Heck, Give Everybody a Gun!

LewRockwell.com ^ | 11/11/03 | Brad Edmonds

[IrishCatholic]

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know it was 5 guys in a bar. That makes it credible. That scenario works. A Federal hit squad is drinking in a bar and loudly boasting of it's death squad activities. Someone mentions this to them and they are dragged away to be killed. No one would ever look into that. Just like on TV.
There is no problem with my TV. I just like nonfiction. While you apparently, like fiction. Just like your story

[ChefKeith]

My goodness I believe somebody needs some therapy...

Or have the T.V. fixed!

Get a life ic

You sound like the "lifeguard ted" changing the words to meet your requirements

I just gotta ask: ARE YOU A fedgovshill?

P.S. I will give you credit for not listing anymore shows for Me to tape for you.

What's your take on (W)horuchi and his killing of a Mother holding Her BABY as he shot Her?

Or was that you on the trigger???

[IrishCatholic]

I use the FDA and USDA to illustrate that those agencies do not have the capablility to absorb some of the ATF's responsibilities. The tasks as I have indicated also extend beyond regulatory and revenue. The arson and explosives and lab work I mentioned.
As for the McCormicks I mentioned it wasn't about declaring it a drug but a chemical. They were bootlegging to avoid taxes and were committing a criminal offense. The ATF handles this the way the Secret Service handles counterfeit cases.
I am unfamiliar with the DEA ever just declaring a drug illegal. Both at the Federal and State level legislatures enact laws involving scheduled drugs. New drugs to the market must have FDA approval. The DEA enforces those drug laws. If you have the name of a drug declared illegal by the DEA without having it been proscribed by the legislature please name it and I will concede the point. Other than that they must present a case in court even if it is a forfeiture motion. That's judicial review of an executive action on a law passed by the legislature.
As for the concept of regulations only being those specifically passsed as laws, it is fine as a concept but unworkable in reality. That is why they are written by the legislature to be general and left to work out between businesses and the government. If anything the cozy relations between regulators and business is more of a problem than the fact there are regulators at all. Society is far too complex to remove these regulations. They affect everything from the water and food you eat to the car you drive to the clothes you wear. I am all for parring down government from it's unintended uses, namely social programs. But government isn't a bad word. It protects us internationally and nationally. A failure in government brought us 9/11. A success in government brought us a framework for two hundred years of individual freedom and a society that annually produces 43% of the world's GNP.

[Lurker]

"I have met and talked to the agents of this oft smeard (sic) agencey (sic)."

I've worked with them. I'll never do it again. The ones I met shouldn't be allowed to do anything more than put tax stamps on whiskey bottles and cigarette packages, and then only under very close supervision.

As far as being able to carry guns, I'd sooner give an idiot child an MP-5 as the clowns I met from the BATF. At least you can teach an idiot child the basics of firearms safety.

L

[IrishCatholic]

Can't argue with that. I don't know who you dealt wtih. I have worked with FBI agents that were seasoned pros and made you feel good they were there... and then there were agents that were sooo bad it made you cringe. In any large agency the larger it is the more likely you will find duds.
I met a postal inspector that gave a three hour talk on shoe prints. It was a preview of hell. Get a bad one in charge of any agency or team and soon you will have people that no one wants to work with. The ATF people I talked to were fine. Different experience same agency.

[Lurker]

The FBI may or may not be good, but the BATF clowns I got saddled with were unbelievably bad.

L

[Woahhs]

There was more than one agency at the raid and more than one at the seige. None of those agencies would have been willing to put up with murderers in their midst. Cops and feds are concerned with the law and keeping people safe.

Is that why the Wehrmacht overthrew the SS in WW II Germany?

[ChefKeith]

Why?

Because that is who cuts his (JBT ic's) paycheck

[Woahhs]

I have worked with FBI agents...

In what capacity? I would think the context of how you formed your opinions significant in weighing those opinions. After all, you have challenged the credibility of what is ostensibly an eye-witness based entirely on that opinion.

[IrishCatholic]

Wow, local, state and federal police = nazis
sad

[IrishCatholic]

what eyewitness. I simply caught someone making up stories. As for the FBI agents, regional offices field swat teams. they responded to Waco. I talked to agents who were there for the seige.

[Woahhs]

human = human
evasive

[Woahhs]

The term "eye-witness" was qualified.

You said "worked." So either you are dissembling now, or you were misleading earlier.

[IrishCatholic]

was it? I think not. It was alluded to be five guys in a bar. But only alluded to. He was caught making up a story to push his own brand of ignorance. You must be his friend.
As to worked. I have worked with many agencies when their cases crossed my jurisdiction or have attended training with these agencies. Almost every local, state and federal LEO has worked in one way or another together. It's another way the 'Evil Empire' view of the Feds is silly. They have the same problems as every other level of agency. They also do not live in separate Fed towns but in neighborhoods like everyone else. They could be your neighbor or the guy in front of you at the checkout. To promote them as boasting killers really does nothing but point out your own sad shortcomings.
cops=nazis
sad

[Woahhs]

Qualified by me...as your first response would obviously be to paint me with the same brush you're painting the witness with if I didn't. But you outsmarted me by not knowing what "ostensible" means! (not a convenient lead to follow I suppose.)

And intentionally evasive responses such as yours, to direct questions such as mine, along with attempts to subtly divert attention from "make or break" concerns with hyperbole is suppose to warm the heart for misunderstood LEOs?

You're right. They do live next door, and use the same checkout, and gym...

Sorry partner...you're gonna need alot more beer to piss this fire out.

[IrishCatholic]

What fire?
Also there is no need to be evasive, you don't rate it.
Hyperbole? So far you are the one with all the Nazi equations.
What witness. The guy made it all up.
Sounds like you are the one with all the beer.
It sounds like you have had many run ins with misunderstood LEO's.

[Woahhs]

Also there is no need to be evasive, you don't rate it.

So you say, but you still don't answer the questions. Instead, you fatuously speculate as to why those questions are asked; as if no one on FR has ever seen that trick before.

I've long held the suspicion that LEOs so often deal with the stupid and/or ignorant they develop the misguided notion anyone not in their circle is similarly stupid and/or ignorant. You provide ample justification for such suspicion.

As a Catholic, you must be familiar with the story of Father Jerzy Papaushka (phonetic spelling) of Poland, and the bone-jarring surprise of the police officers that murdered him when they were held to account for the crime. IIRC, they were actually in tears when they discovered they were going to be prosecuted for real. The "us and them" mentality develops by circumstance: not proximity.

Hyperbole? So far you are the one with all the Nazi equations.

Yup. Hyperbole. You will kindly note the only one tossing around "the n-word" between us is you. Nevertheless, you've contributed nothing here besides bovine incredulity to show how or why any such parallels would be inappropriate.

What witness. The guy made it all up.

You don't know that, and you've already admitted the only basis you have for discounting his report is its conflict with your opinion.

Frankly, his credibility exceeds your own if for no other reason than you're claiming proof of a negative (a logical impossibility), and you've been caught dissembling, red-handed.

It sounds like you have had many run ins with misunderstood LEO's.

You really should stick to evidence, and get out of the speculation business. You're not very good at it.