegal to transfer/give firearms to criminals and felons? So if someone buys a bunch of guns for a criminal element, isn't he or she there by committing a crime?

Just curious.
 

5-90

New member
Ok, so what exactly is illegal about checking dealer records and the purchaser to see if it was a legal transaction and purchase?

Isn't it illegal to transfer/give firearms to criminals and felons? So if someone buys a bunch of guns for a criminal element, isn't he or she there by committing a crime?

Just curious.
Yes - that's called a "Straw Man" purchase.
 

Ironmen77

#1545
Who decides what a "suspicious purchase" is? Don't they do background checks when you purchase guns? If I buy 4 handguns will ATF come knocking at my door asking why I need 4?
What if they don't like my answer or I tell them to leave my home. What then? It's the camels nose under the tent.
 

5-90

New member
Who decides what a "suspicious purchase" is? Don't they do background checks when you purchase guns? If I buy 4 handguns will ATF come knocking at my door asking why I need 4?
What if they don't like my answer or I tell them to leave my home. What then? It's the camels nose under the tent.
You'll get no argument from me. But, this is what people keep electing year after year, instead of bringing in Congresscritters with the stones to bring F Troop (and other government agencies) sharply to heel.

F Troop has been out of control since it was spun off of the Treasury Department in 1972 (which already tells you what's wrong - the IRS is also spun off of the Treasury Department...) and it's getting worse, not better...
 

RichP

New member
You will notice that there is no mention of the 120,000+ mexican army deserters over the last 2 years who took their US government supplied M-16's with them when they deserted.
Gee, I wonder why...
7,500 vs 120,000.....

whoops my bad, 160,000
 
Last edited:

WB9YZU

NAXJA Forum Supporter
Ironmen77-How would you propose to stop the flow of guns to Mexican criminals without stepping on peoples 2nd Amendment Rights here in the US?

Yes, it seems like the camels nose under the tent. But so far, it appears they are only following up on a certain profile: Location, Income, Volume.

-Ron
 

5-90

New member
Ironmen77-How would you propose to stop the flow of guns to Mexican criminals without stepping on peoples 2nd Amendment Rights here in the US?

Yes, it seems like the camels nose under the tent. But so far, it appears they are only following up on a certain profile: Location, Income, Volume.

-Ron
Profiling, done properly and effectively, is a useful tool for maximising the use of limited resources. The Israelis do it well - how many El Al flights have been hijacked in the history of the airline?

Problem with us is we don't know where to stop with profiling. Now, it's "location/income/volume" for profiling suspicious firearms purchases - and I can understand that.

But, how likely is it that it's going to stop? Especially with F Troop involved (I trust them about as far as I can throw them. Not even that far...)

I understand your point - but let me flip the question around. How would you accomplish the stated goal?
 

WB9YZU

NAXJA Forum Supporter
5-90, I'm not the one complaining or worrying that the Fed is doing something wrong, so pointing at me and asking me what my solution is, is completely pointless. I happen to agree with what the Fed is trying to do there. It appears to be a balanced response to a longstanding problem.

-Ron
 

5-90

New member
5-90, I'm not the one complaining or worrying that the Fed is doing something wrong, so pointing at me and asking me what my solution is, is completely pointless. I happen to agree with what the Fed is trying to do there. It appears to be a balanced response to a longstanding problem.

-Ron
Not pointless at all - I was just wondering if you had a proposal to balance out what is being done already, that's all.

I honestly can't think of anything myself (except letting Mexico handle things on its own, and that might lead to a more secure border after all...) but I wanted to know if you had anything to say. Often, someone who poses a question has some variety of answer in mind already - I wanted to see if it applies here.
 

Ironmen77

#1545
Ironmen77-How would you propose to stop the flow of guns to Mexican criminals without stepping on peoples 2nd Amendment Rights here in the US?

Like stated above maybe the government should quit supplying them first. Second enforce our border laws. Third why should my 2nd Amendment Rights be stepped on?

Yes, it seems like the camels nose under the tent. But so far, it appears they are only following up on a certain profile: Location, Income, Volume.

How do they know that your gun purchase was suspicious? What you buy,if you can afford it? They aren't the "decider" on what I buy. No crime has been commited until you sell your gun to them (Mexicans) has there?
Would you put up with your other "Rights" being stepped on so the Mexican government doesn't have to police their own. They don't seem to mind drugs and their people comming here. They could police their border.

-Ron
 

Ironmen77

#1545
The Federal government couldn't give two shits about illegals comming into this country, but the first chance they get to step on U.S. citizens 2nd Amendment Rights.....there's a knock on your door.
 

WB9YZU

NAXJA Forum Supporter
Not pointless at all - I was just wondering if you had a proposal to balance out what is being done already, that's all.

I honestly can't think of anything myself (except letting Mexico handle things on its own, and that might lead to a more secure border after all...) but I wanted to know if you had anything to say. Often, someone who poses a question has some variety of answer in mind already - I wanted to see if it applies here.
Again, I don't see a problem with the article, or profiling by police.
I believe it is a balanced approach to question folks who fit a certain profile. Notice that no attempt had been made to prevent the gun sales or impede 2nd Amendment Rights to gun ownership, they just wanted to talk to the purchasers who fit a certain profile. It appears to work as they appear to have caught at least a few middlemen.

If you suddenly started showing up at the bank with a regular $2k cash deposits, your account would eventually attract attention of the authorities. I see this as not much difference.

The FBI and the Mexican government identified a gun source as the US. Since it is not uncommon for us to go into other countries and ask them to collar their criminal element, it seems reasonable that we should be taking steps to prevent our criminal element from contributing to a problem on the other side of our border.

Ironmen, it is not whether the Fed gives 2 "shits" about illegals, it's that we, the citizenry as a whole does not. As we are the Government, I see this as the source of the problem.

-Ron
 

5-90

New member
Again, I don't see a problem with the article, or profiling by police.
I believe it is a balanced approach to question folks who fit a certain profile. Notice that no attempt had been made to prevent the gun sales or impede 2nd Amendment Rights to gun ownership, they just wanted to talk to the purchasers who fit a certain profile. It appears to work as they appear to have caught at least a few middlemen.
They have - and that's a good thing. I just foresee them taking it entirely too far - F Troop is not known for their restraint...

If you suddenly started showing up at the bank with a regular $2k cash deposits, your account would eventually attract attention of the authorities. I see this as not much difference.
Interesting point, this. Under current regulations, banks have to report cash transactions to/from/among individuals greater than $10K, except those that can be positively identified as "payroll." Transactions under that need not be reported to Federal law enforcement agencies. Do you propose lowering that bar, to allow the authorities' attention to be drawn that much more quickly? Again - just noodling here...

The FBI and the Mexican government identified a gun source as the US. Since it is not uncommon for us to go into other countries and ask them to collar their criminal element, it seems reasonable that we should be taking steps to prevent our criminal element from contributing to a problem on the other side of our border.
I am all in favour of bringing the criminal element to heel, but it seems like we end up doing all of the work. Perhaps I'm just not hearing about it, but what are the Mexican authorities doing about this problem - other than complaining to us? They certainly haven't been helping with the illegal immigration issue, and hadn't I been hearing in the news about how Americans holding property down in Baja California are getting the arse about it - from Mexican nationals and Mexican government? Or am I getting my wires crossed? I've nothing at all against the effort - I just sincerely hope it's not totally one-sided.

Ironmen, it is not whether the Fed gives 2 "shits" about illegals, it's that we, the citizenry as a whole does not. As we are the Government, I see this as the source of the problem.

-Ron
The citizenry as a whole apparently does not - it always comes down to individual citizens that have problems with illegal immigration. I know I do - but I have a hard time convincing others. I've written my "elected representatives" (who often aren't my choices...) about it, and it seems to get a pass - or a passover. I'm sure plenty of us are fed up with the idea - they can come up here, make their money, not pay taxes, and we end up paying for various social services for them. Medical care? I bet a good third of the people who are currently in Santa Clara Valley Medical Centre weren't born here and don't have documents saying they should be here. But, it's a County hospital. But, they tried to send me a bill for $48K - after insurance - after my last stay there. I referred them to the insurance company, let them fight it out, and SCVMC had already taken what insurance paid and weren't going to get paid any more (they ended up with some $20K, as I recall - all up.)

One of my aunts used to work at a county hospital - in the billing department. She told me that double-billing and bill padding were a common practise. The government pays less for the care of illegals than most insurance companies do, so they pad the bill (and most people just pay the thing!) in an effort to "make up the difference." There wouldn't be a difference to make up - at least, not as great - if the borders were more secure. Yes, they'd still have the welfare people going to the ER for a sniffle (that can be handled with a modification of structure - City health clinics are a good idea. Go to the clinic for a sniffle, go to the ER if you're leaking) but that would slow things down greatly.

As I'd said before - when someone asks a question about something that is "wrong", he often has at least the germ of a solution in mind. Perhaps we should kick this around to see if we can't come up with a workable solution between us? There are a lot of brains around here - more than you'll find in Washington, I'm sure - let's start putting them to some good use!
 

TJ Rat

New member
The way I see it, the government starts out with a good idea, then turns it evil by overusing and overstepping their bounds.

Take a look at the weapons down in Mexico. This is a country with one gun shop in Mexico City that is run by the government. Want to buy a gun legally, then jump through the legal hoops and you will be rewarded with an overpriced .22 in the end. Firearms are basically illegal down there, but most everyone - politicians included - who makes over 20 grand a year has at least one somewhere in the house. Since their illegal why stop with a semi-auto, get a full auto like an AK-47 or M-16. You cannot procure those easily here in the US so they are bought in quantity and smuggled into Mexico using the same airfields and ports the drugs flow out of.

My bet is the guns that are purchased legally here in the US and smuggled down to Mexico in small quantites are semi auto pistols that can be concealed. These are used as personal protection by drug lords, wealthy Mexican citizens and politicians. Less influential people get the long guns brought in from other parts of the world.

Don't believe the above? Just go down to Mexico during one of their holidays. The amount of automatic (not semi auto but full auto fire) will make it sound more like a firefight in a war zone and not a celebration. Oh yeah, do not stand to close to the window and make sure you have good overhead cover because all that lead has to come down.

Our current administration is left wing and wants to move the US towards socialism, starting at the top with Obama and working their way down. One of their major hurdles is gun ownership (the 2nd amendment). They are using inept Mexico as a start to eliminate gun ownership here in the US. Then they can more easily control the sheeple.
 

RichP

New member
My bet is the guns that are purchased legally here in the US and smuggled down to Mexico in small quantites are semi auto pistols that can be concealed. These are used as personal protection by drug lords, wealthy Mexican citizens and politicians. Less influential people get the long guns brought in from other parts of the world.

Don't believe the above? Just go down to Mexico during one of their holidays. The amount of automatic (not semi auto but full auto fire) will make it sound more like a firefight in a war zone and not a celebration. Oh yeah, do not stand to close to the window and make sure you have good overhead cover because all that lead has to come down.

Our current administration is left wing and wants to move the US towards socialism, starting at the top with Obama and working their way down. One of their major hurdles is gun ownership (the 2nd amendment). They are using inept Mexico as a start to eliminate gun ownership here in the US. Then they can more easily control the sheeple.
Do the math, you get a person in the US to go buy a 16 clone or an AK, they are going to spend $800-1000 for a semi-auto, then add in the buyers profit, no idea what that would be but it's probably over $200 so you are up to $1000-1200, then transport it and you gotta pay that guy too.
Now go on the open arms market and buy a case for maybe a couple of grand. These drug lords are not stupid, they have book keepers and accountants too, they are not going to pay 3-5 times the price when they can get it cheaper. Like I said before, lets look at the 120,000 plus Mexican army deserters and the weapons they took with them, supplied gratus of the US government aid for their war on drugs.
If it was me, I'd be buying in bulk on the open market and not paying retail for mass quantities but then maybe thats just my Scottish side showing...
 
Top