Dallas Cop Killer's Rifle

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,009
I've filled them out - no need to look. You love to say that like memorizing a tax form makes you god-like.

Please understand, your argument is a question of semantics. Who's money is it according to the law? Are they requesting the money because they have a kid and need the extra cash to make it through a year or is it owed to them because they earned little and are raising a child and the rules state they get it? It was a rhetorical question, because nobody made footnotes in the form.
 

Thread Starter

tracecom

Joined Apr 16, 2010
3,944
Who said they were?
I say they are. The picture of Saiga rifle you posted was leaked by an anonymous source and was linked to in this thread four days ago. (See post 10.) The only information from any official source was that the rifle used was an SKS-45, and to this point that announcement from the Dallas county director of homeland security has never been publicly denied or endorsed by anyone. ETA: By "anyone," I mean any official in the investigation.
 
Last edited:

BR-549

Joined Sep 22, 2013
4,928
Apparently not, your google results are different than mine.

Thanks, I kept hearing it was a sks. So it was a small bore. I never owned a "AR" or "AK" style weapon, but I love my sks.

I was looking forward to a surplus Garand from S.K., but obama put the kibosh on that years ago.
 

Thread Starter

tracecom

Joined Apr 16, 2010
3,944
Apparently not, your google results are different than mine.

Thanks, I kept hearing it was a sks. So it was a small bore. I never owned a "AR" or "AK" style weapon, but I love my sks.

I was looking forward to a surplus Garand from S.K., but obama put the kibosh on that years ago.
At this point, I don't know what it was. I don't know why it would have initially been identified as an SKS-45 if it was a Saiga AK74; they look nothing alike and have nothing in common other than a Russian heritage. The lack of official information does no good for anyone.

I think Garands are still available from the CMP. http://thecmp.org/cmp_sales/rifle_sales/m1-garand/
 

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,009
I say they are. The picture of Saiga rifle you posted was leaked by an anonymous source and was linked to in this thread four days ago. (See post 10.) The only information from any official source was that the rifle used was an SKS-45, and to this point that announcement from the Dallas county director of homeland security has never been publicly denied or endorsed by anyone. ETA: By "anyone," I mean any official in the investigation.

Are they trying to spin which rifle was used?

Are they trying to spin where the rifle was purchased?

Are they trying to spin your brain?

Until they tell me which brand of shoes he wore, I think there is a cover-ups. Speaking of cover ups, what brand of blankets did he have?
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
@GopherT

Not subjecting myself to a 500 dollar fine for anyone.

God-like ... damm, you read a lot into what people say.

I told you to look because I don't want you to think I'm feeding you shit.
 
Last edited:

ronv

Joined Nov 12, 2008
3,770
Call your congressman with your suggestions. They would love to hear from you.

I said EIC and SSI were federal money. You identified EIC as the recipents money being paid back. I cited a case where your thinking was incorrect.

There are those that game the system well to maximize their EIC. I've had people that walked because they told me a disqualifying item and they didn't like the fact that I told them they didn't qualify for it. So they left and went to another tax preparer and never mentioned the disqualifying statement.



In your state there were 567k claims and 1.5 billion paid out. You can figure out about how many fraudulent cases there were and how much money it "cost". Visit the IRS site.
For the 2014 tax year, 27.5 million received about $66.7 billion in EITC during 2015
Yes your correct. I was wrong, wrong, wrong. :rolleyes:
But the full question is:
Well other than IEC is a credit against your own money, maybe no difference. What right might we take away with it? Keep in mind we are talking about an EO so there should be existing law on the subject.
 

ronv

Joined Nov 12, 2008
3,770
The lines already exist. After you figure the tax you owe, then some non refundable tax credits reduce your taxes owed, but can not go below zero.

Then you figure out the amount you payed plus the refundable tax credits. that total minus any tax owed, is your return. I've seen many with no taxes owed and little tax paid in, boost their refund to thousands of dollars.... slot in the 5k to 9k range.

Break out the necessary forms and see for yourself. I would not want to deprive you from learning.
The highest I could get my little calculator was $6250.
http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/tax-planning/earned-income-tax-credit-calculator.aspx
 

Thread Starter

tracecom

Joined Apr 16, 2010
3,944
Lets see here, you guys don't like him for not enforcing existing laws, and you don't like him for enforcing existing laws. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/g...rearms-ammunition-and-implements-war/download

He put the kibosh on it in the 1968 gun control act, he is good.
The 1968 gun control act was passed when Barack Obama was only about 7 years old. He had nothing to do with it.

What he did do was issue an executive order in 2013 prohibiting the return of about 80,000 M1 Garand rifles that were manufactured in the US and sent to Korea for use during that conflict in the 1950's. He issued that executive order to countermand a longstanding policy as described in the document you linked to in your post. Here is the pertinent quote from that document.

Title18 U.S.C. § 925(a)(1) provides that the prohibition on the importation of firearms, firearm frames or receivers, firearm barrels and ammunition does not apply to the importation of firearms or ammunition sold or shipped to, or issued for the use of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof.

Thus, President Obama actually nullified an existing law by using an executive order. It will be within the power of the next POTUS to rescind that executive order.
 
Last edited:

wayneh

Joined Sep 9, 2010
17,496
Failing to bring them back is equivalent to exporting them to where they are. If you or I sent 80,000 M1s somewhere, I would expect some questions being asked. Probably illegal?
 

ronv

Joined Nov 12, 2008
3,770
The 1968 gun control act was passed when Barack Obama was only about 7 years old. He had nothing to do with it.

What he did do was issue an executive order in 2013 prohibiting the return of about 80,000 M1 Garand rifles that were manufactured in the US and sent to Korea for use during that conflict in the 1950's. He issued that executive order to countermand a longstanding policy as described in the document you linked to in your post. Here is the pertinent quote from that document.

Title18 U.S.C. § 925(a)(1) provides that the prohibition on the importation of firearms, firearm frames or receivers, firearm barrels and ammunition does not apply to the importation of firearms or ammunition sold or shipped to, or issued for the use of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof.

Thus, President Obama actually nullified an existing law by using an executive order. It will be within the power of the next POTUS to rescind that executive order.
I do believe they were a "gift" to the Koreans.:D
You can still get one legally here.
It's protectionism - that's okay isn't it?:rolleyes:
 
Top