TexasCHLforum.com

This is humorous if it weren't such a sad statement of affairs:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/36 ... ew-johnson

Synopsis: A TSA agent dis-armed a sock monkey doll of it's 2" prop gun.

Stupid has hit rock bottom and started to dig.

( I post this not to become a TSA bash-fest, but the article is funny in a way.)

I still want to see a photo of it (the "gun") next to a .22lr.
is it big enough for a .22lr to fit inside?

Not ready to condemn anyone without more detail, but it does seem silly.

Well, it could be one of these http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -long.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's what I don't get:
If this is a violation (prohibited) type of firearm, someone should be in jail.
If it wasn't prohibited, it should be allowed through.
Likely the actions aren't the fault of the TSA agent, but a result of policies from the top down.

My main objection is the BILLIONS of dollars we spend on this agency. From a purely cost benefit analysis, we could put that money to use somewhere else and save more lives.

The article did lack information.
Was it loaded? Did said sock monkey have a permit for said "weapon" I could not see the weapon was properly serial numbered. Was it altered and now considered one of those "saturday night specials" At least we know it was not purchased using the "gun show loophole" or it would have been in every writing.
And God help that sock monkey if the weapon had more than 7 rounds... or if he was carrying a "clipy thingy" that would be classified as an "assult" style clip...
If this does not earn the sock monkey a lifetime reservation on the "no fly" list, what would.

RoyGBiv wrote:I still want to see a photo of it (the "gun") next to a .22lr.

How about next to a quarter dollar?

bizarrenormality wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:I still want to see a photo of it (the "gun") next to a .22lr.

How about next to a quarter dollar?

[ Image ] [ Image ]

Looks big enough to handle a .22 short.