Welcome to Gaia! ::

The Herald of War's avatar

Chatty Reveler

3,000 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • Conversationalist 100
Recon_Ninja_985
Michael Noire
it has begun

Quote:

Feds seized nearly 1,500 guns in raid

Updated: Thursday, 31 Jan 2013, 6:59 PM MST
Published : Thursday, 31 Jan 2013, 6:59 PM MST

Crystal Gutierrez

ALBUQUERQUE (KRQE) - A federal search warrant affidavit outlines the massive raid that seized nearly 1,500 firearms from the home and business of an Albuquerque man and why the feds were after him.

Last week rifles lined the lawn of a northeast Albuquerque home that belonged to Robert Adams. Homeland Security Investigations was also busy loading hundreds of handguns into boxes.

It took federal agents days to log every weapon seized into evidence.

Four search warrants filed Thursday show the HSI investigators seized nearly 900 firearms from Adams' home. There were 548 handguns and 317 rifles listed in the warrant return inventory.

They also searched his office that day taking 599 pistols and revolvers.

Adams has not been charged with any crimes although Homeland Security said the investigation is not over yet.

Neighbors said Adams was a gun collector, and some heard he was a licensed gun seller, too.

Federal investigators confirm that
. However, they're also investigating him for possible gun smuggling, tax evasion and violating importation laws.

Court documents reveal federal agents were watching Adams for years and that some documentation was missing "to determine to whom Adams [was] selling or exporting his firearms."

The guns were also not properly marked possibly to make the guns more valuable and to avoid paying high import taxes, investigators alleged.

However, a bigger concern is that no markings on the guns and missing documents mean the guns are not traceable by law enforcement.

One neighbor who did not want to be identified said it was a shock.

“I didn’t really see the guns but from a distance," the neighbor said. "I saw them being pulling them out into the front yard.

“Its very scary in the fact that the school is so close by makes it seem even more dangerous.”

The search warrant also said Adams was investigated in Canada for keeping about 80 illegal guns in a storage unit. U.S. agents worked with Canadian police on that case.
well thats ******** up, they had no real basis to conduct any sort of raid.

and anything imported that was "not marked properly" is one of the most ******** up parts....

that's a new law, meaning theyre gonna try this guy for an alleged crime based on new importation laws from the 90's even if the weapons in his posession were already in country before that ******** law was put into effect.

meaning if they go ahead with prosecuting this guy...and assuming its extremely likely that he has dozens if not hundreds of these guns that were already in country for over 20 years or so, then he's gonna be wrongly punished.

he's a ******** FFL dealer for crying out loud.... that's the same thing as any gun shop owner


No basis? What, did they provide all their reasons to you when the media wasn't looking?
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Look, if you're going to ban anything, ban handguns.

They're the number one used weapons in crime and since people use rifles and shotguns for self defense all the time it's arguable they aren't necessary.


We could just be like Switzerland and carry around assault rifles everywhere.

Seems to work well for them.
User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.


They want my guns!? s**t, I'm ready!

I found this video particularly telling of the general sentiment of many honest people.
Americans make the best firearms customers. It would be tragic if they started to lose their nerve and cut my sales quota.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

The crazy thing is, I'm all for gun control.

I just think the "assault weapons" ban is too far.


Mandatory background checks, forcing people to go through weird hoops and do backflips, fine, fantastic, if that keeps civilian weapons out of the hands of criminals.

But banning them from being sold in stores will in no way impact crime or defend civilians unless we find a way to remove it from criminal's hands, as well, and the weapons they want to ban have nothing to do with crime at all.


You might as well be banning pencils for their feared attempts in being used as weapons.

Britain actually has believe it or not, and it didn't impact crime really at all.


If you really wanted to stop crime you'd ban cars.

Most crimes are traffic violations and things, and more people die of car accidents that guns every year, sadly. :/
Suicidesoldier#1
The crazy thing is, I'm all for gun control.

I just think the "assault weapons" ban is too far.


Mandatory background checks, forcing people to go through weird hoops and do backflips, fine, fantastic, if that keeps civilian weapons out of the hands of criminals.

But banning them from being sold in stores will in no way impact crime or defend civilians unless we find a way to remove it from criminal's hands, as well, and the weapons they want to ban have nothing to do with crime at all.


You might as well be banning pencils for their feared attempts in being used as weapons.

Britain actually has believe it or not, and it didn't impact crime really at all.


If you really wanted to stop crime you'd ban cars.

Most crimes are traffic violations and things, and more people die of car accidents that guns every year, sadly. :/


For what reason are you for gun control, specifically, that cannot be applied to all categories of tools?
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Michael Noire
Suicidesoldier#1
The crazy thing is, I'm all for gun control.

I just think the "assault weapons" ban is too far.


Mandatory background checks, forcing people to go through weird hoops and do backflips, fine, fantastic, if that keeps civilian weapons out of the hands of criminals.

But banning them from being sold in stores will in no way impact crime or defend civilians unless we find a way to remove it from criminal's hands, as well, and the weapons they want to ban have nothing to do with crime at all.


You might as well be banning pencils for their feared attempts in being used as weapons.

Britain actually has believe it or not, and it didn't impact crime really at all.


If you really wanted to stop crime you'd ban cars.

Most crimes are traffic violations and things, and more people die of car accidents that guns every year, sadly. :/


For what reason are you for gun control, specifically, that cannot be applied to all categories of tools?


Well, we don't see a lot of grenade and atom bomb attacks, for good reason. If just anyone could get their hands on it, a lot of people could be hurt; and if we limit it to just rich people, than rich people control everything.

They keep trying but... I mean obviously we're still typing this right?


I'd actually be okay with fully automatic weapons, if the proper licenses/storage was utilized. But, explosives, nah. The whole point of a gun is that, theoretically, you can attack just one person, as in it's directional. Since explosives aren't directional and they effect a huge area, shrapnel going out potentially for miles being a problem, in random directions, they're not that great for self defense in ordinary scenarios.

I support regulation; background checks, limitations on who can own guns, etc. stuff like that, mostly based on common sense (ex felons and whatnot shouldn't have them, some guy who tried to kill people etc.). But I don't want to ban assault weapons, I think the assault weapons bill is stupid, and I even think banning full auto is a little silly.
Dysia
Americans make the best firearms customers. It would be tragic if they started to lose their nerve and cut my sales quota.


One of the main downsides to gun control and gun bans is the adverse effect those things would have on the workforce.
Zrehael's avatar

6,100 Points
  • Tycoon 200
  • Invisibility 100
Suicidesoldier#1
The crazy thing is, I'm all for gun control.

I just think the "assault weapons" ban is too far.

Mandatory background checks, forcing people to go through weird hoops and do backflips, fine, fantastic, if that keeps civilian weapons out of the hands of criminals.


Assault weapon ban goes too far? Please, do go on about what purpose a functional assault weapon has beyond killing human beings in as efficient a manner as possible.

The design elements of an assault weapon are just that. It was designed as a weapon for one human to use against another. That's it.

Non-functional assault weapons (ones with the firing pins or other elements removed to prevent them from being used as originally intended) are fine if you're a gun collector and really want one. Go right ahead, knock yourself out. But there is no legitimate reason for anyone to need an assault weapon for protection. There are plenty of other firearm choices for self-defense.


Suicidesoldier#1
But banning them from being sold in stores will in no way impact crime or defend civilians unless we find a way to remove it from criminal's hands, as well, and the weapons they want to ban have nothing to do with crime at all.


... Except it would stop from introducing more assault weapons into anyone's hands (civilian or criminal), thus making them less likely to be used as weapons later on down the road as the current generation of assault weapons are either lost, confiscated by police during raids, or break.

Also, I'm well aware that the AR-15 used by the asshat who shot up Sandy Hook was in the trunk and wasn't used, but the thing is, it was there, it was loaded, it had the potential to be used. I again remind you, what other purpose does an assault weapon have beyond killing human beings as efficiently as possible? It doesn't. Assault weapons are designed with that express purpose.


Suicidesoldier#1
You might as well be banning pencils for their feared attempts in being used as weapons.


Do you know what the difference between a pencil and an assault weapon is? A pencil was designed for writing, but because it's sharp, people can immediately think to use it as an improvized weapon. An assault weapon is a weapon outright and serves no other purpose but to kill whatever it's pointed at when the trigger is pulled because that's what it was designed to do.


Suicidesoldier#1
...If you really wanted to stop crime you'd ban cars.

Most crimes are traffic violations and things, and more people die of car accidents that guns every year, sadly.


User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.


You know what, I'm not saying it again. If you don't get it by now, me saying it again won't make a damn bit of difference.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Zrehael
Suicidesoldier#1
The crazy thing is, I'm all for gun control.

I just think the "assault weapons" ban is too far.

Mandatory background checks, forcing people to go through weird hoops and do backflips, fine, fantastic, if that keeps civilian weapons out of the hands of criminals.


Assault weapon ban goes too far? Please, do go on about what purpose a functional assault weapon has beyond killing human beings in as efficient a manner as possible.

The design elements of an assault weapon are just that. It was designed as a weapon for one human to use against another. That's it.

Non-functional assault weapons (ones with the firing pins or other elements removed to prevent them from being used as originally intended) are fine if you're a gun collector and really want one. Go right ahead, knock yourself out. But there is no legitimate reason for anyone to need an assault weapon for protection. There are plenty of other firearm choices for self-defense.


Suicidesoldier#1
But banning them from being sold in stores will in no way impact crime or defend civilians unless we find a way to remove it from criminal's hands, as well, and the weapons they want to ban have nothing to do with crime at all.


... Except it would stop from introducing more assault weapons into anyone's hands (civilian or criminal), thus making them less likely to be used as weapons later on down the road as the current generation of assault weapons are either lost, confiscated by police during raids, or break.

Also, I'm well aware that the AR-15 used by the asshat who shot up Sandy Hook was in the trunk and wasn't used, but the thing is, it was there, it was loaded, it had the potential to be used. I again remind you, what other purpose does an assault weapon have beyond killing human beings as efficiently as possible? It doesn't. Assault weapons are designed with that express purpose.


Suicidesoldier#1
You might as well be banning pencils for their feared attempts in being used as weapons.


Do you know what the difference between a pencil and an assault weapon is? A pencil was designed for writing, but because it's sharp, people can immediately think to use it as an improvized weapon. An assault weapon is a weapon outright and serves no other purpose but to kill whatever it's pointed at when the trigger is pulled because that's what it was designed to do.


Suicidesoldier#1
...If you really wanted to stop crime you'd ban cars.

Most crimes are traffic violations and things, and more people die of car accidents that guns every year, sadly.


User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.


You know what, I'm not saying it again. If you don't get it by now, me saying it again won't make a damn bit of difference.


Do YOU know what an assault weapons ban is?

Please explain to me how a pistol grip, an adjustable stock, or a barrel shroud make a gun more dangerous?


Because that's all it's really banning.

They make great self defense weapons, for practical, obvious purposes, we're not talking a military weapon here, because those were banned a long time ago, in 1934.


Even then, it's easy to see how a weapon designed for the military would have loads of other applications as well.

So that's a stupid argument.


Not to mention less than half a percent of weapons used in crimes would classify as an "assault weapon", the majority of civilian arms would, and criminals aren't even buying guns from stores.

Because they're traceable and have serial numbers and all kinds of things, and it's cheaper to get it off the black market. News flash, not many marijuana users get their drugs from licensed physicians. Why would you think criminals would be getting guns from licensed gun dealers?
Zrehael's avatar

6,100 Points
  • Tycoon 200
  • Invisibility 100
Suicidesoldier#1
Do YOU know what an assault weapons ban is?

Please explain to me how a pistol grip, an adjustable stock, or a barrel shroud make a gun more dangerous?

Because that's all it's really banning.

They make great self defense weapons, for practical, obvious purposes, we're not talking a military weapon here, because those were banned a long time ago, in 1934.

Even then, it's easy to see how a weapon designed for the military would have loads of other applications as well.

So that's a stupid argument.

Not to mention less than half a percent of weapons used in crimes would classify as an "assault weapon", the majority of civilian arms would, and criminals aren't even buying guns from stores.

Because they're traceable and have serial numbers and all kinds of things, and it's cheaper to get it off the black market. News flash, not many marijuana users get their drugs from licensed physicians. Why would you think criminals would be getting guns from licensed gun dealers?


I know what assault weapons are, yes. What I'm questioning is the need to own a weapon that has design choices that were made keeping in mind that the explicit intent was to kill other human beings. While it may lack the fully-automatic firing rate of military-grade assault weapons, the same design choices were kept.

I understand this is an argument used by anti-gun nuts that want to ban anything that goes "BANG", as they usually couple this with the argument of "These were designed to be bullet-hoses, to cover a large area with continuous fire, and that the civilian variants are still capable of doing this," which is a bullshit argument. These people still have the idea in their head that the people using these guns could walk in and spray bullets from the hip like in the movies. I'm not that stupid to think so.

However, the actual design of the gun is what it is for a reason. If those features truly had no discernible effect on the weapon, why would the designer have bothered to include them? Rarely, in engineering projects such as designing these weapons, are choices made for just sheer aesthetic purposes. You also neglected the fact that many assault weapons also feature the ability to accept a high-capacity magazine, which, when coupled with semi-automatic fire, make this still a rather effective firearm for its original intention.

Why would someone need this for defense? Do you really need 30 shots to scare away a burglar who broke into your home? No. After the fifth shot, unless the burglar returned fire, it's pretty clear you're trying to kill the b*****d. Even then, if you spend 30 shots trying to defend yourself, you're not on the defensive, you're on the offensive.

Oh, and please tell me what other purposes a weapon designed for the military would have in the hands of civilians were it still functioning? As I mentioned in my last post, if you're a collector with a disabled gun like this, it doesn't really matter because, as far as a weapon goes, that gun may as well just be a fancy club to bludgeon people with.

Your analogy doesn't really hold up here. Marijuana is a far cry from any of the weapons listed on the AWB. And as for the whole traceable thing? Tell me this, if you intend to shoot up a place and kill yourself afterwards, what part of anything being traceable are you going to be worried about?

But again, claiming banning assault weapons is absurd to the degree of banning pencils and cars is ridiculous. There are valid reasons.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Zrehael
Suicidesoldier#1
Do YOU know what an assault weapons ban is?

Please explain to me how a pistol grip, an adjustable stock, or a barrel shroud make a gun more dangerous?

Because that's all it's really banning.

They make great self defense weapons, for practical, obvious purposes, we're not talking a military weapon here, because those were banned a long time ago, in 1934.

Even then, it's easy to see how a weapon designed for the military would have loads of other applications as well.

So that's a stupid argument.

Not to mention less than half a percent of weapons used in crimes would classify as an "assault weapon", the majority of civilian arms would, and criminals aren't even buying guns from stores.

Because they're traceable and have serial numbers and all kinds of things, and it's cheaper to get it off the black market. News flash, not many marijuana users get their drugs from licensed physicians. Why would you think criminals would be getting guns from licensed gun dealers?


I know what assault weapons are, yes. What I'm questioning is the need to own a weapon that has design choices that were made keeping in mind that the explicit intent was to kill other human beings. While it may lack the fully-automatic firing rate of military-grade assault weapons, the same design choices were kept.

I understand this is an argument used by anti-gun nuts that want to ban anything that goes "BANG", as they usually couple this with the argument of "These were designed to be bullet-hoses, to cover a large area with continuous fire, and that the civilian variants are still capable of doing this," which is a bullshit argument. These people still have the idea in their head that the people using these guns could walk in and spray bullets from the hip like in the movies. I'm not that stupid to think so.

However, the actual design of the gun is what it is for a reason. If those features truly had no discernible effect on the weapon, why would the designer have bothered to include them? Rarely, in engineering projects such as designing these weapons, are choices made for just sheer aesthetic purposes. You also neglected the fact that many assault weapons also feature the ability to accept a high-capacity magazine, which, when coupled with semi-automatic fire, make this still a rather effective firearm for its original intention.

Why would someone need this for defense? Do you really need 30 shots to scare away a burglar who broke into your home? No. After the fifth shot, unless the burglar returned fire, it's pretty clear you're trying to kill the b*****d. Even then, if you spend 30 shots trying to defend yourself, you're not on the defensive, you're on the offensive.

Oh, and please tell me what other purposes a weapon designed for the military would have in the hands of civilians were it still functioning? As I mentioned in my last post, if you're a collector with a disabled gun like this, it doesn't really matter because, as far as a weapon goes, that gun may as well just be a fancy club to bludgeon people with.

Your analogy doesn't really hold up here. Marijuana is a far cry from any of the weapons listed on the AWB. And as for the whole traceable thing? Tell me this, if you intend to shoot up a place and kill yourself afterwards, what part of anything being traceable are you going to be worried about?

But again, claiming banning assault weapons is absurd to the degree of banning pencils and cars is ridiculous. There are valid reasons.


A pistol grip allows you to hold on the weapon better, with a more natural grip for a human hand. An adjustable stock allows you to adjust it to your shoulder, so that it fits your shoulder correctly and you don't miss, lose control over recoil etc. A barrel shroud keeps you from being burned.

Dianne Feinstein's new bill would ban not 2/3 of these features, but 1/3, and also ban thumb hole stocks and a host of other things.


Why does a person *need* this? They make a weapon easy to hold on to, and not accidentally shoot someone, and she wants to ban any kind of reasonable alternative as well, so it's literally banning logical, common sense weaponry. Where as criminals would rather have no stock, so the weapon would be under 24 inches and could fit in a jacket, so they could hide it, rather than a normal person who has no value in hiding their weapon, and would rather be more accurate and be able to control the weapon.

According to her definition? An "assault weapon" is "All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel."


Since grenade launchers were banned in the 1934 National Firearms Act, and any potential loop holes were tied up in the Gun Control Act of 1968, this is redundant. Since she wants to ban any 1 feature of the following "pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.", she is literally banning adjustable stocks, barrel shrouds, and pistol grips. Forward grips are just extra grips to make the weapon easier to hold on to.

Tell me, why in God's name do you need to ban this? Why does this make it an "assault weapon"?


Since military weapons were banned in 1934 and 1968, there is no possible way civilians are letting "military" weapons on to the market, legally. So they'd already be banned. And considering that the illegal drug trade is smuggling guns into the country, banning them from stores wouldn't stop them in criminal hands. The concept that it would is down right insane.

So, the only thing left that the bill is banning is common sense features, like grips, ways to keep you from being burned, and lots of other things. NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND wants a gun without a barrel shroud, or else you'll get burned by the gun; and since it usually covers part of the breech, possibly have hot gas blown into your eyes.


Except maybe a criminal, who doesn't use the iron sights to aim (so, they wouldn't get hot gas in their eyes) or who doesn't give a ******** since they're only shooting a few bullets, or essentially committing suicide.

So, please, YOU, explain to ME, why it needs to banned. Because military features, like full auto, explosives, excessively short length or light weight, have all been banned. Hand guns, easy to hide, are really hard to get ahold of, and yet they're used in well over 76% of crime, with rifles at 4% and shotguns at 5%. So you'd have to be insane to target "assault weapons", or just not read through what the bill ACTUALLY DEFINES an assault weapon as.


Basically? They've called it an "assault weapons" ban and then redefined what an "assault weapon" is to include the majority of guns self defense people use.

It's downright insane.


As far as more than 10 rounds? A self defense advocate only has what's in their gun at the time, when they get up out of bed, half asleep in the middle of the night, or if it's concealed, since all weapons most be concealed and out of sight (and therefore quickly out of reach) to be legally carried. So, they only have what's in their weapon, where as a criminal can easily duct tape magazines all over their body and rip on off quickly, or walk around in a tactical vest. I don't duct tape magazines all over my body BECAUSE I'M NOT ******** INSANE, so, I only have, really, what's in my gun at the time I draw it.

Number 2, The NYPD (PDF) for instance had an average of a 15% hit rate and a 10.3 rounds fired per officer involved in a gunfight. To engage multiple assailants, or make sure you have extra rounds just in case, at the bare minimum, an extra 5 rounds are needed if you're the police. Why would a regular person need more? Gee, who could guess. Since the majority of rounds go on to scare your enemy more than anything else, in suppressive fire, and it's hard to hit a moving target who's shooting you without exposing yourself to fire, most of it's designed to scare them off, you correct when shooting etc. so, it's necessary. Having exactly the bare minimum for one person versus one person at extremely close ranges, when you could end up at even medium ranges, which would require more bullets, is really stupid. There's a reason police use 17+ round magazines. Maybe you can argue 40+ rounds are unnecessary, because they are, but there's no reason to ban it. It doesn't in any way make it so a person couldn't just reload in a fraction of a second. Against an unarmed person, fractions of a second don't matter, and since unless you're in the military you don't have quick access to a dozen magazines, you really don't have that as an option in self defense, meaning you're just effecting regular gun owners, not criminals.
Project 429
Nothing is going to happen to your stupid assault rifles, chicken little.

People like this make me wish bad things would happen, and that's probably bad for my karma. Do my karma a favor and don't talk s**t about freedom.
Suicidesoldier#1


Basically? They've called it an "assault weapons" ban and then redefined what an "assault weapon" is to include the majority of guns self defense people use.

It's downright insane.

Welcome to the government.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games