Meth-smoking white supremacist was able to buy tons of assault rifles despite felony record

Interesting hypothetical question implied:

Given the choice, would you rather live in a:

A) Nation of bankers

B) Nation of drinkers

C) Nation of gun owners.

1 Like

The story I saw claimed he bought the guns on Craigslist, but Craigslist doesn’t allow the sale of guns or ammo. So that doesn’t add up.


Also interesting, is that Bullseye is only a target range now. They used to sell guns, but to the best of my knowledge, they stopped well before 2013…

1 Like

[quote=“xeni, post:1, topic:21423”]

…and a gaggle of others smoking meth [/quote]

I think, technically, it is a pride of meth smokers.


A rush of meth smokers? A bowl of potheads? A gouch of junkies? This is fun.

Really anything’s better than bankers. I don’t own any guns, but I sure do have to say that me and mine have been fucked over a lot more by bankers than gun owners.


I’m kind of annoyed they linked the guns to the “white supremacist materials.” I’m no fan of neo-nazis, but I believe it’s still legal to think loathsome thoughts. In my book, a liberal Democrat with a shitload of guns is no better than a Fascist with a shitload of guns. It’s the guns, stupid.

Nation of drinkers, hands down. I own a gun, but am generally embarrassed by that fact, given what a completely unhinged freak show the online gun community is. The only human I’d ever aim the gun at would be a banker. I don’t drink, but I’d take it up to get rid of the gun nuts and bankers.


I just told my shotgun to kill someone. It seems loathe to do anything other than sit there in the locker.

It’s the person, stupid.


sure wish there was a way to prosecute these online gun resellers, who are no doubt doing a booming business arming anyone who could possibly want a gun for any reason… something that would establish a chain of culpability wherein sellers would be forced to verify that the people buying their shitloads of flipped guns aren’t meth smoking felons.

too bad no idea like that exists at all.

1 Like

When will you liberals ever learn? The only way to stop a BAD meth-smoking white supremacist felon with a gun, is a GOOD meth-smoking white supremacist felon with a gun.


Not black market at all. The NRA fights to make sure private sales do not require a background check. But you’re right in thinking that that loophole should be closed :wink:


the nra fights to make sure the ATF is kept hilariously toothless, as well. and it works. anyone who is going to argue that there should be less regulation and more enforcement would do well to do some research in that direction.


That’s one definition. Another is the one provided by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban:

which may be idiotic and misguided, but it is a legitimate definition.

You’re confusing “assault rifle” and “assault weapon”. Completely different things. For instance, an assault weapon is not necessarily a rifle. “Assault rifle” is a technical, universally agreed upon definition (check out Wikipedia’s). “Assault weapon” is a legal term which has different meanings depending on the laws referring to it - or defining it.

1 Like

Ah, I did not notice that distinction. Thank you. I should have read the first sentence of the paragraph I linked to better :smile:

Really? What about mandating that transfers go through an FFL, who is required to do a background check? That means that the seller, as well as the buyer, become culpable, whereas now, the seller can basically spin a yarn of BS (as occurred in this case) and have a pretty good chance walking. Technically, straw purchases are illegal, and technically there are limits on the number of private-party sales a person can make before ou is treated as a dealer and must be licensed. But practically, I don’t think there are many who are brought up on such charges.

Incidentally, some kind of kudos are due to the seller for sticking to his line of BS and running the ATF off. “I bought this gun on an impulse, then I was short on money and needed to sell it. Then I bought this OTHER gun on an impulse, and suddenly needed money and sold it. To the same guy.” It doesn’t in any way pass the smell test, but it also deftly avoids incriminating himself in any way.

because then we’d know who bought guns, limiting our second amendment right to buy a gun in 30 seconds, anonymously. plus, it would give fema and barack obama himself a list of people whose guns needs to be took.


Shoudn’t it be a cloud of meth smokers, a bong of potheads, and a spoonful of junkies?

How about, a cluster of politicians? Or a lump of bureauocrats?

1 Like

Your sarcasm lowers the tone of the conversation with little redeeming virtue. I was seriously responding to the question of how to keep guns away from prohibited persons without banning them entirely.

1 Like