GOP Seeking to do Away With ATF

[whitehall]

It seems to me the last time we heard about the ATF was when they used tanks and poison gas to incinerate about 80 men, women and children in Waco, Texas. As usual the criminal conspiracy known as the mainstream media justified the operation without question even though we wouldn't tolerate such an atrocity in Afghanistan and heads would roll in the Military if such a thing happened. A couple of years before Waco, the ATF tried to intimidate an innocent citizen into being a federal informant. The siege at Ruby Ridge cost the life of Randy Weaver's 12 year old son shot in the back and his wife who was shot in the face by an FBI sniper. Weaver ultimately was awarded a million dollars and the FBI sniper was indicted for manslaughter. The unstated but very real purpose of a federal bureaucracy is to get bigger and more powerful and receive more funding. The ATF is a perfect example of ineffective leadership and an out of control bureaucracy that dragged the FBI down during the 90's. Trump should do away with the agency and streamline federal law enforcement.

 

[JQPublic1]

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.

I educated you and this is the thanks I get. I read the link and the brief synopses of each agency. I too, noticed the intelligence capabilities of some of the listed agencies were at variance with reports that all of them could have independently concluded that Russia/Putin was behind the hacking scandal. Frankly, though, the news of 17 agencies agreeing on that singular event did not indicate independent validations. Perhaps it was inferred ...but not stated as fact.

But what do you and I know? That the NRO is even listed as an intelligence agency suggests their work entails spatial components that go far beyond rudimentary visual surveillance.. You didn't even consider that the NRO could be instrumental in providing long range audio surveillance through satellites or planes to other intelligence agencies. Is it not a fact, you moron, that the e-mail hacking was done via Internet satellite transmissions ???? Would the NRO not be THE experts able to analyze any electronic fingerprints or tracing data left by the Hackers????

Your typically limited RW worldview dumbs down every forum you assholes congregate in.

 

[JQPublic1]

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...

You got THAT right... lets get rid of Congress and replace them with 10 electors. two for each quadrant of the USA and two for the center states consisting of one republican and one democrat each.

 

[Flash]

[

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.

Gunfire monitors really help to prevent crime in Chicago, don't they? Do you even have a clue as to how many people were shot in Chicago last year? 4379 shot in 2016.

Except for some high end operators that would never follow the law silencers are not used for everyday crime. I doubt if any of the 4379 shot in Chicago were by gunfire with a silencer. Street thugs don't use them.

The ATF or anybody does not need to be controlling them.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

The Constitution doesn't give Congress that authority, for one thing.

 

[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?

The Constitution doesn't give Congress that authority, for one thing.

Sure it does. It's their main reason for being there. All laws and taxes are created in Congress.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

The Constitution doesn't give Congress that authority, for one thing.

Sure it does. It's their main reason for being there. All laws and taxes are created in Congress.

Nope. The commerce clause does not grant authority to control what businesses produce or how they produce it.

 

[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.

.

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.

Well Congress was given NO AUTHORITY to regulate the marketplace. That authority was USURPED by the fascists the progressives - in the early 1900's.

.

 

[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.

Well Congress was given NO AUTHORITY to regulate the marketplace. That authority was USURPED by the fascists the progressives - in the early 1900's.

.

No, but they can make laws as to what is legal or not. If there is a harmful product somebody is producing that deteriorates society, sure they have the right to make it illegal. I've had plenty of experience with dope heads in my life, and inviting more to become dope heads is not in our best interest.

I've lost friends because of dope. My house was nearly burned to the ground because of dope. My cousin lost her son about a year and a half ago because of dope. So when people tell me dope only effects the individual, they have no idea what they are talking about.

Allow more people to become dope heads, we will have more people on the dole. We will have to support them, we will have to feed them, we will have to house them, we will have to take care of their medical expenses. So before you respond by saying "we should not do that for dope heads" I'll agree with you, but since we have to do that with people that are not hooked on drugs, there is no way we can ever refuse to take care of people that are on drugs.

 

[sartre play]

each side has reasons they think validate there point. for every government agency some numbers of the members of congress think they serve a valid purpose.no one speaking so far on this board(includes me)has enough info, and its dam hard to get.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

each side has reasons they think validate there point. for every government agency some numbers of the members of congress think they serve a valid purpose.no one speaking so far on this board(includes me)has enough info, and its dam hard to get.

I'm a person who is against almost all bureaucracies, so I don't care how they do it, as long as they start getting rid of these agencies.

 

[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.

.

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.

Well Congress was given NO AUTHORITY to regulate the marketplace. That authority was USURPED by the fascists the progressives - in the early 1900's.

.

No, but they can make laws as to what is legal or not. If there is a harmful product somebody is producing that deteriorates society, sure they have the right to make it illegal. I've had plenty of experience with dope heads in my life, and inviting more to become dope heads is not in our best interest.

I've lost friends because of dope. My house was nearly burned to the ground because of dope. My cousin lost her son about a year and a half ago because of dope. So when people tell me dope only effects the individual, they have no idea what they are talking about.

Allow more people to become dope heads, we will have more people on the dole. We will have to support them, we will have to feed them, we will have to house them, we will have to take care of their medical expenses. So before you respond by saying "we should not do that for dope heads" I'll agree with you, but since we have to do that with people that are not hooked on drugs, there is no way we can ever refuse to take care of people that are on drugs.

Prior to 1914 Americans were free to consume "dope". There was never a problem.


.

 

[SavannahMann]

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....

You can't win it.

 

[SavannahMann]

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.

Giving them authority is a disservice to the population of this nation.

I offer David Olofson as an example.

 

[SavannahMann]

In Hollywood the silencer turns the sound into a discreet caugh. In real life the sound is not nearly that quiet.

Mythbusters tackled the question.



With the addition of the silencer the sound of the shot was reduced from standing next to a jet engine levels of hearing damage to about what you would get from a chainsaw.

It isn't silent by any stretch of the imagination. It is not as loud. Hollywood likes to pretend a lot of things. Cop killer bullets have only ever killed cops on the set of the show thanks to special effects. Finding the truth is easy and refusing to do so isn't admirable.

 

[12icer]

The FBI should be investigating ORGANIZED CRIME like it was designed to do, Then there would be no DRUG gangs in the intercity. The Federal Marshals should do as they were designed to do serve FEDERAL warrants and catch criminals that are on the FEDERAL wanted list. The BATF should be completely disbanded. ALL of the The Depts of revenue should be consolidated into one agency, the IRS should be disbanded and the tax agency should be assigned collection of all outstanding federal fees, taxes, and all associated revenue. We need to straighten out the people in the federal government and ask every person from the Janitor to the PRESIDENT one question to start with, "WHO DO YOU WORK FOR?" any answer other than "THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA" should be an instant dismissal.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Well Congress was given NO AUTHORITY to regulate the marketplace. That authority was USURPED by the fascists the progressives - in the early 1900's.

.

No, but they can make laws as to what is legal or not. If there is a harmful product somebody is producing that deteriorates society, sure they have the right to make it illegal. I've had plenty of experience with dope heads in my life, and inviting more to become dope heads is not in our best interest.

I've lost friends because of dope. My house was nearly burned to the ground because of dope. My cousin lost her son about a year and a half ago because of dope. So when people tell me dope only effects the individual, they have no idea what they are talking about.

Allow more people to become dope heads, we will have more people on the dole. We will have to support them, we will have to feed them, we will have to house them, we will have to take care of their medical expenses. So before you respond by saying "we should not do that for dope heads" I'll agree with you, but since we have to do that with people that are not hooked on drugs, there is no way we can ever refuse to take care of people that are on drugs.

Prior to 1914 Americans were free to consume "dope". There was never a problem.


.

Then why is there a problem now?

 

[JQPublic1]

[

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.

Gunfire monitors really help to prevent crime in Chicago, don't they? Do you even have a clue as to how many people were shot in Chicago last year? 4379 shot in 2016.

Except for some high end operators that would never follow the law silencers are not used for everyday crime. I doubt if any of the 4379 shot in Chicago were by gunfire with a silencer. Street thugs don't use them.

The ATF or anybody does not need to be controlling them.

I left the word NOT out in the above paragraph. I meant to say gunfire monitors are NOT meant to PREVENT shootings they just alert cops that a gun has been fired in some area of the city. The time the monitor recorded the shot is invaluable, not only for first responders but also as an excellent investigative tool. And I dare say that cops don't want every Tom, Dick and Harry having access to silencers. At least now they can hear the sniper's shot before it kills them. That gives their surviving partners a chance to locate the killer quicker. With a silencer.... it is harder to detect where the bullets are coming from. ( yeah I know a bullet travels faster than the speed of sound but it sounded good so sue me...heh heh heh)

 

[koshergrl]

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 need to eliminate the FBI and the des as well.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I educated you and this is the thanks I get. I read the link and the brief synopses of each agency. I too, noticed the intelligence capabilities of some of the listed agencies were at variance with reports that all of them could have independently concluded that Russia/Putin was behind the hacking scandal. Frankly, though, the news of 17 agencies agreeing on that singular event did not indicate independent validations. Perhaps it was inferred ...but not stated as fact.

But what do you and I know? That the NRO is even listed as an intelligence agency suggests their work entails spatial components that go far beyond rudimentary visual surveillance.. You didn't even consider that the NRO could be instrumental in providing long range audio surveillance through satellites or planes to other intelligence agencies. Is it not a fact, you moron, that the e-mail hacking was done via Internet satellite transmissions ???? Would the NRO not be THE experts able to analyze any electronic fingerprints or tracing data left by the Hackers????

Your typically limited RW worldview dumbs down every forum you assholes congregate in.

Yep and you regressives are the kings of assumptions. Carry on.