Hey, Tuck- my father is a white male longarm owner who enjoys his legal devil’s lettuce, Duke Nukem/Doom on the PC, and has been with the same woman since he was 15. You know what? He has never come close to harming anyone and believes we need better gun control in this country.
To paraphrase something he once said: all guns can kill, but some were made for murder.
Well, now that he’s said something like that, he’s probably just a GINO (gun-owner in name only) in their eyes. A real gun owner should have something that is belt-fed. Even better if they have several of them, enough for an arsenal. You know, for hunting and protecting against robbery/home invasion. Oh, and the freedom.
When Malcolm X stated not so very long ago, that ‘the chickens were coming home to roost,’ little did he know that he was only scratching the surface; this current state of ceaseless fuckery is what that really looks like.
Just read the most bizzare article on CNN. The police chief says “We literally have nothing on him …He was not potentially involved in anything.”
But in fact they confiscated 16 knives, a dagger and a sword from him before when he was threatening to kill his family. They looked into whether he had a gun licence that could be revoked but he didn’t have one. Just 3 months later he applied for one any was granted it. He later passed 4 background checks to buy 7 guns.
I feel like that’s the appropriate response to anything Tucker says.
"To rebut what Mr. Carlson just said, let me just say [/fart noise] "
Though ideally, Carlson would be continuously drowned out by raspberries every time he opened his mouth.
To be fair, his family - specifically his father, a local Republican politician - shares a great deal of responsibility. His family didn’t press charges, so his threats didn’t cause an issue with the background check and his father helped him get the gun the couple months after the threats, going to far as to sponsored his gun permit application.
The background check shouldn’t be based on previous convictions only. They knew he was dangerous and they appear to have been prepared to take his gun card off him if he had one. How can you confiscate a sword then allow that same person to have a gun? He is an adult, it is not his family’s job to police him, it is the police’s job.
It may be the state’s fault for having laws that allowed him to have those guns but shifting the blame onto the family is nonsense.
Unfortunately gun ownership is specially enshrined as a right, and do you permanently take away someone’s rights over a mere accusation?* When the accuser doesn’t even want any action taken, apparently? I don’t know how much room the police actually had to act, in this case. (*I mean, I would say “yes” because I think the idea of gun ownership as a right is completely bullshit.)
The thing is, his father wasn’t just failing to police his son, he was actively helping him get a firearm (to the point where he was taking legal responsibility for it) when he knew his son had been making serious threats a few months earlier. If the people who ostensibly knew him best and were the subject of his threats were saying, “He’s fine to have a gun now,” then I’m not sure what the cops were supposed to do in the current system.
It wasn’t just an accusation it was an incident they responded to and they took away his sword which he has a constitutional right to bear. There are many criteria in Illinois that they use to take away a person’s right to bear arms.
If the people who ostensibly knew him best and were the subject of his threats were saying, “He’s fine to have a gun now,”
It is irrelevant what they say. They are not experts on the issue in any way.