Philly blaming it on the guns

[82ndtrooper]

Philly, with 406 murders in 2006 has the cure ! Take the guns, violate our 2nd Amendment right, and due away with the 4th Amendment. Read this, but be sure to take a shower after words, you'll need it. :boohoo :rolleyes:

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/16479673.htm

[The Reaper]

I suppose banning fast cars would reduce the highway fatality rates as well.

Who really needs a car that can go more than 100mph?

Oops, there is no Constitutional right to fast cars.

Perhaps we should blame the people who are misusing the objects rather than the objects themselves.

Bet we see more of this in the next few years.

TR

[82ndtrooper]

North Philly is like Bagdad, snipers on rooftops, police fleeing the scene being out gunned, crack dealers on every corner, prostitutes along side of them, and the nearest hospital requires a helo dust off if your going to get there in time.

The Mayor of Philly said that the current war in Iraq is what is spurring the violence in his city. What ?? Iraq is the cause of violence in Philly ? http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/16486302.htm

I suppose anything that requires abstract thought escapes the polititions in Philly. :rolleyes:

[swatsurgeon]

hey, I did my 6 years of surgical training (residency) in North Philly...how do you think I learned so much so well? After that it was off to Miami for more gun and knife days and nights...this is how to prepare to become a competent Trauma surgeon with 'the edge' at patching them up....LOL
BTW, I was never unarmed while out and about, anytime, anywhere in that city. That was when I learned about SmartCarry (Thunderwear) and was always carrying under scrubs and in the town.
Never got into any trouble: kept the radar on whenever we were out.

We did take a few guns off of bad guys every month...they finally started to keep Philadelphia's finest in our Trauma room...

ss

[Squidly]

I have never sent a letter to a columnist before but this one pissed me off. Below is what I sent Heller;

I am a gun owner. I am not a rabid, camoflage clad, mock assault weapon
brandishing, NRA proselytizer but your column bothers me like it should
any responsible gun owner. Mostly because of its snotty, superior tone.
I would think this subject is divisive enough without your sarcasm. Some
gun owners that were middle of the road will read your column and head
straight for the NRA with a copy of your column in their hand. Good for
them. At the least it will make some of them consider whether or not
they should start supporting groups like your hated NRA. Hopefully
you've also managed to inflame the anti-gun groups as well which appears
to be your intent. Lets piss everyone off. If you want squall about
situations like the death count in Philadelphia you might want to
consider a more constructive way to get your message out. While I
realize that you probably get paid to put out this type of yellow
journalism I would hope that your pen trips over a shred of integrity in
your next column. Your a real big help lady.

Sincerely,

xxx xxxxx

[jasonglh]

I still do not understand how these cities and states pass gun laws that skirt the 2nd amendment and get away with it. At least thats not something I have to worry much about in Kentucky.

[Sionnach]

Yet another reason for me to love living in the great state of Georgia.

TR, I think we should take it a step further and ban ALL cars, as they are the leading cause of death according to the CDC.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5550a6.htm

Curiously, poisons seem to have passed firearms as the number two "cause of death." Therefore, I propose banning all poisons as well. I suppose once we ban poisons, and roaches take over, leading roachborne diseases to become the leading cause of death, we'll have to ban them, too.

I wonder how PETA would respond?

[82ndtrooper]

hey, I did my 6 years of surgical training (residency) in North Philly...how do you think I learned so much so well? After that it was off to Miami for more gun and knife days and nights...this is how to prepare to become a competent Trauma surgeon with 'the edge' at patching them up....LOL
BTW, I was never unarmed while out and about, anytime, anywhere in that city. That was when I learned about SmartCarry (Thunderwear) and was always carrying under scrubs and in the town.
Never got into any trouble: kept the radar on whenever we were out.

We did take a few guns off of bad guys every month...they finally started to keep Philadelphia's finest in our Trauma room...

ss

"Thunderwear"......................now that's hilarious !!!!:)

[casey]

hey, I did my 6 years of surgical training (residency) in North Philly...


I'm going with Temple on this guess, as Einstien's too far north.

[casey]

North Philly is like Bagdad, snipers on rooftops, police fleeing the scene being out gunned, crack dealers on every corner, prostitutes along side of them, and the nearest hospital requires a helo dust off if your going to get there in time.



Don't know where that bullshit about police fleeing the scene came from, check the stats for police related shootings - 2 K5's just this week alone.

As for the helo dustoff to the nearest hospital, well, for the vast majority of the 406 who were shot or stabbed, "gettin' em there in time" is all relative.......

[swatsurgeon]

I'm going with Temple on this guess, as Einstien's too far north.

Casey,
Actually, it was Einstein...we used to get more GSWs than Temple some years...I happen to have the years we had greater numbers.

82ndtrooper....what you never tried to conceal a pistol while wearing just shorts and no shirt? Look up www.smartcarry.com and actually it was thunderbelt...thunderwear just gives a better visual....LOL

ss

[82ndtrooper]

Casey,
Actually, it was Einstein...we used to get more GSWs than Temple some years...I happen to have the years we had greater numbers.

82ndtrooper....what you never tried to conceal a pistol while wearing just shorts and no shirt? Look up www.smartcarry.com and actually it was thunderbelt...thunderwear just gives a better visual....LOL

ss


I actually have a Smartcarry. Just never heard that usage of the term "Thunderwear"

I take it you had a permit to carry concealed, or not. :munchin

[jasonglh]

How did you carry under scrubs? Did you wear a lab coat all the time or just wear your scrubs really big?

All I have in my scrub pocket is my Surefire E2D and a rusty 10 year old pair of EMS shears.

[swatsurgeon]

I actually have a Smartcarry. Just never heard that usage of the term "Thunderwear"

I take it you had a permit to carry concealed, or not. :munchin


yes, always carried with a permit: PA, FL, VA

Thunderwear was the term I first heard when I was looking at this kind of rig to carry under scrubs/shorts...a bad play on terms!!

ss

jasonglh...just wear one size up...I carry either a kahr pm9 or Glock 27 and you blouse out the scrubs top and I haven't had anyone know I carry at work.

[Goggles Pizano]

82ndTrooper;

I echo casey's comments concerning city police and your general description of North Philly as "Bagdad". Have you been to North Philly? I've worked undercover with Philly Narcotics squad on numerous occasions. They are competant, tactically sound, and honorable men and women. Yes, that area is tough but as any cop will tell you even in crappy neighborhoods there are decent people with no way out just trying to survive and that is who they work for. Outgunned?? Hardly. Snipers on the rooftops? How many incidents of this have you read about? In 17 years of law enforcement I have dealt with one (1) sniper issue. Most cases you have scumbags running across rooftops during a foot pursuit. They are likely armed but that does not translate into a sniper. Helo's? Dude, most of the victims are thrown into a police wagon and transported to the hospital because it's faster than waiting for an ambulance (depending upon the time of day, wounds, etc).

Philadelphia is no different than any other metropolis in this great country. It has issues; murders, assaults, rapes and an overwhelmed/understaffed PD. The mayor wants to eliminate guns. This is not a new assault on the second amendment. Old sabre rattling by a bad politician. In a democrat run city it is difficult to NOT expect this type of silliness from one of it's papers. I would not wrap a fish in the Inquirer anyway. ;)

[CoLawman]

North Philly is like Bagdad, snipers on rooftops, police fleeing the scene being out gunned, crack dealers on every corner, prostitutes along side of them, and the nearest hospital requires a helo dust off if your going to get there in time.

The Mayor of Philly said that the current war in Iraq is what is spurring the violence in his city. What ?? Iraq is the cause of violence in Philly ? http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/16486302.htm

I suppose anything that requires abstract thought escapes the polititions in Philly. :rolleyes:

Endorphin Rush, What say you? :munchin

[82ndtrooper]

Point recieved, however this particular poorely written piece seems to have a more insulting tone towards the gun owner. The author, Karen Heller is obviously on the very far left of the 2nd AM issue with the use of stereo types and clever insults. "Venison Alla Camry" :rolleyes: Guess she missed the point of embracing the outdoors, the wilderness, wild life, and the sutble sounds of rolling water. The hunt is about the experience, not the killing or harvest of the animal, especially with a firearm. Guess She never thought of bow hunting ? Just as climbing Mt. Everest is more about the challenge, not the moment at the summit, limited as it may be. I would wonder what Mr.s Heller does for challenging herself besides the tread mill in her apartment, and staying away from pizza for a new years resolution? I guess Mrs. Heller obscures indoor climbing with a tether as equivalent to the summit conquest of Everest.

New tactics? of course not, every city that seems to have a higher rate of murders, rapes, assualts, drug trafficing, etc seem to think the cure is connected to guns. NYC's Mayor, Mr. Bloomberg, seems intent on infringing the 2nd Amendment, even to the extent to use the BATFE as his gestapo reaching even into another state. That state being Va. Guess the BATFE hasn't enough to do when the rate of lawfully owned guns rises other than to harass the local FFL's for "Straw man" purchases. This is one agency that has little if any use, and that use has seen it's day. We can debate this if you'd like, but be prepared for a lengthy record of 2nd Amendment infringements. Not to mention a multitude of other civil rights violations, most of them embarrassing to themselves.

A good starting point for this debate would be Ruby Ridge/Randy Weaver...............shall we ??

[CoLawman]

New tactics? of course not, every city that seems to have a higher rate of murders, rapes, assualts, drug trafficing, etc seem to think the cure is connected to guns. NYC's Mayor, Mr. Bloomberg, seems intent on infringing the 2nd Amendment, even to the extent to use the BATFE as his gestapo reaching even into another state. That state being Va. Guess the BATFE hasn't enough to do when the rate of lawfully owned guns rises other than to harass the local FFL's for "Straw man" purchases. This is one agency that has little if any use, and that use has seen it's day. We can debate this if you'd like, but be prepared for a lengthy record of 2nd Amendment infringements. Not to mention a multitude of other civil rights violations, most of them embarrassing to themselves.

A good starting point for this debate would be Ruby Ridge/Randy Weaver...............shall we ??[/QUOTE]

82nd,
I will gladly pick up your gauntlet..........however, duty calls (Working a joint operation with ATF). Will post my argument once I have some free time..........stay tuned

[The Reaper]

however, duty calls (Working a joint operation with ATF).

Wow, considering the title and nature of this thread, that should be interesting.:munchin

TR

[echoes]

I suppose banning fast cars would reduce the highway fatality rates as well.

Who really needs a car that can go more than 100mph?

Oops, there is no Constitutional right to fast cars.

Perhaps we should blame the people who are misusing the objects rather than the objects themselves.

Bet we see more of this in the next few years.

TR


Agreed Sir. Speaking from personal experience here.

Holly

[82ndtrooper]

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" and the Bureau of Prohibition, which was originally formed as a subsidiary of Internal Revenue in 1920, was made an independent agency within the Treasury Department in 1927, was transferred to the Justice Department in 1928, and became, briefly, a subordinate 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. Special Agent Eliot Ness and several of members of "Untouchables", who had all worked for the Prohibition Bureau while the Volstead Act was still in force, were transferred to the ATU. In 1942, responsibility for enforcing federal firearms laws was given to the ATU. In the early 1950s, the name of the Bureau of Internal Revenue was changed to "Internal Revenue Service" (IRS), and the ATU was given the additional responsibility of enforcing federal tobacco tax laws. At this time, it changed its name to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division (ATTD). In 1968, with the passage of the Gun Control Act, the agency changed its name again to the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Division, still a subsidiary of the IRS, and first began to be referred to by the initials "ATF". In 1972, President Richard Nixon signed an Executive Order creating a separate Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms within the Treasury Department.

In the wake of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush signed into law the Homeland Security Act of 2002. In addition to creating of the Department of Homeland Security, the law shifted ATF and its investigative and regulatory inspection functions from the Treasury Department over to the Justice Department. The agency's name was officially changed to the "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives" in recognition to the agency's role in explosives regulation and enforcement; however the Bureau retained the use of its original acronym, "ATF", for all purposes. Additionally, the collector of federal tax revenue derived from the production of tobacco and liquor products originally handled by ATF were transferred to the newly established Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), which remained within the Treasury Department. The Ballistics department takes on the job of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). These changes took effect January 24, 2003.

Wow ! After all those changes, originally merely a "TAX REVENUE" agency during the prohibition years, the BATFE is now responsible for clearly one thing, the enforcement of firearms regulations and interstate commerce. One could argue that the BATFE has never, from it's origination, had a clear definitive mission directive. As cited above, it would seem that after prohibition "Revenuers" that the BATFE has had to create a place within the federal government to continue it's existence. Their not responsible for alcohol and tobacco tax revenues, merely left to firearms regulations, and now explosives.

We'll examine this mission directive more closely as the debate continues.





FBI leaves sub machines guns in SUV that are later stolen. Perhaps the BATFE should pay closer attention to federal agents.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801209.html

[Endorphin Rush]

I can't speak from any personal experience about North Philly specifically, I've only been to South, Southwest and Center city on a regular basis. But, the guys I know who work up that way certainly don't describe it as anything close to "Baghdad".

I think Goggles Pizano stated it pretty fairly.

[aricbcool]

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" and the Bureau of Prohibition, which was originally formed as a subsidiary of Internal Revenue in 1920, was made an independent agency within the Treasury Department in 1927, was transferred to the Justice Department in 1928, and became, briefly, a subordinate 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. Special Agent Eliot Ness and several of members of "Untouchables", who had all worked for the Prohibition Bureau while the Volstead Act was still in force, were transferred to the ATU. In 1942, responsibility for enforcing federal firearms laws was given to the ATU. In the early 1950s, the name of the Bureau of Internal Revenue was changed to "Internal Revenue Service" (IRS), and the ATU was given the additional responsibility of enforcing federal tobacco tax laws. At this time, it changed its name to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division (ATTD). In 1968, with the passage of the Gun Control Act, the agency changed its name again to the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Division, still a subsidiary of the IRS, and first began to be referred to by the initials "ATF". In 1972, President Richard Nixon signed an Executive Order creating a separate Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms within the Treasury Department.

In the wake of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush signed into law the Homeland Security Act of 2002. In addition to creating of the Department of Homeland Security, the law shifted ATF and its investigative and regulatory inspection functions from the Treasury Department over to the Justice Department. The agency's name was officially changed to the "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives" in recognition to the agency's role in explosives regulation and enforcement; however the Bureau retained the use of its original acronym, "ATF", for all purposes. Additionally, the collector of federal tax revenue derived from the production of tobacco and liquor products originally handled by ATF were transferred to the newly established Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), which remained within the Treasury Department. The Ballistics department takes on the job of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). These changes took effect January 24, 2003.

Friendly suggestion: Cite your sources...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco_and_Firearms#Organizati onal_history

--Aric

[casey]

Casey,
Actually, it was Einstein...we used to get more GSWs than Temple some years...I happen to have the years we had greater numbers.

ss


Ahhh, Old York Rd. Most of your shooting came from the bottom, Windrim Ave, Courtland St, Wingohocking Ave or from Olney etc. 35th District coveredyour ER.

[casey]

Endorphin Rush, What say you? :munchin

If you don't mind Col, I'll call this one.

North Philly is nothing as described. North Philly is just like most other large urban environments. You have a ton of hard working, decent people who want to work and raise kids and be left alone. In some of its sections there are those who are trapped inside their houses at night by wanna be g's and thugs, not by choice, but by fear.

Every single day and night these thugs are stepped to by police officers assigned to that District or to a high crime beat - no officers flee any scenes, (as was evident by the shootout just yesterday morning), quite the contriary - they still move to fire.

There are no snipers - period. Crackheads and whores are not found on every corner. And as I've said before, transportation to the hospital is all relative - a victim of a crime is transported post haste, while others, well... whos to say that the long wait for Rescue (EMS) was such a bad move for Boo, or the wagon has bad brakes enroute to the hospital....

Point is, the broad brush won't work here. Left leaning liberal writes about poor youffs being killed, who cares. Mayor says its a gun problem, who cares. The same cops will be out there doing their job no matter who pontificates about yet another social woe.

So its not a 2nd Amendment or an ATF problem. Its a piece of shit problem. One piece of shit shoots another piece of shit and everybody looks at the gun in abject horror. So, while not for all of course, but for a large majority of the 406 killed last year - f... em, they all had choices, they all made decisions, some just ended badly for them.......

[82ndtrooper]

Friendly suggestion: Cite your sources...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco_and_Firearms#Organizati onal_history

--Aric

I see you've been doing your own reading of the BATFE. Yes, the source was Wikipedia. A fitting start to any spirited debate would be the organizational structure and or history of the said agency. This one being the BATFE.

[aricbcool]

I see you've been doing your own reading of the BATFE. Yes, the source was Wikipedia. A fitting start to any spirited debate would be the organizational structure and or history of the said agency. This one being the BATFE.

Actually no, I haven't. I just doubted that your summary was originally written for this discussion, so I did some googling. In any argument, credibility is an important factor. If you don't properly cite where you get your information, your credibility suffers. If you don't properly cite information you have copied and pasted from somewhere else, you end up looking incapable of making your own arguments.

I'm interested in seeing how this discussion turns out. I'm also interested in knowing where the information I read comes from.

Regards,
Aric

[82ndtrooper]

QP Casey,

I have to strongly disagree on a couple of points. Ok, the broad brush that was used of North Philly may have been a bit to broad. Any toes that were stepped on have already made that clear. I believe I did point that out in the second to the last post of mine. Case over. Understood, point recieved. End.

"Who Cares?" Wow, If I lived in North Philly, Washington D.C., New York, San Fransisco, Cali, Chicago, Ill, etc I'd be darned concerned for 2nd Amendment rights. Not to mention the inalienable right to self preservation which may include my 2nd Amendment right to defend myself. Bernhard Goetz, in NYC, had it right, but had to spend 8 months in jail for defending himself with a handgun !! Where's the justice in that kind of false utopian culture ?? Yep Bernies one strange cat, but mixed emotions all over the city of NY are what pressured the court system to issue a lesser charge resulting in a lesser sentence related only to weapons charges. That weapons charge being carrying a concealed deadly weapon without a permit. And of course one of the families of the thugs sewed for 40+ million to which Bernie quicly filed bankruptcy. Kudos to Bernie. Crime on the subways of NYC declined sharply in the day's and months following Bernhard Goetz's actions.

If you dont care about the 2nd Amendment, then please abstain from voting in the next primary and the next presidential election. The American citizens have already given the house and the senate to the Democrats, but lets see if they like what their going to get !!


The debate of the BATFE is what I've asked for in reference to their cooperation with the Mayor of NYC, Mr. Bloomberg. as in the first to last post, I've began with a general history of the "GANG" with a brief historically life line, which began as a tax revenue dept of the treasury during the prohibition days. Now the BATFE is responsible for two things. Gun law regulations enforcement, and explosives. I suppose the BATFE should read as "F" for firearms. More to come in the bizarre behavior of the BATFE in it's never ending violations of civil rights and 2nd Amendment fishing expeditions due to it's incredibly narrow scope of mission directives.

The only thing I will note about my personal imvolvement with the BATFE is the NFA transfer of full auto firearms and suppressors (silencers) They are in fact completley objective with no subjective nature to their approval process to recieve an ATF stamp on your submitted form 4. I have only worked with one examiner, but he has been completley respectful of the rights of the people to own NFA type firearms and suppressors without any subjective type of approval. If your not a felon, without a history of spousal abuse, you'll get your stamp and take possession of the NFA Class III firearm or device. Kudos to the BATFE examiner. Now let's take a look at the scope of the "Paramilitary" side of the agency and the undercover work that has lead to embarrassing Clintonian moments in it's history since Ruby Ridge and the Randy Weaver Case.

[casey]

Never said I didn't care about the 2nd Amendment - said I didn't care what some reporter or the mayors opinion about Philadelphia's thinning of the thug herd was.

Of the 406 Philly homicides, (mostly shootings) only a handfull (domestic) were committed with legal, registered guns by non-felons. Most murders were done by a thug with a stolen or straw purchased - street sold gun. A vast majority of the murdered were of the same thug life style. So a 2nd Amendment argument applies here how??

Philadelphia also has a huge per capita permit to carry registration base. So I guess I'm missing the point as to why you are hell bent on bringing up the ATF as the nexus of any problems associated with the articles?

[82ndtrooper]

Never said I didn't care about the 2nd Amendment - said I didn't care what some reporter or the mayors opinion about Philadelphia's thinning of the thug herd was.

Of the 406 Philly homicides, (mostly shootings) only a handfull (domestic) were committed with legal, registered guns by non-felons. Most murders were done by a thug with a stolen or straw purchased - street sold gun. A vast majority of the murdered were of the same thug life style. So a 2nd Amendment argument applies here how??

Philadelphia also has a huge per capita permit to carry registration base. So I guess I'm missing the point as to why you are hell bent on bringing up the ATF as the nexus of any problems associated with the articles?

Understood, and I'm glad someone in Philly see's fit to allow their law abiding citizens to carry concealed, that is as long as it's a "Shall Issue" state and not a "Prove to us" you need one state as is currently the the case in cities like San Francisco, Cali.

I mentioned some 4 posts ago that the BATFE is a "useless" agency and that it has "seen it's day's" after the prohibition. The debate was picked up by COLAWMAN afte he stated that "He'd pick up the gauntlet" and debate it with me.

[CoLawman]

New tactics? of course not, every city that seems to have a higher rate of murders, rapes, assualts, drug trafficing, etc seem to think the cure is connected to guns.

Unfortunately murders, rapes, assaults, and drug trafficking are generally connected to the use of firearms. Firearms in the possession of a criminal causes concern in most citizens. To ignore the connection is ignorant. You being a "gun enthusiast" practice with your firearm, and possibly carry or advocate the right for concealed carry for the eventuality you might be confronted by a person who is about to commit an act against you, an act that you attempt to marginalize to support your "sky is falling" argument.

The question is simple, should criminals be afforded the same protection under the 2nd Amendment?

The most common Federal Arm Charges resulting in indictments:

1. 18 USC 922 Poss. or Receipt of a Firearm or Ammo by Prohibited Person

Like.....convicted felons, mentally disturbed, dishonorably discharged, drug addict, ALIEN, Domestic Violence conviction.

82nd, this is the code that would result from "harassing FFL on straw man purchases." In fact this scheme is a common practice used by Gang members and convicted felons to obtain firearms. You being a financial advisor, I am sure you have very limited knowledge regarding straw man investigations. Your post leads one to believe that the FFL is the target of these investigations. Usually this is not the case. The FFL is the holder of the documents that result in the indictment against the person "purchasing" (not selling as your post tries to suggest). There are those instances where the FFL is knowingly involved in these transactions and should be indicted. My experience, which involves 29 years, is that arms dealers and retailers are cooperative in these investigations. I have never heard one complain about being harassed.

18 USC 924 Use Carry or Possess a firearm in relation to or in furtherance of a drug felony or a federal crime of violence.

Hmmmmmm no mention of Financial Advisors here.

18 USC 842 Possession of stolen firearm ammunition or explosive. (B) may not steal from a Firearm Licensee........hmmmm a law protecting the FFL!

18 USC 922 May not possess or discharge a firearm in a school zone.

Hmmmmmm a law protecting our children.

18 USC 922 Possession of sawed offs, automatic weapons, silencers, any firearm with altered or obliterated serial number.

18-USC 924 Armed Career Criminal A person with three previous felony convictions for violent offenses or drugs.

So why would your local or state LE want ATF's assistance in such cases?
1. Minimum mandatory sentences.
2. 30 month sentence is a 30 month sentence in Federal sentencing. No time off for good behavior.
3. There is room in Federal Pens.......which is a luxury most city, counties, and states do not have. Well, New York City is an exception of as their violent crime has been so significantly reduced that they are closing prisons not building them.

ATF's focus is not on the lawful ownership of firearms. There focus is on Gangs, Illegal Aliens, Drug Dealers, and yes, Domestic terrorists.

For all of your chicken little ramblings, please give a first person account of your rights being violated by ATF. Ruby Ridge was in 1992! Alot of changes occur in 14 years.

The ATF agents in the field do not pass legislation, they do not make case law, and they certainly do not care if some Financial Advisor has 10, 30 or 40 guns in his house.

Your rhetoric is best left for Posse Commitatus, Outlaw Motorcycle Gang, and White Supremacist blogs.

In past posts you have painted with a broad brush and disparaged police officers. Now you paint with a broad brush and attack ATF agents.

I did a google search too..........notice I am not plagiarizing as you did, and found that when I typed in "Financial Advisor Indicted" I found 1.3 million hits. You can verify my information by the way.

Now I draw no conclusion from that Google Search, and you should not be making disparaging remarks about professionals, of which there are several, including ATF, on this board. In fact I know a couple ATF that are former and current Quiet Professionals.

RANT OFF!








NYC's Mayor, Mr. Bloomberg, seems intent on infringing the 2nd Amendment, even to the extent to use the BATFE as his gestapo reaching even into another state. That state being Va. Guess the BATFE hasn't enough to do when the rate of lawfully owned guns rises other than to harass the local FFL's for "Straw man" purchases. This is one agency that has little if any use, and that use has seen it's day. We can debate this if you'd like, but be prepared for a lengthy record of 2nd Amendment infringements. Not to mention a multitude of other civil rights violations, most of them embarrassing to themselves.

A good starting point for this debate would be Ruby Ridge/Randy Weaver...............shall we ??[/QUOTE]

[The Reaper]

This needs to get civil and get there quickly or there will be consequences.

I trust casey's version of the Philly srtory, since he patrols the streets every day.

82nd, you need to tread lightly, cite your sources, and don't believe everything you read. We are not big on conspiracy theories here. Try not to alienate most of the readers too quickly.

COLawman, I hear what you are trying to say, but your emotion is clouding it, you are overly sensitive to perceived LE criticism, and yes, certain offices within the AFTE are still trying to shutter law-abiding gun dealers for minor admin errors. Others can be reasonable. Errors resulting in the wrongful deaths of American citizens are not easily forgiven or forgotten. And yes, too many people blame fireamrs themselves, rather than irresponsible scumbags who misuse them.

Hope this makes sense and everyone understands.

TR

[CoLawman]

This needs to get civil and get there quickly or there will be consequences.



[QUOTE]COLawman, I hear what you are trying to say, but your emotion is clouding it, you are overly sensitive to perceived LE criticism,

TR with all due respect, this is not perceived criticism, it is overt! Would you not be the first person to call me out if I brought Kent State into an argument regarding the military. Would you not be the first person to call me out if I used the recent convictions of Marines to disparage the entire corps!

I can be an NRA member without spewing far right rhetoric. the Second Amendment is something other than a rallying point to members of law enforcement. They take an oath to uphold the Constitution. I understand certain segments of our society have a distrust for Federal Agents. If we allow that distrust to go unchallenged, then we are sheeple.

Why is it that we can easily forget the American citizens that died on 9/11, Lockerbie, Khobar Towers, etc. etc. etc.........yet we cannot allow the Randy Weavers and David Koresh's, who, the case can be made, were not good American citizens. Because they died at the hands of Federal Agents? To continually cite these two instances undermines all the good accomplished by ATF.

If unsupported and inflammatory remarks are made, it should be expected that the author of such remarks would be subject to a passionate rebuttal.

[The Reaper]

[QUOTE=The Reaper]This needs to get civil and get there quickly or there will be consequences.

TR with all due respect, this is not perceived criticism, it is overt! Would you not be the first person to call me out if I brought Kent State into an argument regarding the military. Would you not be the first person to call me out if I used the recent convictions of Marines to disparage the entire corps!

I can be an NRA member without spewing far right rhetoric. the Second Amendment is something other than a rallying point to members of law enforcement. They take an oath to uphold the Constitution. I understand certain segments of our society have a distrust for Federal Agents. If we allow that distrust to go unchallenged, then we are sheeple.

Why is it that we can easily forget the American citizens that died on 9/11, Lockerbie, Khobar Towers, etc. etc. etc.........yet we cannot allow the Randy Weavers and David Koresh's, who, the case can be made, were not good American citizens. Because they died at the hands of Federal Agents? To continually cite these two instances undermines all the good accomplished by ATF.

If unsupported and inflammatory remarks are made, it should be expected that the author of such remarks would be subject to a passionate rebuttal.

Since you want to discuss this again, here goes my .02. Note that I am not attacking anyone or calling anyone names. I am passionate, but not personal about this. See the difference? Not calling anyone a JBT. Yet.

There are bad SF, bad Marines, and bad LE at the local, state, and Federal levels. We have our share, despite one of the most thorough assessment and selection processes in the world. There are also bad citizens, but I do not believe that Vicky Weaver was one of them, nor the kids who were unfortunate enough to die at Waco. American LE killing innocent American citizens is never a good thing, and it cannot be pointed out often enough, as far as I am concerned, if it keeps it from happening again. Burning down a house full of people to get one minor felon is hardly justifiable or something to be proud of. You start letting officers decide who are and who are not "good American citizens", that is a very slippery slope, especially when you seem to also indicate that it is a good justification for killing them. Today, it is drug dealers and next year it is jaywalkers. What is this, a Clint Eastwood movie? The difference between Ruby Ridge or Waco and 9/11 is that the latter were killed by foreign nationals sworn to kill as many Americans as they could. The former were killed by Federal Agents sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, and to protect their fellow citizens. None of the agents responsible have been successfully prosecuted in a criminal court either, even when they clearly committed the act, as was the case with Lon Horiuchi.

If you want to cite Kent State as a reason that NG troops should not be armed when sent in again against American citizens, that it your prerogative. I am not going to name call over it or get hot. I would ask what are the facts and what are the lessons learned. I would then look at what procedures would keep it from happening again, while remaining mindful of the role of the Guard after Katrina, when LE needed their assistance.

I personally find little good compared to the bad that the ATF has perpetrated. The regs that they enforce are in most cases, not laws but internal bureaucratic decisions. Miller vs. U.S. is a bad case to build rules and regulations around. Shoddy legal work. At the same time, I will admit that the ATF has suffered from poor leadership and being used as an instrument of politicians in lieu of legislation they could not pass. Yes, I do have friends working there, and I have told them the same thing.

I am an NRA member and have been sworn to defend the Constitution of this country as well. The Second Amendment means what it says to me and I believe that the People are every adult citizen capable of safely bearing arms. The day that I would ever be asked to attack American citizens in their homes to confiscate weapons, is the day I would have handed in my rank. To do otherwise is to break your oath to the Constitution. The NRA, just so you know, does not IMHO "spew far right rhetoric". In fact, they have been a lot more willing to compromise than many of us would have liked.

Does expressing my opinion here mean that I should go post my opinions only on "Posse Commitatus, Outlaw Motorcycle Gang, and White Supremacist blogs" as well? Drop the ad hominem attacks. The topic of this thread deals with politicians blaming tools for crimes rather than criminals. Should we arrest everyone driving a Corvette because they had the means and opportunity to go 160mph? Murder is already illegal, do we need more charges to blame inanimate objects for the crimes?

Try this before you post on a topic that makes you "passionate" again. Type your rebuttal. Do not hit the Submit Reply button yet. Wait an hour or two. Read it again, or have a trusted person read it again. If they see no issues, then it is probably GTG and you can post it.

TR

[82ndtrooper]

[QUOTE=The Reaper]This needs to get civil and get there quickly or there will be consequences.





TR with all due respect, this is not perceived criticism, it is overt! Would you not be the first person to call me out if I brought Kent State into an argument regarding the military. Would you not be the first person to call me out if I used the recent convictions of Marines to disparage the entire corps!

I can be an NRA member without spewing far right rhetoric. the Second Amendment is something other than a rallying point to members of law enforcement. They take an oath to uphold the Constitution. I understand certain segments of our society have a distrust for Federal Agents. If we allow that distrust to go unchallenged, then we are sheeple.

Why is it that we can easily forget the American citizens that died on 9/11, Lockerbie, Khobar Towers, etc. etc. etc.........yet we cannot allow the Randy Weavers and David Koresh's, who, the case can be made, were not good American citizens. Because they died at the hands of Federal Agents? To continually cite these two instances undermines all the good accomplished by ATF.

If unsupported and inflammatory remarks are made, it should be expected that the author of such remarks would be subject to a passionate rebuttal.




Well Spoken !! Let me address a couple of topics you have mentioned. "If we allow that distrust to go unchallenged, then we are sheeple" I will give you an applause for standing firmly behind your profession, and those with other federal agencies in a similar or like profession. You seem like a stand up guy. So I'll try to be one myself without the tone of rhetoric.

"If we allow that distrust to go unchallenged, then we are sheeple" Perhaps "unchallenged" is not the word that the public percieves as trust. Trust from the general public has to be earned, not simply challenged with further insults and rhetoric of your own. Ruby Ridge, Waco , Glover, Peterson, et al have long lasting impressions on those of us that are not in the LEO community. After all, it's the community that wants to trust these agencies, not the reverse. I could be wrong, but the oath not only includes the protection of the public, but the consititution as well. It's the obscurity of that oath in it's actions that forces the public, at least the well informed, to have a distaste for it's federal agencies. Namely for this discussion the BATFE. Remember, we the people rarely hear of successes but we alway's hear of the blunders. Hence the peoples distaste for the mention of the BATFE or FBI, or NSA, etc. I'd like to think that each and every agency has my back, but in this day and age, it certainly doesnt feel that way. Would you be willing to stand behind me citing the consititution if the BATFE had coerced me into commiting a crime under false pretenses ? Knowing that your dept would shun you from further promotion.


I was personally present for the Las Vegas Gun Show when Randy Peterson was arrested for two felony violations by the BATFE agents that had been roaming the show for 3 day's. As you'll find out, if you do your reading, the BATFE was responsible for four felony acts themselves to coerce the purchase of firearms from Mr. Peterson. This is a well known case, and he was found not guilty by a federal jury after video tape was released during trial. BATFE agents had in fact lied during testimony, falsified documents, and targeted Mr. Peterson during the Las Vegas Gun Show. An isolated event ? Perhaps, but none the less, it does little to gain the peoples confidence.

Glover vs U.S.A is another example. This case is good reading. Len Savage of Historic Arms LLC was intrumental in his defense. He was also intrumental in the discovery of the lack of the scientific process that was ahered to by the BATFE in it's testing methods of one of the rifles recovered from Mr. Glover that was said to be a "Machine Gun"

Both Peterson and Mr. Glover were not domestic terrorists, they were not felons, they were not drug addicts, they were not found to be mentally unstable, nor violated any of the 18 US section codes during their careers as gun makers and federal firearms dealers.


With all due respect, it's the public that wants to trust our LEO agencies, and the federal agencies. Our trust is only diminished when it is not considered a priority to gain that trust. How can the BATFE regain that trust with someone like myself ? I probably need to start reading more about their successes than their overt failures. As a member of the general public I feel I have that right.

As for Randy Weaver, let's not forget that he was "QP" also. Although I'm not sure that bears any endearment or weight on this forum. Depending on who you believe, the case has alway's appeared to bear little in the way of any wrong doing on Randy Weavers part. Remember, the individual that purchased the shotguns from Mr. Weaver was a paid informant with a checkered past of gun running himself. Rather you believe that Randy Weaver sawed them off himself, or it was staged by the informant is up to personal opinion. Personally I'll take Randy's word for now.

I believe it's simply time to agree to disagree on the matter.

[CoLawman]

[QUOTE=CoLawman]

[QUOTE]Since you want to discuss this again, here goes my .02. Note that I am not attacking anyone or calling anyone names. I am passionate, but not personal about this. See the difference? Not calling anyone a JBT. Yet.

Not sure what a JBT is but I will assume it is not a term of endearment.


There are bad SF, bad Marines, and bad LE at the local, state, and Federal levels. We have our share, despite one of the most thorough assessment and selection processes in the world. There are also bad citizens, but I do not believe that Vicky Weaver was one of them, nor the kids who were unfortunate enough to die at Waco.

I agree wholeheartedly that Vicky Weaver was a victim. I firmly believe there were innocent victims at Waco that included children and women. Where we disagree is who victimized them. In Vicky Weaver's case, clearly the fault lies with law enforcement.

When we consider those that died at Waco, the responsibility lies with David Koresh and the fathers and husbands who failed to consider or ignored the peril these innocent women and children were in. The seize was lengthy and plenty of time and opportunity was given to allow surrender.



American LE killing innocent American citizens is never a good thing, and it cannot be pointed out often enough, as far as I am concerned, if it keeps it from happening again. Burning down a house full of people to get one minor felon is hardly justifiable or something to be proud of.

Using an isolated incident such as Ruby Ridge to insinuate that America should be concerned about LE killing innocent Americans, particularly since it occurred in 1992, is unreasonable in my opinion.


You start letting officers decide who are and who are not "good American citizens", that is a very slippery slope, especially when you seem to also indicate that it is a good justification for killing them.

You seem very well versed in the Ruby Ridge case, so you must know that they had an arrest warrant for Mr. Weaver. They did not act independent of the law. My remarks regarding being good American citizens was in regards to specific cases. I make the point that the character of the individuals being pursued can be used to mitigate certain actions. You can use the term justification, but I prefer mitigate.

Regarding Waco, David Koresh bears the responsibility for the deaths of women and children. I believe the evidence in the case showed there was ample time and efforts expended to get the innocents out of the building. Mr. Koresh and the male members of his cult exposed the innocents. Are you proposing that the four ATF agents that were gunned down were killed justifiably?

Since this case is the basis for much of the argument, could you please cite a similar case that occurred before or after Ruby Ridge?

Waco, has been mentioned by you, so will change that to query, Any similar cases before or after these two cases?

Today, it is drug dealers and next year it is jaywalkers.
What is this, a Clint Eastwood movie?
I do not believe anyone needs to be concerned about being shot for jaywalking any more than they need to fear ATF kicking their door in, guns blazing, for failing to register a firearm.


The difference between Ruby Ridge or Waco and 9/11 is that the latter were killed by foreign nationals sworn to kill as many Americans as they could. The former were killed by Federal Agents sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, and to protect their fellow citizens. None of the agents responsible have been successfully prosecuted in a criminal court either, even when they clearly committed the act, as was the case with Lon Horiuchi.

Since the agents are afforded the same protection under the Constitution as any other citizen why is it a bad thing that the law saw fit to not prosecute them? I have faith that facts were presented and the outcome was based on the facts of the case. You state that none of the agents responsible have been successfully prosecuted. Then does that not mean that the cloak of innocense was never removed from them?

Agent Horiuchi was ordered to shoot. He was following orders. I understand that the ROE were not in keeping with regulations, but he was given the order.
Obviously you feel some LE should have been convicted. I don't have all the facts, but maintain my faith that the investigation failed to establish a case that could prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you want to cite Kent State as a reason that NG troops should not be armed when sent in again against American citizens, that it your prerogative. I am not going to name call over it or get hot.

Well thank you, but that was not the premise of using Kent State.

I would ask what are the facts and what are the lessons learned. I would then look at what procedures would keep it from happening again, while remaining mindful of the role of the Guard after Katrina, when LE needed their assistance.

Exactly what occurred after Ruby Ridge and Waco. Perhaps that is why there has not been a similar incident in well over a decade.

I personally find little good compared to the bad that the ATF has perpetrated.

And you obviously chose to jump into the debate I was having with 82nd because my comments to him, struck a chord with you! Seems like you are more interested in trying to silence opposition, than keeping the arguments civil.

I am an NRA member and have been sworn to defend the Constitution of this country as well. The Second Amendment means what it says to me and I believe that the People are every adult citizen capable of safely bearing arms.

And that frankly scares me. You advocate convicted felons and dangerous individuals having the right to bear arms. I am sorry but you are certainly in a very very very small minority. IN fact I would say your view is extreme in this regard.

[QUOTE]The day that I would ever be asked to attack American citizens in their homes to confiscate weapons is the day I would have handed in my rank. To do otherwise is to break your oath to the Constitution.

This is a regular occurrence in law enforcement. And if they chose to use deadly force to prevent our serving a warrant, they suffer the consequences. There is no constitutional requirement to protect citizens who are committing felony offenses from answering for their crimes in a court of law.

The NRA, just so you know, does not IMHO "spew far right rhetoric". In fact, they have been a lot more willing to compromise than many of us would have liked.

Again you take a portion of my comment to insinuate some assumption I made. You are repeating my argument



Try this before you post on a topic that makes you "passionate" again. Type your rebuttal. Do not hit the Submit Reply button yet. Wait an hour or two. Read it again, or have a trusted person read it again. If they see no issues, then it is probably GTG and you can post it.

Now now, is this not a bit presumptive? I don't recall asking for guidance from you, particularly when you have attempted to silence opposition to your opinion, albeit originally posted by 82nd.

My only fault is that I have further reinforced your low opinion of law enforcement officers. But then again you do not, nor have you ever shown the capacity to be tolerant of LE objecting to you or a position you might hold.

Edited to add: Sorry hit the submit button before I could have someone give me the GTG.

[82ndtrooper]

June 30th, 1995 Wall Street Journal

Ruby Ridge: The Justice Report

By James Bovard

The 1992 confrontation between federal agents and the Randy Weaver family in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, has become one of the most controversial and widely discussed examples of the abuse of federal power. The Justice Department completed a 542-page investigation on the case last year but has not yet made the report public. However, the report was acquired by Legal Times newspaper, which this week placed the text on the Internet. The report reveals that federal officials may have acted worse than even some of their harshest critics imagined.

This case began after Randy Weaver was entrapped, as an Idaho jury concluded, by an undercover Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agent to sell him sawed-off shotguns.

While federal officials have claimed that the violent confrontation between the Weavers and the government began when the Weavers ambushed federal marshals, the report tells a very different story. A team of six U.S. marshals, split into two groups, trespassed onto Mr. Weaver's land on Aug. 21, 1992. One of the marshals threw rocks at the Weaver's cabin to see how much noise was required to agitate the Weaver's dogs. A few minutes later, Randy Weaver, Kevin Harris, and 13-year-old Sammy Weaver came out of the cabin and began following their dogs. Three U.S. marshals were soon tearing through the woods.

At one point, U.S. Marshal Larry Cooper "told the others that it was ['expletive deleted'] for them to continue running and that he did not want to 'run down the trail and get shot in the back.' He urged them to take up defensive positions. The others agreed.... William Degan ... took a position behind a stump...."

As Sammy Weaver and Kevin Harris came upon the marshals, gunfire erupted. Sammy was shot in the back and killed while running away from the scene (probably by Marshal Cooper, according to the report), and Marshal Degan was killed by Mr. Harris. The jury concluded that Mr. Harris's action was legitimate self-defense; the Justice report concluded it was impossible to know who shot first.

Several places in the report deal with the possibility of a government coverup. After the firefight between the marshals and the Weavers and Mr. Harris, the surviving marshals were taken away to rest and recuperate. The report observed, "We question the wisdom of keeping the marshals together at the condominium for several hours, while awaiting interviews with the FBI. Isolating them in that manner created the appearance and generated allegations that they were fabricating stories and colluding to cover up the true circumstances of the shootings."

After the death of the U.S. marshal, the FBI was called in. A source of continuing fierce debate across America is: Did the FBI set out to apprehend and arrest Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris -- or simply to kill them? Unfortunately, the evidence from the Justice Department report is damning in the extreme on this count.

The report noted, "We have been told by observers on the scene that law enforcement personnel made statements that the matter would be handled quickly and that the situation would be 'taken down hard and fast.' " The FBI issued Rules of Engagement that declared that its snipers "can and should" use deadly force against armed males outside the cabin.

The report noted that a member of an FBI SWAT team from Denver "remembered the Rules of Engagement as 'if you see 'em, shoot 'em.' " The task force report noted, "since those Rules which contained 'should' remained in force at the crisis scene for days after the August 22 shooting, it is inconceivable to us that FBI Headquarters remained ignorant of the exact wording of the Rules of Engagement during that entire period."

The report concluded that the FBI Rules of Engagement at Ruby Ridge flagrantly violated the U.S. Constitution: "The Constitution allows no person to become 'fair game' for deadly force without law enforcement evaluating the threat that person poses, even when, as occurred here, the evaluation must be made in a split second." The report portrays the rules of engagement as practically a license to kill: "The Constitution places the decision on whether to use deadly force on the individual agent; the Rules attempted to usurp this responsibility."

FBI headquarters rejected an initial operation plan because there was no provision to even attempt to negotiate the surrender of the suspects. The plan was revised to include a negotiation provision -- but subsequent FBI action made that provision a nullity. FBI snipers took their positions around the Weaver cabin a few minutes after 5 p.m. on Aug. 22. Within an hour, every adult in the cabin was either dead or severely wounded -- even though they had not fired a shot at any FBI agent.

Randy Weaver, Mr. Harris, and 16-year-old Sara Weaver stepped out of the cabin a few minutes before 6 p.m. to go to the shed where Sammy's body lay. FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi shot Randy Weaver in the back. As Randy Weaver, Mr. Harris, and Sara Weaver struggled to get back into the cabin, Vicki Weaver stood in the cabin doorway holding a baby. Agent Horiuchi fired again; his bullet passed through a window in the door, hit Vicki Weaver in the head, killing her instantly, and then hit Mr. Harris in the chest.

At the subsequent trial, the government claimed that Messrs. Weaver and Harris were shot because they had threatened to shoot at a helicopter containing FBI officials. Because of insufficient evidence, the federal judge threw out the charge that Messrs. Weaver and Harris threatened the helicopter. The Justice report noted, "The SIOC [Strategic Information and Operations Center at FBI headquarters] Log indicates that shots were fired during the events of August 22.... We have found no evidence during this inquiry that shots fired at any helicopter during the Ruby Ridge crisis. The erroneous entry was never corrected." (The Idaho jury found Messrs. Weaver and Harris innocent on almost all charges.)

The Justice Department task force expressed grave doubts about the wisdom of the FBI strategy: "From information received at the Marshals Service, FBI management had reason to believe that the Weaver/Harris group would respond to a helicopter in the vicinity of the cabin by coming outside with firearms. Notwithstanding this knowledge, they placed sniper/observers on the adjacent mountainside with instructions that they could and should shoot armed members of the group, if they came out of the cabin. Their use of the helicopter near the cabin invited an accusation that the helicopter was intentionally used to draw the Weaver group out of the cabin."

The task force was extremely critical of Agent Horiuchi's second shot: "Since the exchange of gunfire [the previous day], no one at the cabin had fired a shot. Indeed, they had not even returned fire in response to Horiuchi's first shot. Furthermore, at the time of the second shot, Harris and others outside the cabin were retreating, not attacking. They were not retreating to an area where they would present a danger to the public at large...."

Regarding Agent Horiuchi's killing of Vicki Weaver, the task force concluded, "[B]y fixing his cross hairs on the door when he believed someone was behind it, he placed the children and Vicki Weaver at risk, in violation of even the special Rules of Engagement.... In our opinion he needlessly and unjustifiably endangered the persons whom he thought might be behind the door."

The Justice Department task force was especially appalled that the adults were gunned down before receiving any warning or demand to surrender: "While the operational plan included a provision for a surrender demand, that demand was not made until after the shootings.... The lack of a planned 'call out' as the sniper/observers deployed is significant because the Weavers were known to leave the cabin armed when vehicles or airplanes approached. The absence of such a plan subjected the Government to charges that it was setting Weaver up for attack."

Mr. Bovard writes often on public policy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[The Reaper]

Now now, is this not a bit presumptive? I don't recall asking for guidance from you, particularly when you have attempted to silence opposition to your opinion, albeit originally posted by 82nd.

My only fault is that I have further reinforced your low opinion of law enforcement officers. But then again you do not, nor have you ever shown the capacity to be tolerant of LE objecting to you or a position you might hold.

Edited to add: Sorry hit the submit button before I could have someone give me the GTG.

Yep. That's me. LE hater, discussion suppressor, extremist, advice giver, and all around bad guy.

Ya' done caught the Tater.

Clearly, there is no way that an LEO could ever be wrong, or have done wrong, in your world.

And after all this time, I mistakenly assumed that being an Admin here gave me the prerogative of offering advice to posters.

You seem to have some anger management issues, Lawman. So much for the "due respect".

I only stepped into this after you and 82nd started getting personal and drifting off topic. You came back with justifications, and at that point, I stated my opinion, which you seem to find objectionable. I warned all parties involved, and since I have LE friends in Philly, wanted it understood that they had the on the scene reality perspective. You seemed to have a problem with that.

My suggestion for reviewing posts is one I have used myself before, and do not think it is a bad idea to prevent personal attacks and bad ideas from working their way into my posts. You do not want to use it, that is your choice. Again, I think you are overly sensitive to perceived slights of LE.

Let me break it down this way.

The next time you make a comment about the person you are butting heads with, and not the topic of the thread, the thread will be closed, or you will not be posting on it any more. If you two want to meet face to face and settle it, do it by PMs, not on the open forums.

Have a very SF Day.

TR

[TF Kilo]

Now now, is this not a bit presumptive? I don't recall asking for guidance from you, particularly when you have attempted to silence opposition to your opinion, albeit originally posted by 82nd.

My only fault is that I have further reinforced your low opinion of law enforcement officers. But then again you do not, nor have you ever shown the capacity to be tolerant of LE objecting to you or a position you might hold.


*Raises an eyebrow*

Wow.

I would have turned in my rank, although not as shiny as TR's, if I had been ordered, instructed, or told to confiscate firearms from an American citizen.

I also hold a parallel, if not equal, understanding and implementation of the 2nd amendment in my household and support the same.



That having been said, if you're breaking the law, you're breaking the law, and I would expect that individual who either is in illegal posession of firearms, to be arrested.

It's also illegal for felons to have firearms. Everyone who isn't a felon, should.

Things would be much more polite, and if everyone HAD a gun, chances are everyone would either A) mind their own business or B) Walking down the street with an attitude would be a self correcting training exercise.

What does your serving a warrant for the arrest of an individual to answer for a crime have to do with simple confiscation of a citizens firearms? It doesn't. A court already has sufficient reason to believe, and act on that reason, that an individual is breaking the law.

It's not joe cop kicking down my law abiding door, it's joe cop kicking down Jose Del Norteno. There's a difference, bud.

If you're just confiscating guns because you want to, I cordially invite you to come 'n get mine :)

[The Reaper]

I think the purpose of this thread has been exhausted and do not want to start another round of food fighting here.

Thread closed.

TR

[Team Sergeant]

[QUOTE=CoLawman]


As for Randy Weaver,

Now I'll weigh in......

I'm SF, I live in America.

Had I pissed off the LEO's to the point I was surrounded by 1-50 gun toting officers the first thing I would have done is surrender.

Why, I would NEVER place my family and children deliberately in danger, NEVER.

Again this is America, Randy Weaver f***ed up. Placing your family in danger, for no good reason, is stupid.

82ndtrooper,
Next time you're given a warning by an admin you're gone.
This is the second and last time. Personally I think you sport a tinfoil hat and are ok with being told what to think.

If I were you I'd post less and read more.

TS