Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-19-2011, 12:20   #21
Spats McGee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by FearTheBoomAndBust View Post
. . . . I'm obviously not implying truth or slandering you in anyway. . . .
No, you're not. It's just a hypothetical, and no offense taken. "Jus' two guys talkin'," as it were.

As to the rest of this, I'm not trying to bust your chops here, FTBAB. I just don't see things the way you do, and I can't resist a good discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FearTheBoomAndBust View Post
So then there should be no restrictions placed upon any firearms, any tobacco trade, and most importantly no EXPLOSIVES?
Constitutionally, firearms enjoy protections that alcohol and tobacco do not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FearTheBoomAndBust View Post
If all of the regulations flys in the face of the US Constitution why has the Supreme Court not overturned it? Answer that question.
Is it maybe because it doesn't violate it? Is it because the Constitution is a living breathing document that is supposed to be interpreted? Is it because maybe just maybe ( I do NOT believe this FYI) the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what you think it means?
In part, regulation of 2A rights has not been overturned because there hasn't been a decent plaintiff to challenge it. For example, the only people with standing to challenge the restriction on "felon in possession" laws would be felons. There may be some decent plaintiffs who fall into that group. However non-felons lack standing to challenge the restriction, and I would wager that the vast majority of convicted felons make rotten plaintiffs in such challenges. Mind you, that's just one aspect. There are other challenges that (I suspect) have simply not been made that involve the right court and the right plaintiff. For example, there's a young man in Texas right now that is challenging (IIRC) the age requirement (21) to purchase a handgun. If I remember correctly, he's a long-time shooter, Junior ROTC member, and generally desirable plaintiff, and he's in Texas. . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by FearTheBoomAndBust View Post
Maybe it is because regulation of rights is necessary to have the laws that back up those rights?
Can you explain what you mean by this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FearTheBoomAndBust View Post
I see where your coming from, but lets for argument sake say that I think you are a counterfeiter or a threat to President Obama, but I have no evidence; but hey I know I'm right so I search your home without a warrant to get that evidence. Lets for argument sake (I'm obviously not implying truth or slandering you in anyway) I find a kilo of diacetylmorphine (heroin). That search and seizure was illegal, no warrant. I arrest you anyway and the US Attorney charges you, you (and your lawyer) has to prove to a judge that the search was illegal though, you have to show that you have the right and prove its violated.

I know thats kind of an awkward example because its more of your proving its violated not that you have it but its similar logic.

Also, you have the right to keep and bear arms, the second amendment does not entitle you (directly) to purchase (lets ignore legislative intent). so you are proving to the FFLD that you are entitled to keep and bear the arms, therefore you should be allowed to purchase it.
Well, I don't think that counterfeiting falls under the ATF's jurisdiction, but that's neither here nor there. Let's go with your hypothetical, but I'd like to amend it a little:
Quote:
I see where your coming from, but lets for argument sake say that I think you are a . . . a threat to President Obama, but I have no evidence; but hey I know I'm right so I search your home without a warrant to get that evidence. Lets for argument sake . . . . I find a kilo of diacetylmorphine (heroin). That search and seizure was illegal, no warrant. I arrest you anyway and the US Attorney charges you, you (and your lawyer) has to prove to a judge that the search was illegal though, you have to show that you have the right and prove its violated.
1) Possession of heroin is never mentioned in the Constitution. Its possession is not protected.
2) Warrantless searches of the home are presumptively unconstitutional. ("Although the text of the Fourth Amendment does not specify when a search warrant must be obtained, this Court has inferred that a warrant must generally be secured. “It is a ‘basic principle of Fourth Amendment law,’ ” we have often said, “ ‘that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.’ ” Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 1856, 179 L. Ed. 2d 865 (2011)) In other words, no, I don't have to prove that the search was illegal. The government has to prove that it was legal. (Ordinarily, this is done by the prosecutor simply saying, "Look, Judge. My guys had a warrant.")
3) Assuming that the search was in fact illegal (as you stated above), the remedy is that the heroin (and any other "fruit of the poisonous tree") will be excluded from my trial. Let's say you happen to stumble across a fully automatic machine gun while you're there. That, too, will be excluded.

This is precisely the opposite from what goes on with 2A rights, at least in the area where purchases of new firearms from FFLs are concerned. If I want to buy a new gun, I have to prove to the FFL that I'm entitled to do so. Bear in mind, though, that the only reason I have to prove it to the FFL is because federal law says so. IOW, the government has decided that I have to prove that I'm entitled to exercise that right before I'm allowed to do so. The 2A is one of the few rights (albeit not the only one) as to which I have to prove entitlement prior to exercise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FearTheBoomAndBust View Post
. . . .Also, you have the right to keep and bear arms, the second amendment does not entitle you (directly) to purchase (lets ignore legislative intent). so you are proving to the FFLD that you are entitled to keep and bear the arms, therefore you should be allowed to purchase it.
I'll also disagree about the entitlement to purchase. If I'm entitled to possess, I'm entitled to purchase. Otherwise, my right to possess isn't much of a right. Chicago is currently under attack for a similar line of thinking. Its city council dictated range training in order to get a firearms permit, but banned ranges. That was recently struck by the 7th Circuit.

Last edited by Spats McGee; 07-20-2011 at 08:20..
Spats McGee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2011, 17:51   #22
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by FearTheBoomAndBust View Post
In my years with the BATFE
I am a former Special Agent for the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives,
No wonder you are SO adamant about how necessary and good the BATF&E is. You sir were / are part of the problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FearTheBoomAndBust View Post
The BATFE is a necessity too, believe me the BATFE plays a much bigger role in fighting terrorism then anyone believes.
See, there is a perfect example of how far afield and screwed up the members of BATF&E’s belief system is. You honestly believe you are “necessary”. BATF&E has no business dealing with terrorists. But I’m sure they will be adding the T to make sure they are still ”NECESSARY”. They started out as A, alcohol tax goon squad then added a T so they could “control” Tobacco then an F so they could “CONTROL” Firearms (contrary to the Constitution) and lastly the E so they could encompass reloading supplies. The FBI was already controlling BOMB building and threats. So next the BATF&E needs another T so they can use terrorism as another excuse for their being “NECESSARY” even though the CIA and FBI have been carrying that ball for years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FearTheBoomAndBust View Post
Also without the BATFE the Glock or whatever other handgun you are carrying to protect you and your family will be utterly ineffective against what will be out on the streets.
That is just so hilarious it’s hard to keep from laughing out loud. BATF&E can’t keep poop out the hands of criminals. Now I don’t know anyone that can supply this but living near a major city I’m sure I can find a drug dealer quit easily. I’m sure a drug dealer can find me just about any kind of firearm I’m willing to pay for. And that is just how affective the BATF&E is. In fact it wouldn’t surprise me one bit that if I were to seek a firearm that I would get one supplied by BATF&E &T.

And now a moment for a special prayer. Oh lord please don’t let the JBT kick in my door over the above statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FearTheBoomAndBust View Post
The military willingly and purposefully transfered arms, with the CIA, in both Afghanistan and Iran-Contra, those arms are now being used against the very honorable men and women fighting for the US.
Let me see. You honestly believe that the military and CIA giving weapons to people they thought were going to help us and those people turning against us is on a par with BATF&E giving guns to KNOWN criminals that the BATF&E knew would use them against US citizens and our law enforcement. That type of thinking is exactly why the BATF&E needs to be abolished.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FearTheBoomAndBust View Post
As for Waco, that’s not even worth arguing with you over, was it the best operation, no. Did it need to happen, yes, it was a legal raid for valid reasons.
You were a child when Waco happened and have been spoon fed the lies told by ATF as to what REALLY happened. Koresh offered to surrender long before the attack upon his “HOME”. Koresh went jogging every day and could have been apprehended while unarmed on a lonely road. ATF wanted to teach them and ALL us lowly citizens a lesson. Well sir they did. They thought us that the ATF and FBI aren’t to be trusted because they have no honor. They WILL kill you and your children if you don’t cower down.

I’m glad to hear that you’ve chuck the most dishonorable agency in favor of one that is a little more honorable.

It’s a shame you still believe the BATF&E is necessary for it surely is not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cowboywannabe View Post
what many many folks are missing is that while 90% or so of the batfe agents support the 2nd Amndt, they are not the ones in charge of the agency and do not write the policies and give the orders. they simply carry out the orders that are masked as legit.
Famous last word of the Nazi war criminals. I was only following orders!

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The men and women of BATF&E swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. Then they go after people on firearms “violations” contrary to the Constitution they SWORE to uphold and protect. They even trump up charges against innocent men and prosecuted with lies, tampered evidence and cover-ups. Even when found guilty in a court of law or in Congressional hearings they are not held accountable. They use the excuse they were following orders. They have deliberately killed American children in the name of following orders. Defend that.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 07-19-2011 at 23:15..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2011, 00:45   #23
OldCurlyWolf
Senior Member
 
OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 747
FearTheBoomAndBust

Since recently the bunch of criminals you are so underwhelmingly trying to defend have been contributing to arming the criminal element in TWO countries, all of your "arguments" are still superfluous drivel and the BATFE needs to be totally disbanded as a corrupt and illegal organization. The RICO act actually applies to that bunch.

__________________
I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)
OldCurlyWolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2011, 09:17   #24
Lawmaker
'OP'
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Jacksonville, NC
Posts: 15
I will agree with the explosives experts argument. However the ATF in BATFE is not needing of a federal organization. ATF should be regulated by the states. In most cases they are already. How much money would the federal government save by disbanding BATFE? Why was it created in the first place? Was there anarchy before it's creation?
Lawmaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2011, 09:47   #25
Electrikkoolaid
Grape flavored!
 
Electrikkoolaid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by FearTheBoomAndBust View Post
That search and seizure was illegal, no warrant. I arrest you anyway and the US Attorney charges you, you (and your lawyer) has to prove to a judge that the search was illegal though, you have to show that you have the right and prove its violated.
The problem is, that when the agency itself is interpreting the parameters by which it enforces the laws, too much political influence is interjected.

The fact that you can get jammed on federal charges for adding a piece of plastic to your gun is pretty silly.

Defining this device as a SBR and requiring a $200 tax stamp (or ruining the life of anyone who makes a minor transgression of illogical rules) is exactly why gun owners hate/fear the ATF.

The federal government has essentially limitless resources. If you stomp on my rights, and I sue, it will take years before the issue is resolved.

Gazillions of dollars later (all out of my pocket) I may or may not win, but in the interim, I sit in jail or have my second amendment rights denied.

While in theory we have constitutional rights, in practice we as individuals are severely limited by the immense mismatch in resources we can bring to bear to litigate our grievances.
__________________
We need to stop asking "who will pay for healthcare" and start asking "why does it cost so much?"
Electrikkoolaid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2011, 11:27   #26
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawmaker View Post
I will agree with the explosives experts argument. However the ATF in BATFE is not needing of a federal organization. ATF should be regulated by the states. In most cases they are already. How much money would the federal government save by disbanding BATFE? Why was it created in the first place? Was there anarchy before it's creation?
“The ATF was formerly part of the United States Department of the Treasury, having been formed in 1886 as the "Revenue Laboratory" within the Treasury Department's Bureau of Internal Revenue. The history of ATF can be subsequently traced to the time of the revenuers or "revenoors"[6] and the Bureau of Prohibition, which was formed as a unit of the Bureau of Internal Revenue in 1920, was made an independent agency within the Treasury Department in 1927, was transferred to the Justice Department in 1930, and became, briefly, a division of the FBI in 1933.

When the Volstead Act was repealed in December 1933, the Unit was transferred from the Department of Justice back to the Department of the Treasury where it became the Alcohol Tax Unit of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.”….. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_...and_Explosives
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 07-20-2011 at 13:49..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2011, 11:40   #27
crimsonaudio
15 or 30?
 
crimsonaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,841
The BATFE exists to limit our 2A rights, period. You can spin it however you wish but at its core, that's the truth.
__________________
The third rule of fight club: have fun and try your best.
crimsonaudio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2011, 16:45   #28
Magicmanmb
Senior Member
 
Magicmanmb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Coastal, SC area
Posts: 4,064
Ever read Orwell's 1984?
Magicmanmb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2011, 11:07   #29
jerry12
Member
 
jerry12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Greenville , North Carolina
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelsone View Post
Well folks, my paranoid brethren, it appears you really were right: "Fast and Furious" truly does appear to have been all about creating a pretense for registering and controlling legal gun purchases inside the US.

http://news.yahoo.com/atf-require-gu...213420855.html

Now I'm no conspiracy type, and I dismissed out of hand all the talk about the "real reason" behind Operation Gunwalker. But I can't deny the information provided in this story:



So there you have it - first the ATF targets four states, a few weapons types, and multiple buys. Maybe we should start a pool about when the next step up the ratchet arrives, and which guns, states, and buyers will be targeted. For our safety and security, of course!
Another Unconstitutional move by the Omama administration bypassing Congress. Obama should be impeach for breaking the Constitutional laws so congress do your job or we will fire you in 2012.
__________________
Jerry

Glock 21SF , 23 , Two 30SF

NRA Life Member

Last edited by jerry12; 11-04-2011 at 11:09..
jerry12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2011, 21:25   #30
FearTheBoomAndBust
Transfered
 
FearTheBoomAndBust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: West Palm Beach County & DC
Posts: 79
Quote:
The fact that you can get jammed on federal charges for adding a piece of plastic to your gun is pretty silly.

Defining this device as a SBR and requiring a $200 tax stamp (or ruining the life of anyone who makes a minor transgression of illogical rules) is exactly why gun owners hate/fear the ATF.
I can add several chemicals found in your home using your kitchen pots and pans and make an effective IED as well but I don't see people saying noone should regulate that.

Just because a process seems trivial, the end result is what is important and if it is illegal it is illegal and wrong, don't blame the BATFE for enforcing the laws they are sworn to protect.

Quote:
No wonder you are SO adamant about how necessary and good the BATF&E is. You sir were / are part of the problem
I am an adamant supporter of your legal right to own and use a legal firearm in a legal way

Quote:
The BATFE exists to limit our 2A rights, period. You can spin it however you wish but at its core, that's the truth.
I was (still am) sworn to uphold the Constitution of the US, the 2nd amendment is part of that. Read the above response of mine.

Quote:
They thought us that the ATF and FBI aren’t to be trusted because they have no honor. They WILL kill you and your children if you don’t cower down.

I’m glad to hear that you’ve chuck the most dishonorable agency in favor of one that is a little more honorable.
I have a massive amount of honor, always have always will, and was employed as an Intern for the FBI during my college years and in the BATFE as a SA.

And my new agency is no more honorable then my last, I assure you.

I uphold/upheld the laws and Constitution of the United States during my employments with each. I promise, no one in the BATFE Special Agent corp wants to take away your 2nd amendment or trample the rights of LAWFUL gun owners.

Now as for all of that, I understand where all of your anger comes from since you are only hearing about the BATFE's failures, not all of its successes. I hope everyone had a merry christmas, or a happy whatever you celebrate .
__________________
Worthy of Trust and Confidence
P229 .357sig, P230 .382ACP, Glock G26

From Booze and Guns to Presidents and 2 other guys!
FearTheBoomAndBust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2011, 00:42   #31
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
You support what BATF&E has done. You have failed to support the Constitution. Show me where the Constitution grants the BATF&E the power to break the law by selling firearms to criminals/enemies of this country. Show me where the Constitution grants BATF&E the power to write rules that infringe on our 2nd. Amendment right. Show me where the Constitution grants BATF&E agents the power to lie in court and to congress. I watched them lie in congressional hearings both about what happened at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Try to defend being a BATF&E agent anyway you will. The truth is out there for anyone willing to look for it. You can’t deny the truth and buy showing your support you prove you were part of the problem. You have failed to keep your oath.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2011, 10:30   #32
FearTheBoomAndBust
Transfered
 
FearTheBoomAndBust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: West Palm Beach County & DC
Posts: 79
Jerry, I have only one question because without putting you in the Bureau for a day with a TS/SCI and Need to Know there is no way to change your warped view of the BATFE. Would you support getting rid of every branch of government and every agency thereof?

Because the history of each has been paved with lies to congress and deceit, agencies make mistakes, operations take high risk to yield the high rewards needed to put them in a positive spotlight.

Quote:
I watched them lie in congressional hearings both about what happened at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
One of my good friends was there, his response to that statement would be, and this is a paraphrased quote, "Well hell, they shoulda called me to testify in front of Congress I woulda only made one short statement: 'We went there to execute a lawful arrest for David willfully and blatantly breaking the law, they shot first, after day 1 four of my buddies lay dead. You can't kill a Federal Agent I, and the commanders tend to take that seriously Mr. Chairman, what did you want us to do, say hey Mr. Crazy man thanks for the shower of bullets we're going to turn tail and run now bye'."

Don't ever confuse the politically motivated drivel seen in Congressional hearings for the real BATFE, and don't view them (us) as monsters because of it.

Quote:
Show me where the Constitution grants BATF&E the power to write rules that infringe on our 2nd. Amendment right.
Congress does under the Bureau's ability to write the Code of Federal Regulations, Firearms control just happens to be one of the areas the BATFE enforces.


Quote:
You can’t deny the truth and buy showing your support you prove you were part of the problem. You have failed to keep your oath.
You have it confused again, your anger should be directed at the political appointees (which consists of the Director and AG), not the Special Agents.
Everyday that I went to work I protected YOUR 2nd Amendment right (I assume your a lawful and legal firearms owner and user). Everyone I worked with put their lives on the line right next to mine to do the exact same, please do not slander us over the Directors politics sir.

You can have whatever opinions on the AG or Director or Executive Branch as a whole that you want, but don't take it out in broad strokes against the BATFE as a whole, the United States is safer with it then without it, trust me on that one.
__________________
Worthy of Trust and Confidence
P229 .357sig, P230 .382ACP, Glock G26

From Booze and Guns to Presidents and 2 other guys!
FearTheBoomAndBust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2011, 11:01   #33
blk69stang
Senior Member
 
blk69stang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 524
I swore an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Every BATFE agent, by the very fact of their employment in that evil agency, is breaking their oath of office, and will one day have to answer to the Almighty for breaking that oath.

I take my oath seriously. And BATFE agents are ENEMIES OF THE CONSTITUTION. Period.
blk69stang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2011, 11:28   #34
FearTheBoomAndBust
Transfered
 
FearTheBoomAndBust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: West Palm Beach County & DC
Posts: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by blk69stang View Post
I swore an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Every BATFE agent, by the very fact of their employment in that evil agency, is breaking their oath of office, and will one day have to answer to the Almighty for breaking that oath.

I take my oath seriously. And BATFE agents are ENEMIES OF THE CONSTITUTION. Period.
I helped keep Explosives out of the hands of terrorists, I was sent overseas to help the US Army better disarm IED's for 2 months, I'm pretty sure I helped the Constitution more then I hurt her. But I see your point, I really actually dont though.
Have you ever met a BATFE agent? I promise they're really nice 2nd Amendment loving people.
__________________
Worthy of Trust and Confidence
P229 .357sig, P230 .382ACP, Glock G26

From Booze and Guns to Presidents and 2 other guys!
FearTheBoomAndBust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2011, 14:11   #35
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
FearTheBoomAndBust, I don't have time to respond right now but I promise I will before the nights out. Quick answer to your first question though. Yes I’ve met three agents. One was very nice. Two were real A-HOLES. But then I personally new a Federal Marshals and he and two others that I met turned out to be A-Holes. My opinion hasn’t been formed because of things I’ve been told by others, it's been formed through first had experience and what I’ve see with my own eyes. I understand there are good and bad in everything. Problem is BATF&E is being run by the bad and the bad are running wild and the good do nothing about it. In your case you left so I give you credit for that.

Gotta go, late for work! Back later.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 12-27-2011 at 17:32..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2011, 17:09   #36
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by FearTheBoomAndBust View Post
Jerry, I have only one question because without putting you in the Bureau for a day with a TS/SCI and Need to Know there is no way to change your warped view of the BATFE. Would you support getting rid of every branch of government and every agency thereof?
My warped view tells me any agency that’s primary function is enforcing unconstitutional law should be abolished or at least put into check (bound by the chains of the Constitution). If the ATF were put into check it could no longer function so it may as well be abolished.

You have stated, paraphrasing here, that you swore an oath to uphold the constitution and then you stated that you only enforce the law. Most of what ATF does is enforce unconstitutional (“shall not be infringed”) law. So which is it? You enforce the law or you uphold the Constitution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FearTheBoomAndBust View Post
Because the history of each has been paved with lies to congress and deceit, agencies make mistakes, operations take high risk to yield the high rewards needed to put them in a positive spotlight.
See! Here is where “HONOR” is proven or lost. You believe because other agencies have lied it’s ok. So much for honor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FearTheBoomAndBust View Post
One of my good friends was there, his response to that statement would be, and this is a paraphrased quote, "Well hell, they shoulda called me to testify in front of Congress I woulda only made one short statement: 'We went there to execute a lawful arrest for David willfully and blatantly breaking the law, they shot first, after day 1 four of my buddies lay dead. You can't kill a Federal Agent I, and the commanders tend to take that seriously Mr. Chairman, what did you want us to do, say hey Mr. Crazy man thanks for the shower of bullets we're going to turn tail and run now bye'."
Your “good” friend is exactly the type of agent that makes BATF as bad as it is. Your praise of what he would have done and want the BATF did prove how bad the mindset of BATF agents is.

And what law did Kersh brake? Are you talking unconstitutional law about automatic weapons? Or is it that he didn’t pay the unconstitutional Tax. And what happened to “ALL” those automatic weapons. Seems they just disappeared didn’t they?

We all know Kersh went jogging every morning ALONE down a DESERTED dirt road. An arrest could have very easily been made then if all that was wanted was an arrest. BATF wanted to make a point. They know there would be a gun fight so they went in and did exactly want they wanted.

And what of the “children” they supposedly wanted to save from a fait worse than death. They burned them all alive. Very honorable! Now they either did that on purpose or it shows just how stupid BATF agents really are. I’m going with on purpose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FearTheBoomAndBust View Post
Don't ever confuse the politically motivated drivel seen in Congressional hearings for the real BATFE, and don't view them (us) as monsters because of it.
Oh, I don’t view you as monsters because of that. I view you as monsters for what was done a Waco, Ruby Ridge and in many home invasions. The view I gained from the congressional hearings are that all involved, from the top to the bottom are liars and have no honor and that those that weren’t involved support lying murderers.



Quote:
Originally Posted by FearTheBoomAndBust View Post
Congress does under the Bureau's ability to write the Code of Federal Regulations, Firearms control just happens to be one of the areas the BATFE enforces.
The Constitution does not grant congress the power to grant power to write “code” that is enforces as law to individual agencies. The “code” is unconstitutional on two fronts. It's unconstitutional for BATF to make law/code and the code itself in unconstitutional because it’s in direct defiance of the 2nd. Amendment.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FearTheBoomAndBust View Post
You have it confused again, your anger should be directed at the political appointees (which consists of the Director and AG), not the Special Agents.
First it isn’t anger it’s disgust. I hold everyone you have mentioned in disgust. Every time I hear a law informant agent try to blame what they do on others it rings of Hitler’s disciples. We were/are only following orders.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FearTheBoomAndBust View Post
Everyday that I went to work I protected YOUR 2nd Amendment right (I assume your a lawful and legal firearms owner and user). Everyone I worked with put their lives on the line right next to mine to do the exact same, please do not slander us over the Directors politics sir.
Yes I’m a law abiding and legal firearms owner. I have jumped through all the unconstitutional hoops. I hold a CCW and city Commission. Will that stop me from having a visit after posting what I have? God only knows. What I do know is that if an agent is order to kick in my door he will NO QUESTIONS ASKED.

I do not slander over the directors policies. I admonish over the willful following of his orders and willful support of liars and murderers.

If I had sold guns to criminals/terrorists/drug cartels and those guns, no let’s say one gun, had killed one American, god forbid if that American were law informant, I would be imprisoned for the rest of my life. What has/will happen to all BATF members, including the Attorneys General and the Director, involved? The same thing that happened to those involved in Waco and Ruby Ridge. Maybe, just maybe a slap on the wrist while all of the BATF pats them on the back and congregates them for getting away with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FearTheBoomAndBust View Post
You can have whatever opinions on the AG or Director or Executive Branch as a whole that you want, but don't take it out in broad strokes against the BATFE as a whole, the United States is safer with it then without it, trust me on that one.
I supposed what was done to the Jews and other prisoners of war should not have been taken out on those that preformed the acts? After all it was Hitler and the SS’s fault right? All the war criminals were just innocent dupes. Give me a F-ing brake!

If anyone has a warped sense of view here it’s the insider trying to defend the criminals in the BATF. If you want to place blame don't look to the AG or the Director just look in the merror.

Quote:

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke

I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. What I can do, I should do and, with the help of God, I will do! [Everett Hale]
You should pay particular attention to those quotes since the concept seems to have eluded you.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 12-27-2011 at 17:42..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2011, 17:40   #37
FearTheBoomAndBust
Transfered
 
FearTheBoomAndBust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: West Palm Beach County & DC
Posts: 79
Jerry, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE go to law school, learn what is constitutional or unconstitutional and what all of that really means.

If what the BATFE does is all so "illegal" why hasn't the SCOTUS done anything?

And don't you ever compare me, my former co-workers, or my former agency to Hitler or the SS, I don't care if saying this gets me baned, so be it! DON'T YOU DARE USE THOSE COMPARISONS EVER PERIOD. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

I upheld the firearms laws of the United States, if you don't like those laws too damn bad, call your Congressman don't blame the BATFE.

As for the legality of the CFR, in both agencies, current and former, it is lawful to use according to the SCOTUS, Legislature, and Executive branch.

Lawyers, Judges, and Legal Scholars, know much more about the actual Constitution and law then either of us, and they have proven all of the BATFE's enforcement laws constitutional and valid.

As for Ruby Ridge and Waco, refer to my other post in this forum.

Now if you will excuse me I'm mad as hell, and I have to get back to work from my break. Or wait, no all the laws I'm planning on enforcing are "illegal" and anti-constitutional since they are in the CFR, USC, and Acts of Congress, not the Constitution....
__________________
Worthy of Trust and Confidence
P229 .357sig, P230 .382ACP, Glock G26

From Booze and Guns to Presidents and 2 other guys!
FearTheBoomAndBust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2011, 19:10   #38
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Don’t need law school to understand “shall not be infringed”.

The Scots are doing something about it. Have you seen the recent rulings against DC and Chicago? First the case has to get to the Scots. Then they have to agree to hear it. I'm sure what the BATF has/is doing will eventually be heard.

I’ll compare you and the rest of BATF to anyone I wish. Or perhaps you’d like to violate the 1st. also. You came here and defend what they have done. They murdered innocent children in the name of teaching the peons a lesson. We learned a very good lesson. You and your ilk have no honor and will follow orders without question even it if kills children. BATF sold firearms to our enemies and that enemy used those firearms to killed American law enforcement agents in America. Don’t like what I have to say, too bad. You came here and put your .02 worth in and expect us to just read and agree? Or perhaps you're used to flashing a badge and having people cower down. Ain’t gonna happen here.

You’re worried about being banned. I’ll go you one better. I’m worried about having my door kicked in, evidence being planted and never seeing the light of day again because of speaking the truth.


Until the Congress changes the Constitution anything done without power being granted by the Constitution is still unconstitutional. 1st. Congress shall make no law. That means I can voice my disapproval of any government agency and its agents. 2nd. “Shall not be infringed” means any law/code, regardless what the Scots have or haven’t ruled is unconstitutional.

You’re mad as hell? Good! Too bad you didn’t get mad as hell at you brethren in the BATF when they were breaking the law. Don’t even try telling me selling arms to known enemies of this country is legal. Funny how law enforcement, particularly BATF believes they are above the law when it comes to commiting criminal acts under the pretense of catching criminals.

I’d love to hear how you were “protecting” my 2nd. Amendment rights by violating the rights of others. Please explain that fable to me.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 12-28-2011 at 00:12..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2011, 09:07   #39
John Rambo
Raven
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 8,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by FearTheBoomAndBust View Post
Jerry, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE go to law school, learn what is constitutional or unconstitutional and what all of that really means.
What do you dispute? Because the BATFE and the things they do are beyond the scope of powers granted to the federal government in our constitution and hence UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Quote:
If what the BATFE does is all so "illegal" why hasn't the SCOTUS done anything?
Because your bosses are in bed with politicians who have an agenda and several members of SCOTUS have the same agenda.

Quote:
And don't you ever compare me, my former co-workers, or my former agency to Hitler or the SS, I don't care if saying this gets me baned, so be it! DON'T YOU DARE USE THOSE COMPARISONS EVER PERIOD. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and ****s like a duck...

Quote:
I upheld the firearms laws of the United States, if you don't like those laws too damn bad, call your Congressman don't blame the BATFE.
Personally, I blame all of you. "I was just following orders!" didn't work for the Nazis, it doesn't work for the cops, and it won't work for you. At least not in my book.

Quote:
As for the legality of the CFR, in both agencies, current and former, it is lawful to use according to the SCOTUS, Legislature, and Executive branch.
Not according to me. And I assert that they have an AGENDA which has influenced their decisions.
John Rambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2011, 12:29   #40
Screaming .357G
598ci big block
 
Screaming .357G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NC
Posts: 3,030
Send a message via AIM to Screaming .357G
__________________
The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do.
Joseph Stalin
Screaming .357G is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 22:28.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,005
284 Members
721 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31