GOP Seeking to do Away With ATF

[danielpalos]

Good idea or not? According to this, they want the FBI to handle firearms, explosives and arson while DEA would handle alcohol.

“Additionally, the Act calls for an immediate hiring freeze at the agency and requires the Department of Justice to eliminate and reduce duplicative functions and waste, as well as report to Congress with a detailed plan on how the transition will take place,” it continued. “Further, it would transfer enforcement of firearms, explosives and arson laws to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and illegal diversion of alcohol and tobacco products would be transferred to the Drug Enforcement Agency

What's your take on it? Story @ BREAKING: GOP Keeps Pressure Up, Terrifies ATF With Game-Changing Announcement

We should end the drug war, first.

As soon as we win it....

With Firebase Gloria?

 

[Flash]

We don't need the ATF.

We certainly don't need the filthy government infringing upon our right to keep and bear arms. .

If we cut down on government spending like we should we wouldn't need to collect taxes on tobacco and alcohol at the Federal level so we wouldn't need the government thugs for that.

 

[JQPublic1]

So what do the other 13 do?

Its no secret. Here is a rundown:

Members of the IC

Well, after discovering that IC link, my eyes have been opened. it appears we were all merely speculating on what the 17 Intelligence agencies did. I now see them in an entirely new light... Now I suspect everyone of you are checking that link out...interesting isn't it?

Yep and this 17 intel agencies agree on Russia is pure bullshit. At leas one of them only provides information to the others, they draw no independent opinion. Regressives lying again, who'd a thunk?

So your earlier premise that they do not share information is bogus?

Didn't read the link did ya? Share with the rest of the class what the National Reconnaissance Office would have to do with the "Russian hacking" investigation? Come on, here's your chance to create some new and improved propaganda.

I've got a better idea. Why don't YOU show why you believe the National Reconnaissance Office would NOT have anything to do with the Russian hacking. I did MY job by posting details of how each agency operates. Now it is your time to do a little work. I'll be waiting to see your detailed elucidation .

 

[JQPublic1]

WAY overdue

Republicans have also introduced a Bill to Reform Silencer Laws to Both Houses of Congress - something else that is way overdue.

the tax on silencers was first brought in during the great depression - apparently there were many folks that were illegally hunting on government lands (especially national parks) & most were doing it just to feed their families during hard times; so this law to make silencers illegal was passed primarily to make it easier for Park Rangers and other law enforcement officials to prevent poaching on federal land & to make it harder for citizens to get away with hunting there

The federal government LOSES roughly $17 million a year enforcing this archaic law - this is what "draining the swamp looks like!!!

LINK

Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Senate introduced legislation this week to reform the laws that govern firearm silencers. The twin bills, both named the Hearing Protection Act, were introduced by Reps. Jeff Duncan (R., S.C) and John Carter (R., Texas) in the House and Sen. Mike Crapo (R., Idaho) in the Senate.

The bills would remove the special $200 tax and months-long registration process currently applied to silencers. The requirement that anyone buying a silencer from a licensed gun dealer pass a background check will remain.

Gun rights advocates have long argued that silencers are a safety device since they reduce the noise associated with firing many firearms from a level that is damaging to the shooter’s hearing to a level that, while not actually silent, is far safer. They believe that easier access to and wider adoption of the devices could reduce firearm-related hearing damage, especially for those who commonly hunt without hearing protection. Advocates often compare firearms silencers to car mufflers since Hiram Percy Maxim had a hand in creating both and they both utilize the same technology.

I wonder how this new silencer freedom is going to impact new policing technology such as gunfire monitors?

Yeah...those work real great here in Chicago.

well,duhh...the gunfire means someone has already been shot. Wake up and smell the coffins

When only the criminals have guns as you propose, we are so much safer ...

Are you addressing ME? Are you sure you are in the right thread? Show me where I have ever proposed that only criminals should have guns? BTW, we are talking about an attachment that can be affixed to the barrel of a gun, colloquially known as a silencer, to minimize the sound.

 

[kaz]

WAY overdue

Republicans have also introduced a Bill to Reform Silencer Laws to Both Houses of Congress - something else that is way overdue.

the tax on silencers was first brought in during the great depression - apparently there were many folks that were illegally hunting on government lands (especially national parks) & most were doing it just to feed their families during hard times; so this law to make silencers illegal was passed primarily to make it easier for Park Rangers and other law enforcement officials to prevent poaching on federal land & to make it harder for citizens to get away with hunting there

The federal government LOSES roughly $17 million a year enforcing this archaic law - this is what "draining the swamp looks like!!!

LINK

Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Senate introduced legislation this week to reform the laws that govern firearm silencers. The twin bills, both named the Hearing Protection Act, were introduced by Reps. Jeff Duncan (R., S.C) and John Carter (R., Texas) in the House and Sen. Mike Crapo (R., Idaho) in the Senate.

The bills would remove the special $200 tax and months-long registration process currently applied to silencers. The requirement that anyone buying a silencer from a licensed gun dealer pass a background check will remain.

Gun rights advocates have long argued that silencers are a safety device since they reduce the noise associated with firing many firearms from a level that is damaging to the shooter’s hearing to a level that, while not actually silent, is far safer. They believe that easier access to and wider adoption of the devices could reduce firearm-related hearing damage, especially for those who commonly hunt without hearing protection. Advocates often compare firearms silencers to car mufflers since Hiram Percy Maxim had a hand in creating both and they both utilize the same technology.

I wonder how this new silencer freedom is going to impact new policing technology such as gunfire monitors?

Yeah...those work real great here in Chicago.

well,duhh...the gunfire means someone has already been shot. Wake up and smell the coffins

When only the criminals have guns as you propose, we are so much safer ...

Are you addressing ME? Are you sure you are in the right thread? Show me where I have ever proposed that only criminals should have guns? BTW, we are talking about an attachment that can be affixed to the barrel of a gun, colloquially known as a silencer, to minimize the sound.

Read the post I responded to

 

[dcbl]

Read the post I responded to

it was his post you responded to brah

 

[JimBowie1958]

The personnel in the ATFE need to be moved to other federal asssignments, from US Marshalls to US Forest Rangers to, TSA or whatever they qualify for.

Simply cutting them all from their jobs after their careers are locked into federal LEO roles is a disservice to these men.

 

[JQPublic1]

I wonder how this new silencer freedom is going to impact new policing technology such as gunfire monitors?

Yeah...those work real great here in Chicago.

well,duhh...the gunfire means someone has already been shot. Wake up and smell the coffins

When only the criminals have guns as you propose, we are so much safer ...

Are you addressing ME? Are you sure you are in the right thread? Show me where I have ever proposed that only criminals should have guns? BTW, we are talking about an attachment that can be affixed to the barrel of a gun, colloquially known as a silencer, to minimize the sound.

Read the post I responded to

Here it is:
I said: "well,duhh...the gunfire means someone has already been shot. Wake up and smell the coffins"

Your non sequitur: "When only the criminals have guns as you propose, we are so much safer."

You aren't making any sense...

 

[Contumacious]

Good idea or not? According to this, they want the FBI to handle firearms, explosives and arson while DEA would handle alcohol.

“Additionally, the Act calls for an immediate hiring freeze at the agency and requires the Department of Justice to eliminate and reduce duplicative functions and waste, as well as report to Congress with a detailed plan on how the transition will take place,” it continued. “Further, it would transfer enforcement of firearms, explosives and arson laws to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and illegal diversion of alcohol and tobacco products would be transferred to the Drug Enforcement Agency

What's your take on it? Story @ BREAKING: GOP Keeps Pressure Up, Terrifies ATF With Game-Changing Announcement

BATF should have never been created. NEVER

But let me remind that the last time they felt threatened they BURNED 90 AMERICANS ALIVE .

.

.

 

[kaz]

Yeah...those work real great here in Chicago.

well,duhh...the gunfire means someone has already been shot. Wake up and smell the coffins

When only the criminals have guns as you propose, we are so much safer ...

Are you addressing ME? Are you sure you are in the right thread? Show me where I have ever proposed that only criminals should have guns? BTW, we are talking about an attachment that can be affixed to the barrel of a gun, colloquially known as a silencer, to minimize the sound.

Read the post I responded to

Here it is:
I said: "well,duhh...the gunfire means someone has already been shot. Wake up and smell the coffins"

Your non sequitur: "When only the criminals have guns as you propose, we are so much safer."

You aren't making any sense...

Your post says guns are for killing people. You can only take guns away from law abiding citizens. You're just engaging in another liberal rendition of you didn't say what you said

 

[OKTexas]

Its no secret. Here is a rundown:

Members of the IC

Well, after discovering that IC link, my eyes have been opened. it appears we were all merely speculating on what the 17 Intelligence agencies did. I now see them in an entirely new light... Now I suspect everyone of you are checking that link out...interesting isn't it?

Yep and this 17 intel agencies agree on Russia is pure bullshit. At leas one of them only provides information to the others, they draw no independent opinion. Regressives lying again, who'd a thunk?

So your earlier premise that they do not share information is bogus?

Didn't read the link did ya? Share with the rest of the class what the National Reconnaissance Office would have to do with the "Russian hacking" investigation? Come on, here's your chance to create some new and improved propaganda.

I've got a better idea. Why don't YOU show why you believe the National Reconnaissance Office would NOT have anything to do with the Russian hacking. I did MY job by posting details of how each agency operates. Now it is your time to do a little work. I'll be waiting to see your detailed elucidation .

Obviously you didn't bother to read what they do, their mission is to provide satellite images to other agencies. What would they do, take photos of electrons moving though the wires? Now run along idiot and take your foolish propaganda with you.

 

[mgh80]

Why have a department perform the functions of others? Waste of money and resources-I'm perfectly ok with the ATF being dismantled.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

the DEA needs to be abolished...

They can get rid of the DEA, ATF, TSA, and DHS.

They can get rid of all bureaucracies as far as I'm concerned. These agencies are just avenues for politicians to rule against the will of the people and not take any responsibility for their actions. The US Constitution makes no mention of bureaucracies or giving them any power to rule the American people. That's what our Congress is authorized to do.

 

[bripat9643]

Good idea or not? According to this, they want the FBI to handle firearms, explosives and arson while DEA would handle alcohol.

“Additionally, the Act calls for an immediate hiring freeze at the agency and requires the Department of Justice to eliminate and reduce duplicative functions and waste, as well as report to Congress with a detailed plan on how the transition will take place,” it continued. “Further, it would transfer enforcement of firearms, explosives and arson laws to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and illegal diversion of alcohol and tobacco products would be transferred to the Drug Enforcement Agency

What's your take on it? Story @ BREAKING: GOP Keeps Pressure Up, Terrifies ATF With Game-Changing Announcement

The government has no business regulating any of these products, so getting rid of the ATF is only sensible. Getting rid of all it's functions is even more sensible.

 

[Moonglow]

the DEA needs to be abolished...

They can get rid of the DEA, ATF, TSA, and DHS.

They can get rid of all bureaucracies as far as I'm concerned. These agencies are just avenues for politicians to rule against the will of the people and not take any responsibility for their actions. The US Constitution makes no mention of bureaucracies or giving them any power to rule the American people. That's what our Congress is authorized to do.

And Congress can't seem to do their job either...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The war on drugs is probably one of the most unconstitutional cluster fucks in the history of this country.

What's unconstitutional about making laws against harmful products?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

the DEA needs to be abolished...

They can get rid of the DEA, ATF, TSA, and DHS.

They can get rid of all bureaucracies as far as I'm concerned. These agencies are just avenues for politicians to rule against the will of the people and not take any responsibility for their actions. The US Constitution makes no mention of bureaucracies or giving them any power to rule the American people. That's what our Congress is authorized to do.

And Congress can't seem to do their job either...

It's not like they're working 52 weeks a year. They get more time off of work than school teachers. They can handle the work bureaucracies do now. It's their job in the first place.

 

[JQPublic1]

well,duhh...the gunfire means someone has already been shot. Wake up and smell the coffins

When only the criminals have guns as you propose, we are so much safer ...

Are you addressing ME? Are you sure you are in the right thread? Show me where I have ever proposed that only criminals should have guns? BTW, we are talking about an attachment that can be affixed to the barrel of a gun, colloquially known as a silencer, to minimize the sound.

Read the post I responded to

Here it is:
I said: "well,duhh...the gunfire means someone has already been shot. Wake up and smell the coffins"

Your non sequitur: "When only the criminals have guns as you propose, we are so much safer."

You aren't making any sense...

Your post says guns are for killing people. You can only take guns away from law abiding citizens. You're just engaging in another liberal rendition of you didn't say what you said

You weren't following the conversation or you would have responded in context . I prefaced the content you responded to with a comment about silencers being used to thwart gunfire monitors. Another poster , one as dumb as you apparently are, misconstrued that simple statement and went off on a tangent a bout how gunfire monitors didn't work in Chicago. common sense should have told him that the gunfire monitors are meant to PREVENT shootings , those instruments are designed to pinpoint the locations of shootings and give the cops a heads up on the area. I thought my statement was clear enough; bu,t two RW idiots responded and destroyed any chance of sensible dialogue.

 

[Contumacious]

The war on drugs is probably one of the most unconstitutional cluster fucks in the history of this country.

What's unconstitutional about making laws against harmful products?

In a FREE COUNTRY the market place - not the government - is supposed to get rid of harmful products.

Here in these US of A the government is the worse entity making harmful products, nuclear energy, phosphorus bombs, agent orange , ad nauseam.

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The war on drugs is probably one of the most unconstitutional cluster fucks in the history of this country.

What's unconstitutional about making laws against harmful products?

In a FREE COUNTRY the market place - not the government - is supposed to get rid of harmful products.

Here in these US of A the government is the worse entity making harmful products, nuclear energy, phosphorus bombs, agent orange , ad nauseam.

.

Perhaps, but that's a matter of opinion not constitutionality.

It's bad enough I support lowlifes now who don't want to work. I can't see legalizing all these dangerous recreational narcotics to put more on the dole.