Why We Call them “Gun Grabbers”

This exchange is Washington State simply sums it up PERFECTLY!

So this is in response to an anti-gun bill that FORCES police departments to destroy all guns seized by police. (I will note that if the department decides to destroy one or all the guns transferred to the police department, they still can)

His argument is that if a heroin dealer’s gun is sold to an FFL (which will help pad the department’s budget…something you always hear about whenever a department is asked) it MIGHT end up back in the hands of another bad person.

When questioned in turn if in fact those sales would be done through an FFL with a background check (Which BTW is the ONLY legal way for a police department to transfer a gun to a private individual who is not already the rightful owner…both in Washington which has the stupid Universal Background Check law, but federally under the Gun Control act of 1968), he notes that indeed all guns formally in police custody are only sold with background checks but “There is always that chance…”

This of course begs the question: If said heroin dealer is locked up, and his gun seized as a forfeiture, and is then sold to XYZ Gun and Pawn down the street has some inherent risk of getting back into the hands of another dangerous person (let alone the SAME dangerous person, thanks to the revolving door criminal justice system), what is the difference between THAT gun, and every other gun sitting beside it in the used rack?
What’s the difference between those guns and the guns in the USED racks?
Why were you so eager to push “Universal Background Checks”, but can’t even trust transferring the gun to an O1 or 02 FFL? I mean we now trust PRIVATE CITIZENS to own guns and not illegally transfer them!!!

For the longest time when an anti-gun bill was suggested, us pro-gun forces called it out as an incremental step to confiscation and outlaw of private firearms. We were mocked at paranoid for such conjecture.

using Occam’s Razor, can you see ANY other rational motivation for this?

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Politics, Safety. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Why We Call them “Gun Grabbers”

  1. McThag says:

    I think the rationale is that eventually there won’t be any used guns in that rack at the pawn shop because they’ll eventually destroy them all.

    Yes, their rationale makes tissue look as thick as battleship armor.

  2. Cargosquid says:

    Typical gun control bigot evasiveness. They CANNOT admit their goals.

  3. Archer says:

    They believe an object can gain an evil intent (I can’t remember or find the word for this). They believe in supernatural curses.

    If he’s reticent to sell or transfer a “crime gun” even with a background check based on the off-chance it could “fall into the wrong hands” again, but other used guns are OK, the only logical explanation is he believes the gun has been tainted by its previous criminal use and cannot — or at least, is less likely to — be used for good.

    Funny thing, though: I don’t seem him arguing that the shovel used to bash someone in the head (and then again to subsequently bury them) should be destroyed rather than resold. I also don’t see him arguing that the Mercedes Benz used to run over someone and then transport the body to the woods should be destroyed rather than resold (at a significant gain to the PD, I might add). “Guns are different, because they are different,” maybe?

  4. Braden Lynch says:

    Jealousy.

    Only guns in the hands of the police are good. All others, especially those in the hands of those dirty revolting subjects, are bad. They disrespect the authority of the police.

    We can’t have citizens armed or they might not need to lick the boots of the police for their protection. They could tell the government “no” when they want to give our hard earned savings accounts a “haircut” to pay off our national debt. We might use them to negate a stolen election or a quest by someone to be “President for life” or some other abuse.

    Citizens are scary.
    If they are armed the might threaten to resist illegal orders. The ultimate defiance being they could resist an order to surrender their arms for confiscation with some thing harsher than micro-aggression hurtful words.

  5. WallPhone says:

    Archer: Deodand

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.