David and Daniel Grinnel were recently busted for illegal gun possession in their quiet Nassau County, New York subdivision. As wnyt.com tells the story, “They’re under arrest on federal weapons charges. Police said they found 16 long guns in their home. Some of the weapons were modified to make them illegal, including sawed off barrels, fully automatic and collapsible stocks. Police also found nine handguns and high capacity ammunition magazines. They said neither Grinnells had a New York State pistol permit.” And we heard about it because a reader emailed us claiming that, “I helped bust him (I was aided by a fellow IRC chatter)” . . .
I read TTAG a lot, and I wanted to know how you guys feel about the morality of gun owners reporting illegal guns?
We reported him because he made a lot of comments that we felt were not jokes but actual serious declarations of violence and of an unstable mindset. It to me was not so much about the fact he had illegal guns but the fact that he seemed crazy.
The divisiveness on IRC ran the gamut from “they did nothing wrong and you are total bastards for reporting them” to “you guys did the right thing, the laws suck but don’t break ’em”. I wonder where most TTAG readers stand.
Which made us wonder, too. Have you ever dropped a dime on a gun owner you thought was dangerous – either to himself or others? Would you?
I would say the word “crazy” might warrant a phone call. I’ve known people with fully automatic weapons, teflon coated bullets, I found none of them to be “crazy”, so I didn’t worry about it…however, someone who doesn’t have a knowledge, appreciation and fondness for firearms might think we are all crazy, so I guess it’s relative.
People might say I’m crazy. Here I am, surrounded by a bunch of pro-government bootlicks, spouting off about how the government is bullshit, cops are criminals, so on & so forth.
How long until one of you lousy rats decides to call the cops on me for my crimethink?
+1000 for the 1984 ref
Havent dropped the cops on anyone, called a few serial numbers into the ATF before buying them before. I think the user is in the right frame of mind if he has known an individual for a long time, and watches that person lose it, or is in the process of losing it. If he incessantly nagged about wanting to shoot certain people or places or things.
There are a lot of pretty common warning signs associated with the process of people losing their s!ht. Hurting small animals for fun and what-not.
People still IRC?
….gopher servers are the bomb!! (Wait until I get my own usenet feed.)
I was wondering if there’s an “alt.chat.TTAG” usenet group yet?
As implied by Age Quod Agis, those who fear guns will consider those who appreciate them crazy. I have to live with that thought even though I am known in the community. At least one neighbor has questioned why I need a gun, much less more than one. Most of my neighbors will ask my opinion about guns, to which I usually direct them to more expert people.
As to what it would take for me to turn in another gun owner? Probably unsafe handling in a public place. Read – pointing at and pretending to shoot neighbors, and not responding to request to tone down and put it away.
No, I would never report them for doing any of that and it’s a pretty lowlife thing to do. There’s a good chance they’re now going to end up in prison and sexually assaulted. Why? Because they violated B.S. mala prohibita laws that infringe on our rights and the person who reported them has blood on their hands if anything happens to them in the joint.
If they made specific threats and I thought they were serious I might, but I don’t tend to hang out with crazy people anyway.
I guess we need the occasional post to draw out the far end of the gun owner spectrum.
My philosophy is to live and let live. Since they weren’t harming anyone else why report them?
And the guy who did turn them in didn’t even give us any examples of the threats this person allegedly issued so he should expect scorn and skepticism.
everybody just loves a rat, huh?
Oh, er…. I mean the GUBBERMINT loves a rat!
Don’t worry though, this subject will be a moot issue once they perfect their drones by adding the new laser “sniffers” that can detect chemicals down to the molecular level.
The “man” who reported them is a piece of trash. He is representative of why this country is doomed. If only there were more people like these innocent property owners who disregarded master’s mala prohibita we might have a fighting chance.
I’m going to go throw up now.
I didn’t read where he made viable threatening comments, my apologies. That’s different. Ownership of objects deemed “illegal” by master, would not ever enter into my thinking. That is what I meant to say.
They’re still gonna get locked up because of what? Words?
No, they’re gonna be locked up because they own prohibited items.
The spectrum goes even further than I thought.
would you report someone for smoking pot? growing pot in their house?
smoking meth? cooking meth in their house?
Could you would you call the cops?
Nope, as long as they leave me and other people who don’t want to be involved with their drug B.S. out of it.
Meth? Definitely. Large scale pot operation? Definitely. Couple of plants for home use? No.
A neighbor cooking meth in their house, you bet I’m calling! It’s a toxic bomb waiting to explode or poison the whole neighborhood. Smoking meth? probably, because they will soon be stealing my stuff to pay for their drug addiction. Smoking a joint? probably not. growing a couple of plants for personal use, probably not, growing 500 plants for retail sale? Yeah, I’m calling because I don’t want the kind of riff raff in the neighborhood that kind of business brings.
“We reported him because he made a lot of comments that we felt were not jokes but actual serious declarations of violence and of an unstable mindset. It to me was not so much about the fact he had illegal guns but the fact that he seemed crazy.”
I think they did the right thing, I would have done the same. If a non-military or non-LE individual is seriously talking about offensive action they need a visit from the cops.
I wouldn’t try reasoning with them for fear of inviting violence on myself or my family. I would hate doing it but I would call the police.
And no, I haven’t done it before.
So do you think it’s okay if a member of the military or police officer is talking about committing criminal violence? Because your comment is kind of unclear.
“So do you think it’s okay if a member of the military or police officer is talking about committing criminal violence?”
No, of course not, nothing I said implied that.
You don’t think saying “If a non-military or non-LE individual is seriously talking about offensive action they need a visit from the cops.” implies that you support cops and soldiers doing whatever they want?
@Totenglocke
“You don’t think saying ‘If a non-military or non-LE individual is seriously talking about offensive action they need a visit from the cops.’ implies that you support cops and soldiers doing whatever they want?”
Of course not. He is merely stating that law enforcement and military personnel are the only people who should be planning or executing an offensive action (under valid and proper orders).
If a non-military or non-LE individual is seriously talking about offensive action they need a visit from the cops.
So it’s OK for a cop or soldier to assault people just for kicks, but for a peasant to do the same is a big no-no?
I think you’re taking his words out of context. Military and police may be talking about “offensive action” because it is part of their legitimate jobs. Could that “offensive action” be abused? Clearly. Is it more likely that a police officer or soldier is talking about legitimate “offensive action” than a random citizen? Yes.
It sounds more like CinSC is thinking along the lines of insurgency than random assaults.
Right, because rather than actually go by what he wrote, which was “If a non-military or non-LE individual is seriously talking about offensive action they need a visit from the cops.“, we should play mental jump rope to come up with a way that his statement makes cops / soldiers look like they can do no wrong.
I think they did the right thing, I would have done the same. If a non-military or non-LE individual is seriously talking about offensive action they need a visit from the cops. I wouldn’t try reasoning with them for fear of inviting violence on myself or my family. I would hate doing it but I would call the police.
What a coward you are. And it certainly doesn’t sound like you would hate doing it, I would be surprised if you focused on what you did the next time you squeezed one off.
When the phrases “serious declarations of violence” and “he seemed crazy” show up in a situation with weapons involved I think there’s cause to be concerned. I’ll say it again, I have a family.
I agree.
I’ve advocated violence at TTAG, and i’m sure half the people here think i’m crazy.
I’m pretty sure most people here have been “serious declarations of violence” when they said they would shoot someone who entered their home. And ask any anti-gunner, they’ll say those people are crazy.
“What a coward you are.”
BTW: I don’t know why this doesn’t qualify as a flame.
it was in response to ” I wouldn’t try reasoning with them for fear of inviting violence on myself or my family.” its not a flame, it is a statement of fact.
if you want a flame, man up and grow some balls, stop running to authority whenever something makes you feel uneasy.
please point out why he is a coward?
that is a baseless, bullshit personal attack if you ask me.
I agree 100%. If somebody is talking about offensive action, they need to get reported. Dealing with them on a individual level is a pretty stupid thing to do, especially since it draws unnecessary attention to you and your family.
People, dont get your underwear in a bundle. I would have reported them too. There is a difference between a huge miscarriage of justice and a couple of nutters getting pinched.
We have to get out of this statist paradigm of judging people by their potential to do harm. An increased likelihood of harming others is not a crime… a true crime occurs only when someone is actually harmed.
I am not suggesting being unwary of “crazy” people or others with an increased risk, but given our current legal system, reporting these guys and effectively ruining their lives when they’ve harmed no one is unjust and immoral.
I agree with Henry. I would make an exception for a formal conspiracy to murder people. When a person or group of people formally plan to murder someone or a group of people, I would then turn them in. Otherwise I would leave them alone.
And I would definitely NOT turn them in simply because they had short barreled rifles or shotguns.
I agree with Henry. The tattletale should have waiting until the folks shot up a theater or a school or something, then reported ’em.
Ralph, was that irony? Are you really saying you agree with reporting folks to the cops in some cases?
the statist paradigm exists. My advice is if you dont want to get pinched, appear normal and dont draw unnecessary attention to yourself. This is the 21st century american patriot act, and NDAA, era. Expect more flagrant statism in the near future.
Right. One must be discreet. Mouthing off to just about anyone that you have what might be illegal weapons – or any amount of weapons – is not smart.
The only things I talk about are my carry pistol and a couple long guns I shoot at the range. No one needs to know anything else.
And i have to agree with Henry. To cause the arrest of someone essentially for something that talked about doing but didn’t do… I’ve got a problem with that.
its no different than people bragging about their SHTF stash, their large quantities of food storage, arsenal.
The first rule is OPSEC. always STFU and smile.
Guns are inanimate objects. I think we should be able to own them in whatever variant we’d like, and the laws should revolve around harming others and their property, not what characteristics those inanimate objects have.
I personally follow the law as closely as possible, and have a few NFA items which are all registered. I disagree with the laws, but decided it’s a lot less risky to follow them and spend a little more to get what I want rather than risk federal prison.
That said, if someone else chooses to not follow a law I completely disagree with, that’s their business. If they’re not hurting anybody, I don’t care what they own. I’ve seen a couple things at the range which I believed to be illegal and simply left. But I’ve also left the range other times because (other) people were handling guns unsafely.
“We have to get out of this statist paradigm of judging people by their potential to do harm. An increased likelihood of harming others is not a crime… a true crime occurs only when someone is actually harmed.”
Not so much unless you define true crime only as disobeying laws you agree with. I guess the moral of the story is if you’ve rationally come to the conclusion that you’re going to break laws that you disagree with, you probably shouldn’t run your mouth and bring attention to that fact. Much easier to stand up and defend your breaking of the original law when you’ve done or said nothing at all that validates the arguments put forth by those who support those laws. Communities in general (such as gun owners) usually invite regulation from the outside when they fail to police themselves from the inside and instead tolerate all behavior in the name of some cause….
“Communities in general (such as gun owners) usually invite regulation from the outside when they fail to police themselves from the inside and instead tolerate all behavior in the name of some cause….”
Damn those gun owners. Inviting legislation severely restricting automatic weapons by robbing banks and being parts of gangs in the 30s!
Oh wait.
I define a true crime as some action in which another person or his property is harmed. No victim, no crime.
Breaking the “law” is not necessarily commiting a crime, although I agree that if one decides to break the “law,” he should keep his mouth shut about it. Personally, I would only report criminals, not “law” breakers.
I can see the distinction between crime and law breaking. I’m a bit torn on the issue, I agree that talk isn’t a crime, but I can’t imagine I’d feel too good about myself or justified in my lack of action if the talk turned into action. The notion of internet fantasies and such doesn’t seem like much of an excuse, as a gun owner, I basically have a zero tolerance policy for myself when it comes to the macho talk or fantasizing. It serves no purpose other than to reinforce the beliefs of gun grabbers. My goal is generally to behave in a way that flies in the face of the caricature they like to promote for gun owners, and I suspect that would lead me to take some sort of action if someone was making threats, etc.
A little confused on the original story. If all the guy did was report someone for making threats, and that person ended up having the illegal guns, it’s not fair at all to place the consequences on the person doing the reporting. I’m not sure the illegal guns matter though, is the person who turned them in implying that if all the guns were owned legally he wouldn’t have reported the threats? That doesn’t seem to make much sense to me.
No victim, no crime
What you mean is: no body, no crime.
Snitches get stiches
Thank you, Snoop Dog.
I seem to recall hearing something else about that:
” we felt” . before you send someone and their son away for 20 years in the federal pen, I would have at least talked to them on the phone or met with them. since they were already talking to you online, why not call them up for a little personal one on one to get a better assessment?
since the news report didn’t list ” felon in possesion” charges it is safe to say the guy made it to 54 without hurting anyone.
internet talk is cheap and a lot of people lead fantasy lives there. hope you were right, cause if they were just mouthing off and doing stupid things in their basement , their lives have been ruined for it.
I ahve always cooperated with LE. testiied in a b and e and been on jury duty several times. but I would not initiate action aginst someone unless I had solid evedince they ment to do harm to someone.
Dude did not get these guys sent away because “he felt”. They will be sent away for possessing illegal weapons.
let’s see. i call the man and tell him i’d like to meet and discuss his threats of violence with his illegal weapons. if he doesn’t agree i’m going to contact the cops. if he comes to the meet with a shovel and some quiclime what’s tour next move.
you watch too many movies and cringe too much. what part of “no criminal record an 54 yrs old” don’t make sense to you? .
do you call the cops and report child abuse every time you hear a kid cry in a store? could be abuse, and if you went to the see for sure , the parent will see you looking at them. heck, anyone who would abuse a child is clearly violent and dangerous, so you wouldn’t want them to see you noticing what they are doing, they might hurt you.
so following you line of reasoning , social services will be very busy.
Two years ago, a 52 year old guy told people “you wont see me alive again – there’s going to be a rampage here tomorrow.”
Nobody took him seriously & within 24 hours twelve people were shot dead & another eleven wounded.
The killer was Derrick Bird, an old acquaintance & neighbour of mine & the UK’s latest mass murderer.
It’s a pity those who witnessed him saying those words didn’t report what he said – especially for the one who was killed & the other who lost his arm.
I don’t ever recall being around people who I thought were handling their weapons dangerously. But I think that in large part it boils down to perception.
I note the words the person used in justifying turning in the father/son. “we felt were not jokes…”, “he seemed crazy…” He even says the reason for bringing this up is “to know how you guys feel…”.
From what I’ve read this guy was led more by emotion than by reason. It’s been my experience (anecdote) that liberals tend to emote more than they think. It would have been helpful had he stated what the jokes were that “he felt” were not joke. Also what passes for “seeming crazy?” If he comes here to have us pass judgement on his actions, we need all the facts, not just feelings.
I will admit to some discomfort on this subject. Druggies have fallen in with a neighbor’s daughter and are infesting her house. I have joked that measures needed to be taken, and done so with another neighbor. Had a third party heard me do so, and heard the very dry delivery I used, they might have thought me serious. Since I’m a good guy, the police wouldn’t have minded harassing me for it.
I’ve got practice at staying legal, since we’ve faced family opposition to homeschooling for 10+ years. We had to keep the rest of our live 100% squeaky clean in case a relative called the child services Nazis on us.
The more I’ve been around people with mental issues, the more I’ve seen how subtle and unconscious the clues can be. Mr. Reader, you have your conscience, and if it feels clean then I won’t add to it. Had the police just acted on your tips and not found illegal items, this matter would have been over now.
No matter what we may think about the NY gun laws, us good guys have to follow them (or our local equivalent) or we become bad guys, and the Grinnels were clearly and willfully breaking them. Had the Grinnels been legal, your call would have resulted in nothing more than a warning and some aggravation.
Lesson for us good guys: we have to stay on the law’s good side. Period.
Laws that do not comport with the natural law are unjust, and there is no moral duty to obey them. Would you have turned in fugitive slaves? How about fugitive Jews under the Third Reich? Unjust laws demand no more respect than the robber who sticks you up in a dark alley. Prudence dictates that one is wary of the threat of violence, and that’s all.
when moral conscience leads you to break a law you find unjust, you may sleep well at night, but you very well may find yourself sleeping well in a jail cell. doesn’t mean you did the “wrong” thing, but sometimes doing the right thing has pretty severe consequences. Have to be OK with that part, too.
What part of “Natural Law” are these guys in accordance with? Not starting anything. Interested in your opinion.
I would turn in fugitive slaves. Failing to would be a violation of someone’s property rights. Duh.
nobody….. likes a snitch.
Hear hear
Under certain circumstances, I could like a “snitch”. Say a bad guy is trying to break into my house, my neighbor sees this and calls the cops, and they catch the bad guy in my house BEFORE he rapes my wife and /or daughter. I’d be hugging my snitchy neighbor.
I would not cash in a total stranger ranting on the internet. Someone I personally knew who lost his marbles, or a person I witnessed acting in ways , with a gun, I knew to be dangerous I would. It would have to be a “no other choice” situation since I don’t feel comfortable interfacing with the System any more than I have to.
+1
Zimmerman, how about you man up, and post the info of the guy who claims to be a snitch?
Some people are more than willing to be the lap dogs of the police state, as illustrated by the anonymous commentator.
Whaaaattttt??????
What business is it of yours who this guy is???
It is all of our business, since this guy decided to make Grinnel ‘s business his along with the cops.
Don’t speak for me. Dude’s personal info is none of my business.
That’s a tough question. People have called me crazy because I lean libertarian (in other words, non-conformist) and I’m a gun owner. On the other hand, I don’t go around discussing acts of violence that I plan to commit.
I’d have to have a better reason than just a bad feeling about a person. And it’s not my job to report everyone who is breaking a law–if my neighbor’s growing pot in his basement, for example, it’s not a problem for me. If he’s selling to children, now that’s a problem. For me to call the police, I need evidence that someone is trying to harm others.
I don’t go around discussing acts of violence that I plan to commit.
So you do plan on committing acts of violence, you just don’t discuss it? Quick! Someone file a report on crime stoppers!
I’ve always found libertarians to be “eccentric” in very predictable ways. They have an odd religious dogma that hinders them and enables their enemies. I envision them as the weeping women in Jacques-Louis David’s “Oath of the Horatii.”
“…the laws suck but don’t break ‘em.”
If that was truly representative of the American spirit, we’d all be flying the Union Jack and sitting down for tea time. And we’d be unarmed.
America was founded on the concepts of freedom and justice, not blind law-abiding sheephood. And if one interprets the 2A as it was meant to be interpreted, then any personal weapon that the military or police owns should be available to the citizen. Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizen. Therefore, any “automatic” guns or guns with “collapsible stocks” (oh, the horror) may have been lawfully prohibited, but not Constitutionally or morally prohibited.
Now, is following the law smart and the best course of action in everyday life? Yes. Should it be a line that should never be crossed no matter the circumstances or potential tyrannical threat? No. Have a mind of your own, people.
As for this guy that was reported, let’s not play Zimmerman/Aurora sage. We don’t know what he said, how he said it, and so on. It very well could be that he made threats that warranted a little check up by the LE. I know that internet tough guys will be internet tough guys, and some people get their kicks by acting badass in chatrooms, but even then in this day and age, serious threats should not be taken lightly. Like it or not, there are gun owners out there that don’t care about the sanctity of the 2A or appreciate guns for what they are, but rather see them as tools to act tough or use them in threatening or harmful ways. As far as I’m concerned, they’re as bad as gun-grabbers, disrespecting the intent of the 2A.
So, I don’t know. Depending on what he said, how he said it, and his overall demeanor, I might have reported and I might not have. I’m not going to play sage. But I do know that it would take a serious combination of threat, intent, and unstable vocalization for me to intrude.
If they were doing something illegal with them, especially being reckless and endangering someone else, then yes.
I called the local sheriff once when a neighbor was shooting towards my home.
I’ve called the cops on folks before. Here are two instances:
Years ago I was home during the day and from an across-the-backyard-fence neighbor’s house were coming terrible children’s screams. These were way past normal or even kid’s tantrum screams, they really went on and sounded tortured. I called my wife to discuss it for I would never want to be responsible for involving the government in anyone’s life unnecessarily. My wife recommended I call. She asked me what I would feel like the next day if I found out someone had tortured some kids to death. I don’t know what the outcome was other than the police did visit the house shortly after my call. My hope was and is that if nothing was wrong I caused no harm.
The other is more recent. Having divorced and moved to a condo I live in closer proximity with neighbors. My old next door neighbors like to party all night and having exhausted all other remedies I started calling the cops when the neighbors would be loud at 3:00 in the morning. I did so at the recommendation of my HOA, which got the rowdy neighbors out with the aid of the police record made by myself and other disturbed neighbors.
Neither case quite fits the situation above. I believe your rights end at my nose, but I do try to protect the innocent.
I would indeed.
The law is the law. We don’t have to like it, but we damn well are obligated to follow it except in circumstances of a threat to life and the lives of others. An illegal short barreled shotgun and pistol sans permit don’t meet that burden at all. The people of NY legally enacted laws regulating firearms and if you don’t like it, don’t live there. If you decide to violate the law don’t be shocked if you end up in bracelets one day. We of the armed community should not tolerate wanton criminal behavior. Just because he owns firearms doesn’t mean he has a free pass to violate the law at will. Yes, I would dime them out in a New York minute, and so should you.
“They have the right to keep and bear arm, etc”. True in a Constitutional sense. But let us be honest people, in many states in America the citizenry objectively speaking don’t have an RKBA at all. They have a regulated “Privilege” to own and bear arms, subject to the discretion of the state government. NY is one of these places.
You say NY legally enacted laws. Wrong. The laws, if they violate the constitution, are themselves illegal. You are under no obligation to obey an unconstitutional law. You cannot covert a right into a privileged, regardless of what Nanny Bloomturd thinks.
The question Dan has asked isn’t about what the guy on IRC did. Heck, we don’t have enough info to really say.
The question is what would we do. If someone says to me “this Tommy Gun has been in the family since the 20s, it’s a pity I can’t take her out to Calverton” I’d shrug, agree, and promptly forget the conversation.
If someone says to me “I modified this to full auto. I’m taking this to see a movie tonight. They laughed at me! They laughed at THE GREAT PUMPKIN muh ha ha ha!” then yes, I’m backing out slowly and dropping a dime.
I always knew Charlie Brown was a loose cannon.
I’m not a rat.
But if I found myself in a situation where I thought a bunch of innocents might get hurt, like the Movie massacre and I somehow had notion of what was to come, I’d have reported that, these guys say they were legitimately worried the guy was crazy and might go bonkers, in that case I understand reporting it but not a normal guy with a few arms, no way.
“Have you ever dropped a dime on a gun owner you thought was dangerous – either to himself or others? Would you?”
No, I have not ever called in on anyone. I’m certainly not a gun-phobic NYC type that would over-react. Would I? Possibly, it all depends on the specifics of the situation.
I’m a relative newbee so I’ve not had a lot of exposure to this gun nut crowd of which I’ve become a part. Never felt a need to call the cops on a gun owner.
When you look at some of the weapons “made illegal”, sawed off shotgun, collapsible stock…. what’s so bad about these? Seems like the only difference between the sawed off shotgun and a Taurus Judge is that the Judge can fire 4 more rounds before reloading and it has a better handle. If I were on a jury for this case I’d want to acquit on the weapons charges because these laws are mostly an attempt to “infringe” upon our rights. If the laws were changed to make it illegal to use such modified weapons in the commission of another crime, I’d be down for that. Further, they’d better have a lot of proof of conspiracy. I’m not going to send someone to jail for being a loudmouthed jerk. There’s not enough prisons in the world for all of us, er, I mean them.
Did you hear the TV “reporter” comment that one of the weapons is of the type that the Mexican drug cartels favor? What are we supposed to imply from that statement? The drug cartels have good tastes in guns? The arrested suspects may be part of the drug cartel? The suspects are “guiltier” because of having a “cartel-style” gun? OMG! OMG! A cartel-style gun, OMG!
ask any cop what leads to modt arrests. it isn’t csi lab work. bad guys talk and that’s what nails them. this father/son team needed to be busted for stupidity. in this day and age you’re going to blow your guts about all your illegal goodies and your intent with them and somehow believe you’re not going to get busted? hopefully the bloodline ends with the son. and i’ve never heard such childish drivel”snitches get stitches”. makes rhe case for guys like baa baa bloomberg that much easier.
If I feel that someone is a threat others I will call in a heartbeat.
Every time there is a shooting they talk about the signs that people ignored which could have prevented the event. Well here is someone who did something about it and people attack them. If they didn’t turn them in and they shot a bunch of people you’d still attack them.
Who better to police our own, us or the government?
If a guy told me that he owned an “illegal” gun, I’d advise him to STFU, ’cause the walls have ears.
If a guy told me that he was going to shoot up a movie theater with said “illegal” gun (or with a legal gun for that matter) and I actually believed him, I’d turn him in. Fast.
+10
But we don’t know what kind of threats were made. That was conveniently left out and I have to wonder why if the person who reported it honestly thought this dude was a danger to others.
Could’ve been he threatened to copycat the insane bastard or it could’ve been that he spouted some hurr duur “vote from the rooftops” macho crap. Also could be that it’s the result of some petty online feud. Not enough details.
I find it a bit curious that others who were in the chat were apparently opposed to this too. Surely they’ve seen the guy’s comments as well?
That there is the nut of the matter. I’m all for the old saw about what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand? That said;
1. We are a country governed by laws and the rule of law, whether we agree/like them or not. That’s the deal; live with it and get over it. If that doesn’t agree with you, work to change it legally.
2. You run your life as you see fit and pay the price. If you’re doing something extra-legal, STFU and don’t come cryin’ to me if you get jacked up.
3. Don’t go running your mouth about what you’ve got unless it’s to a person that you’ve known for a VERY long time and that you can trust with your life.
4. If the average person could assume/presume by your words and deeds that “there ain’t sumthin right about that boy”, don’t be surprised when they narc you out.
If you have illegal firearms such as they did, and your dumb enough to brag and tell people online about what you have and make threats. Then I can’t say I feel sorry for them. They pretty much brought it upon themselves.
Great post and question. As we see in the comments, too many of you guys would not report someone to the police even if it were the right thing to do. You refuse to police each other and you object to someone else trying to do it.
No wonder we have daily incidents of lawful gun owners going off the deep end.
Hmmm…
Who cares if there are daily incidents of lawful gun owners going off the deep end. 2.4 million people die every year in the US, about 25,000 of those are due to causes other than intentional suicide. If you want people to live longer, convincing them to give up their knives and forks will do more than convincing them to give up their guns. And to be honest, most of those people killed by gun violence made society a better place, just look at Chicago. If I ran things, I would allow LINK cards to purchase ammunition.
yeah blaming lawful gun owners for the events at aurora is sure the answer (*face+palm). you obviously cannot read because a gun owner turned in this father and son duo. You mention self policing in our gun community, well there you have it.
Sorry to say, but im not going to call the cops on my neighbor for smoking pot. If my neighbor was manufacturing and selling meth or heroin, I sure would. There is a thing called “common sense” that applies besides being a ear for big brother.
The same thing applies to weapons. If my neighbors were exploding homemade pipe bombs in their back yard, i would be extremely suspicious and call the cops. If they had scary looking rifles, i would probably call them up to hang out.
I think you are reading the responses wrong Mikeb. What I see is that people are not going to call law enforcement because someone has a big mouth or guns that are supposed to have a federal tax stamp.
What I do see is that nearly everyone who commented said they would call law enforcement if there were compelling evidence that a murder was imminent. Go figure: the armed intelligentsia’s threshold for action is imminent injury or death — the same standard for using a firearm in a self-defense situation.
I think you are reading the responses wrong Mikeb. What I see is that people are not going to call law enforcement because someone has a big mouth or guns that are supposed to have a federal tax stamp.
What I do see is that nearly everyone who commented said they would call law enforcement if there were compelling evidence that a murder was imminent. Go figure: the armed intelligentsia’s threshold for action is imminent injury or death — the same standard for using a firearm in self-defense situations.
Well let’s see. According to mikey’s past posts, he’s against any form of innocent people defending themselves from criminals, he is for oppressive governmental intrusion, and he disdains the rights put forth in the Constitution.
I’d be shocked if mikey didn’t try to get everyone he disagreed with arrested. He probably has wet dreams about SWAT-ing one of us and getting us shot. If they ever needed anyone to man the gas chambers, mikey would have his hand on the lever before anyone could even stand up.
“Well let’s see. According to mikey’s past posts, he’s against any form of innocent people defending themselves from criminals, he is for oppressive governmental intrusion, and he disdains the rights put forth in the Constitution”
Only disdain for one particular Constitutional right is what I have. The rest is lies you made up. The question is why would you feel it necessary to lie about what I stand for. Isn’t what I actually do say bad enough for you?
“Only disdain for one particular Constitutional right is what I have.”
You possess uncommon honesty.
Well, thank you for finally actually admitting that you have disdain for the 2A. That once and for all solidifies that you’re not for “common sense” gun control and anti-crime measures, but rather you’re against civilian firearm ownership altogether. So you can’t play that card anymore.
And I fail to see how the other points are lies. Taking away a person’s ability to defend himself is oppressive governmental intrusion, so you’re for that. You’re against defense, since now without her gun, what’s granny going to do about the 200 pound man breaking in her front door?
And you can’t be a champion of the Constitution while disdaining the 2A. Like it or not, it’s still the citizens’ only defense against the potential of a corrupt and oppressive government. That’s why it was put in. If you truly respected the rest of the Constitution, you wouldn’t disdain the Amendment that was put in place to protect it.
And the rest are not lies, they’re beliefs. It may not be truth, but from how you’ve represented yourself on here, I believe you to be the type who would do all those things in the second paragraph, if the proper circumstances presented themselves. And you believe the majority of gun-owners to be violent, insecure closet-criminals. See how our beliefs and truth can sometimes not align?
Silver, I guess you haven’t been paying much attention to what I write in spite of your excessive criticism of it. This was not an over-due admission of my feelings about the 2A. Ask your friends around here, they already knew how I felt.
Daily?
Would you care to post links to the six others since the Aurora tragedy?
As has been shown over & again; defensive use of firearms far & away outstrips their illegal use.
If this were not the case, then events like last week’s wouldn’t be headline news.
Read the news, Mike and open your mind.
No, I wouldn’t have called the cops…unless they were drug dealing, scumbag criminals that were a menace/threat to the neighborhood on top of it. If they were good neighbors that simply were into risking the ownership of illegal firearms, I’d most certainly keep my mouth shut. Not my business in that regard…personally what they did I think is absolutely stupid and I’d never own such illegal items myself. Not worth it. I’m fine with the legal firearms and accessories that I own.
“The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”
– H. L. Mencken
I’ve been on the other side of this.
I was at a public range in Pennsylvania with some of my friends, a range that was run by the fish & game commission. We were sighting in our rifles for a 3-gun match we were going to and this old man who was picking up our brass called the police on us because he thought our guns were scary looking (we had AR-15s, he was used to bolt action hunting rifles). The police showed up and tickets were handed out for “not firing from an established shooting position” (we were prone on the ground instead of on the bench).
We weren’t hurting anyone, and we were actually the safest people on the range that day. But that man still decided to drop a dime on us because of the appearance of our firearms.
So for me it would take a lot to make me call the cops. I would absolutely do it, but only if someone was endangering my life or the lives of others.
Not only that, but that one guy tried to get you in trouble with the ATF didn’t he?
Only if I think the person is a genuine danger to others, or a scumbag. I could care less if they own a Glock Magnum 747…
I’d never fly in a widebody with a polymer frame. And when did Glock buy Boeing?
Glock magnum 747….. Cheesy reference to another story that was on here a week ago.
Agreed on the polymer widebody.
I would not call the cops just because someone owned a gun that was not compliant with some arbitrary state rule…… I would and have called the cops when someone was shooting at or near me or others in an unsafe manor. I have called when one of my mutant neighbors decided target practice in the middle of a housing developement after midnight was a good idea (absolutely no safe lane for them to be shooting in!). I have called the police when my neighbors decide to attack one another over drunking b.s. From what I have read above, some of you would call me a spineless coward, and that you would have intervened yourselves. My thinking is inserting myself into a drunken brawl between neighbors makes me part of the problem, not part of the solution. I have no authority to stop them at all, and they certainly won’t stop because I say so. My leaving the safety of my home to confront armed neighbors shooting at other armed neighbors is also foolish. At best, I run the risk of being shot by either side, I also stand a chance of being called a vigilanty if I have to shoot someone when my negotiations fail. Best to let the pros deal with violent situations, they get paid for it, they are trained for it, and they have access to reinforcements that I do not have. I don’t like calling the police, but I’m gonna call them when I see any risk to my family or other folks being robbed, attacked, raped, etc. Taking justice in my own hands by walking over to “bad neighbor #3” and shooting him in the head because he is an drug dealing asswipe, makes me just as bad as the guy that I’m eliminating from the herd.
If I decided to turn people in for saying crazy things I’d be on the phone all day long.
If I decided to turn people in for saying crazy things, I’d have to turn myself in.;-)
The legality of any issue is never a factor in me calling police. IMO, police are for imminent threats to life or property and for nothing else. If I knew somebody did a full auto conversion sans papers, I’d tell them they were being stupid, and walk away. There isn’t a single gun law on the books that has any sort of preventative effect on violent crime, and I have zero duty to participate in the enforcement of laws that exist only to promote an agenda. If I thought a person was a probable danger and had so much as a screw driver, I’d call the police and explain why I thought they needed to intervene.
In the end the main reason one gun owner would report another is jealousy.
“In the end the main reason one gun owner would report another is jealousy.”
I can’t agree with that at all.
You must have a very low opinion as to the maturity of firearms owners, as I’ve yet to hear any of those I know so much as hint they might do such a thing.
Any time the subject has been touched upon, it has been universally agreed that about the only reason to involve the police is if someone is threatening to harm innocent people & they appear to be serious about doing so.