OMG! Panicans fret over two men having dreaded ghost guns at Buffalo Tops, oh my!

Carlos Hathcock · Jun 28, 2025

As per the manual, politicians fighting to get up on the stump and propose MORE laws that will prevent this from happening again. And as usual, said politicians can't seem to understand these fellows would not pay any attention to said laws. If only Tops had a sign on the front door stating "NO AR15'S ALLIWED IN STORE" those people would still be alive.

Zerex · Jun 29, 2025

Same story if there were just stolen guns...............GG's help "them" be arrested more frequently.............no hassles of breaking into MAGA homes, and stealing guns, or buying them from NC.

SomeSoldier · Jun 29, 2025

Zerex said:
Same story if there were just stolen guns...............GG's help "them" be arrested more frequently.............no hassles of breaking into MAGA homes, and stealing guns, or buying them from NC.

Or if we just made gun ownership a natural right as up held by The Constitution, this wouldn't be an issue. These two idiots would be told to go home and cool off.

jimc · Jul 1, 2025

I'm thankful every day that my firearms have serial numbers.

Phazer · Jul 1, 2025

jimc said:
I'm thankful every day that my firearms have serial numbers.

Originally, serial numbers on firearms were for government military bookkeeping and tracking of military equipment. There was no original government mandate for serial numbers on civilian firearms.

The federal government has no business tracking legal firearms in the possession of law-abiding citizens.

FP1201 · Jul 1, 2025

VietnamEraVet said:
Men caught with ghost guns near the Tops on Jefferson Avenue

Two men are facing serious charges after an armed encounter near the Jefferson Avenue Tops — the same store forever marked by tragedy in 2022.

www.wgrz.com

OK, so a couple of idiots “menaced” each other with handguns, and got arrested. But the degree of panic over them having the dreaded “ghost guns” is something to read about.

dey be mo' deedly than mah fouty.....
We were in Buffalo and somehow ended up turning around in that Top's Parking Lot....Door Locked? yep, .45 in reach? yep, no stops right? yep.

FP1201 · Jul 1, 2025

Phazer said:
Originally, serial numbers on firearms were for government military bookkeeping and tracking of military equipment. There was no original government mandate for serial numbers on civilian firearms.

The federal government has no business tracking legal firearms in the possession of law-abiding citizens.

"We've got to know who has Assault Weapons, so when WE send someone in, they'll know they're armed" (Justifiable Homicide) and it's ALWAYS Democrats...always.

Zerex · Jul 1, 2025

Only the previous "Articles of Confederation" had no limits on firearm ownership.

Mis-interpretation of the 2nd is common.

"Shall not be infringed", only refers to the citizens of 1790---free white men...no slaves, no women, no Native Americans, no criminals, no insane, no Tories, no Canadians, No Frenchies, No Spaniards, no Brits,etc.

Little has changed, in reality. GC Acts of 1934/68/86, are Constitutional by the way, until SCOTUS decides otherwise.

The Constitution, is not a suicide pact with itself.

FP1201 · Jul 1, 2025

Zerex said:
Only the previous "Articles of Confederation" had no limits on firearm ownership.

Mis-interpretation of the 2nd is common.

"Shall not be infringed", only refers to the citizens of 1790---free white men...no slaves, no women, no Native Americans, no criminals, no insane, no Tories, no Canadians, No Frenchies, No Spaniards, no Brits,etc.

Little has changed, in reality. GC Acts of 1934/68/86, are Constitutional by the way, until SCOTUS decides otherwise.

The Constitution, is not a suicide pact with itself.

OK, but for how long does that only refer to the Citizens of 1790? I am a descendant of a "free white man and woman" (they DID know the difference back then) am I not Grandfathered in?

I get it that "mis-intrepretation" occurs at multiple levels of Law, Constitutions, and the Bill of Rights, but ask any Fourth Grader what "Shall Not Be Infringed" in any application means? Sort of like the Ten Commandments: Thou Shall Not....isn't very ambiguous.

Zerex · Jul 1, 2025

NICS is not an infringement....................only certifies that you are not a criminal with a record, or an illegal alien, or a child.

GCA's became law, due criminal use....Class 3 registration is like a super NICS...........just makes sure you are NOT a criminaL,...............is NOT AN FRINGEMENT AT ALL..JUST AN ID CHECK.

Dynamite requries an explosives license too..............same as NICS............not an infringement.

4473 is not an infringement either.......just part of NICS,

What laws are you complaining about, that are an infringement?.

Criminals have no rights............

FP1201 · Jul 1, 2025

Zerex said:
NICS is not an infringement....................only certifies that you are not a criminal with a record, or an illegal alien, or a child.
That's subjective and has been debated in Courts for decades, and NICS grew out of the 4473 which demands you identify and disclose enough personally identifying information that would be a dream to one to use nefariously.
GCA's became law, due criminal use....Class 3 registration is like a super NICS...........just makes sure you are NOT a criminaL,...............is NOT AN FRINGEMENT AT ALL..JUST AN ID CHECK. It's a lengthy, time consuming, and expensive "check" that's requires one to proved they aren't prohibited opposed to the Government proving prohibition.
The NFA was a knee-jerk response to sensationalized Criminal activity, the Tax applied made it cost prohibitive for most to own one, and in the case of Suppressors it was really unneeded...AOW's, SBR's and SBS's were lumped in for good measure...
Dynamite requries an explosives license too..............same as NICS............not an infringement.
Requires Licenses to Deal, and depending on State Laws as to requirements for procuring for use. Requiring a Licenses is not the same as a background check and approval before being allowed to buy, now you may have to undergo a BGC before being granted Licenses.
4473 is not an infringement either.......just part of NICS,
Having to ASK the Government for Permission before being authorized to complete a Firearms transaction borders on infrengement, especially given the majority of States have no such requiement for non-Licensed "Dealers" and that FFL is a way to monopolize who can Lawfully deal.
What laws are you complaining about, that are an infringement?.
I've no specific admonishments, however given the two thousand plus Laws controlling every aspect, one would expect to find more than a few to disagree with.

Brawny71 · Jul 1, 2025

Zerex said:
NICS is not an infringement....................only certifies that you are not a criminal with a record, or an illegal alien, or a child.

GCA's became law, due criminal use....Class 3 registration is like a super NICS...........just makes sure you are NOT a criminaL,...............is NOT AN FRINGEMENT AT ALL..JUST AN ID CHECK.

Dynamite requries an explosives license too..............same as NICS............not an infringement.

4473 is not an infringement either.......just part of NICS,

What laws are you complaining about, that are an infringement?.

Criminals have no rights............

NICS never asked for make, model, serial; true statement. This was to keep the government compliant with the GOPA 1975! Agree, a check that the person buying is NOT a prohibited person IAW the same.

The NYS background check does however; which directly violates this law.

FP1201 · Jul 1, 2025

Brawny71 said:
NICS never asked for make, model, serial; true statement. This was to keep the government compliant with the GOPA 1975! Agree, a check that the person buying is NOT a prohibited person IAW the same.

The NYS background check does however; which directly violates this law.

NY wanted Registration with the un_SAFE Act, which very few complied with, so going forward they'll make a Data Base via a Third Party Provider with contractual access to the NICS System...Have to ask yourself WHY it's so goddamn important for the State to know what guns and ammunition you've bought (using their check system) since the State became the Point of Contact.

Brawny71 · Jul 1, 2025

FP1201 said:
NY wanted Registration with the un_SAFE Act, which very few complied with, so going forward they'll make a Data Base via a Third Party Provider with contractual access to the NICS System...Have to ask yourself WHY it's so goddamn important for the State to know what guns and ammunition you've bought (using their check system) since the State became the Point of Contact.

Or why they can continue to violate Federal law directly saying no State or Federal Gov can keep this data for non-prohibit persons; again.

FP1201 · Jul 1, 2025

Brawny71 said:
Or why they can continue to violate Federal law directly saying no State or Federal Gov can keep this data for non-prohibit persons; again.

NYS has no respect for the Federal Government nor it's Courts (SCOTUS) and it's only concern is how much money they can get from Uncle Sam....FACT!

Zerex · Jul 2, 2025

States Rights.............

ABORTION
SALES TAX
INCOME TAX
FIREARMS REGULATION
AUTO INSPECTION
STATE ZONING CODES
HUNTING SEASONS/GAME REGS

Many other regs exist as States rights, until SCOTUS rules them unconstitutional.
The legal system has developed thru the years.

STATE NICS checks, are in many states including NYS.
The 1986 FOPA did not include states.

It is what it is.................I comply, have a NYS AW license, CCP, Semi auto endorsement and pass NICS.

Basic human/natural rights include the rights to eat, defecate, and to a certain level of self defense.....
Society evolved under chiefs and kings, to a regulated society run by the Kings men............10,000 years ago or more.

That's it.

dean3690 · Jul 2, 2025

FP1201 said:
dey be mo' deedly than mah fouty.....
We were in Buffalo and somehow ended up turning around in that Top's Parking Lot....Door Locked? yep, .45 in reach? yep, no stops right? yep.

by fouty do you mean Colt 45 Malt Liquor? In the can or glass?

spat · Jul 2, 2025

Zerex said:
Only the previous "Articles of Confederation" had no limits on firearm ownership.

Mis-interpretation of the 2nd is common.

"Shall not be infringed", only refers to the citizens of 1790---free white men...no slaves, no women, no Native Americans, no criminals, no insane, no Tories, no Canadians, No Frenchies, No Spaniards, no Brits,etc.

Little has changed, in reality. GC Acts of 1934/68/86, are Constitutional by the way, until SCOTUS decides otherwise.

The Constitution, is not a suicide pact with itself.

So it's fine to require all that for voting too ?

No, "shall not be infringed" means *exactly* what it sounds like.

If someone can't be trusted with the same sorts of weapons the military has, then you lock them up. Anything less is theater.

Zerex · Jul 3, 2025

Initially, only the rich the well born and the able could vote and own land here............

That has changed.

A complex society, has division of labor....some make things, others are in a military and others are cops, rulers.................Kings, Chiefs, Pharoahs all ruled over complex societies for the last 10,000 years.

The Magna Carta allowed nobles to keep their swords.
The 2nd Amendment, allows non criminals to own weapons.......a big improvement.

OMG! Panicans fret over two men having dreaded ghost guns at Buffalo Tops, oh my!

.308 Win

.450/400 Nitro Ex

.308 Win

.450/400 Nitro Ex

.223 Rem

.450/400 Nitro Ex

.338 Win Mag

.338 Win Mag

.308 Win

.338 Win Mag

.308 Win

.338 Win Mag

.357 mag

.338 Win Mag

.357 mag

.338 Win Mag

.308 Win

.44 mag

.700 Nitro Express

.308 Win