If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Russia Today)   Youtube video of explosions? We're gonna go ahead decide that's an illegal explosives manufacture, peon. Because we can   (rt.com) divider line 311
    More: Asinine, YouTube, FPSRussia, ATF, sniper rifles, explosions, explosives  
•       •       •

5338 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Mar 2013 at 5:55 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



311 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-30 05:00:23 PM
I am gonna wait for the "Better safe than sorry" portion of the Right to come out and defend ATF actions
 
2013-03-30 05:07:08 PM
The ATF suspected Kyle Myers, the iconic 26-year-old host of FPSRussia, of using explosives "with malicious intent,"

Blowing up shiat purely for the lulz is the new definition of "malicious" now? Oh, ffs.

I would suggest that Kyle's explosion vids are the least malicious explosions of all time.

/Of all time!
 
2013-03-30 05:07:38 PM
America is a prison
 
2013-03-30 05:15:51 PM

The ATF looked into some weird guy with an explosives fetish?

OMFG!!1!  IT'S THE GODDAM FOURTH REICH!!!!



I'd be worried if they weren't looking into guys like that.
 
2013-03-30 05:35:27 PM
markosun.files.wordpress.com

Dozens of federal agents scoured the family property of YouTube
celebrity Kyle 'FPSRussia' Myers while searching for illegal
explosives and possibly weapons, but left empty-handed hooved
 
2013-03-30 05:57:14 PM

cman: I am gonna wait for the "Better safe than sorry" portion of the Right to come out and defend ATF actions


Actually the ATF is one of the few agencies that both the left and the right generally agree should be taken out back and shot.
 
2013-03-30 05:58:40 PM

Snapper Carr: cman: I am gonna wait for the "Better safe than sorry" portion of the Right to come out and defend ATF actions

Actually the ATF is one of the few agencies that both the left and the right generally agree should be taken out back and shot*.



*Metaphorically speaking
//please don't break down my door in the middle of the night, I'm not threatening LEO's
 
2013-03-30 06:00:27 PM

Snapper Carr: cman: I am gonna wait for the "Better safe than sorry" portion of the Right to come out and defend ATF actions

Actually the ATF is one of the few agencies that both the left and the right generally agree should be taken out to the country and allowed to spend the rest of their days living comfortably on a nice farm with grass and lots of space to run around and stuff.


FTFY
 
2013-03-30 06:00:51 PM

Lionel Mandrake: The ATF looked into some weird guy with an explosives fetish?

OMFG!!1!  IT'S THE GODDAM FOURTH REICH!!!!


I'd be worried if they weren't looking into guys like that.


Because ATF should totally kick in everyone's door to look in on them just to be sure.
 
2013-03-30 06:01:38 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: Lionel Mandrake: The ATF looked into some weird guy with an explosives fetish?

OMFG!!1!  IT'S THE GODDAM FOURTH REICH!!!!


I'd be worried if they weren't looking into guys like that.

Because ATF should totally kick in everyone's door to look in on them just to be sure.


Or, everyone who  posts videos of sh*t exploding on YouTube. I'd be alright with that.
 
2013-03-30 06:02:00 PM

quatchi: Blowing up shiat purely for the lulz is the new definition of "malicious" now? Oh, ffs.


Guess it depends on if it is your stuff or not.

/Not the issue here
 
2013-03-30 06:03:01 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: Lionel Mandrake: The ATF looked into some weird guy with an explosives fetish?

OMFG!!1!  IT'S THE GODDAM FOURTH REICH!!!!


I'd be worried if they weren't looking into guys like that.

Because ATF should totally kick in everyone's door to look in on them just to be sure.


Baseless no-knock raids are okay when they happen to people I don't like.
 
2013-03-30 06:03:40 PM
In before the "Obama's comin' fer yer guns!" posts.
 
2013-03-30 06:07:02 PM

quatchi: Blowing up shiat purely for the lulz is the new definition of "malicious" now? Oh, ffs.


If this is true then Mythbusters must be classified as a National Threat.
 
2013-03-30 06:08:50 PM
Did nobody make it down to the last two paragraphs?

The raids on the Myers' properties were staged as part of an investigation into the death of 32-year-old Keith Richard Ratliff, who was found dead on January 3. Ratliff and the Myers family were co-owners of gun producer FPS Industries; Ratliff was also executive producer of the FPSRussia channel, acquiring or creating rare weapons for the show.
Ratliff was killed by a single bullet to the head. Though a large number of firearms were found at Ratliff's business premises, the murder weapon was not among them. The investigation continues, and so far no names of possible suspects or persons of interest have been revealed.


There's more to it than the man just hassling some youtube redneck who likes making things go boom.
 
2013-03-30 06:09:53 PM

quatchi: The ATF suspected Kyle Myers, the iconic 26-year-old host of FPSRussia, of using explosives "with malicious intent,"

Blowing up shiat purely for the lulz is the new definition of "malicious" now? Oh, ffs.

I would suggest that Kyle's explosion vids are the least malicious explosions of all time.

/Of all time!


I have been informed numerous times on Fark that firearms and explosions cannot be used for entertainment value, as they are designed to kill. Based on that, I'm afraid that I must agree with the BATF here, and ignore the 4 million subscribers to that channel. I must further conclude that FPSRussia has a very, very small penis.

/BAN ASSAULT LULZ!
 
2013-03-30 06:09:59 PM
Next on the Fed'shiat list:
Freddie Wong
Harley from Epic Meal Time
 
2013-03-30 06:11:43 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Next on the Fed'shiat list:


Funny how that works out with or without the filter.
 
2013-03-30 06:13:08 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Satanic_Hamster: Next on the Fed'shiat list:

Funny how that works out with or without the filter.


Heh.  I wasn't even cursing or trying to curse.  All I said was:
Fed's.

And then hit.
 
2013-03-30 06:16:01 PM

IoSaturnalia: Did nobody make it down to the last two paragraphs?

The raids on the Myers' properties were staged as part of an investigation into the death of 32-year-old Keith Richard Ratliff, who was found dead on January 3. Ratliff and the Myers family were co-owners of gun producer FPS Industries; Ratliff was also executive producer of the FPSRussia channel, acquiring or creating rare weapons for the show.
Ratliff was killed by a single bullet to the head. Though a large number of firearms were found at Ratliff's business premises, the murder weapon was not among them. The investigation continues, and so far no names of possible suspects or persons of interest have been revealed.

There's more to it than the man just hassling some youtube redneck who likes making things go boom.


Yeah, sounds like they used the guns/explosives as a pretense to search for a murder weapon.
 
2013-03-30 06:19:34 PM

SN1987a goes boom: Yeah, sounds like they used the guns/explosives as a pretense to search for a murder weapon.


Considering he has a wide collection of various types of guns, you'd think they would've grabbed one with the right caliber for ballistics testing if that had been the only reason. Also, BATF isn't really into murder investigations -- that's out of their realm.

It seems more like they used the local sheriffs to justify it, and brought BATF in just to see what they could find. Fishing.
 
2013-03-30 06:19:39 PM

IoSaturnalia: Did nobody make it down to the last two paragraphs?

The raids on the Myers' properties were staged as part of an investigation into the death of 32-year-old Keith Richard Ratliff, who was found dead on January 3. Ratliff and the Myers family were co-owners of gun producer FPS Industries; Ratliff was also executive producer of the FPSRussia channel, acquiring or creating rare weapons for the show.
Ratliff was killed by a single bullet to the head. Though a large number of firearms were found at Ratliff's business premises, the murder weapon was not among them. The investigation continues, and so far no names of possible suspects or persons of interest have been revealed.

There's more to it than the man just hassling some youtube redneck who likes making things go boom.




I'll bet you an internet that there probably isn't.

Harassing people is the ATF's stock and trade. Specifically, harassing people who aren't known criminals and won't be prone to shooting back. The agency doesn't want another Ruby Ridge or Waco, it only needs names to fill out its quota.
My conspiracy theory says they only raided him more because he was making his presence known on youtube.
They were hoping for some missing paperwork so they could score a positive headline.
 
2013-03-30 06:23:23 PM
So now people in this thread believe that we can't regulate explosives anymore?

That everything is a "second amendment right"? A tank, an RPG and a nuke is ok too.

Sorry guys we have munition laws on explosives we always have.
 
2013-03-30 06:24:15 PM

quatchi: The ATF suspected Kyle Myers, the iconic 26-year-old host of FPSRussia, of using explosives "with malicious intent,"

Blowing up shiat purely for the lulz is the new definition of "malicious" now? Oh, ffs.

I would suggest that Kyle's explosion vids are the least malicious explosions of all time.

/Of all time!


Most explosives you need a permit for lulz or not.
 
2013-03-30 06:25:03 PM

Corvus: So now people in this thread believe that we can't regulate explosives anymore?

That everything is a "second amendment right"? A tank, an RPG and a nuke is ok too.

Sorry guys we have munition laws on explosives we always have.


Sorry, if there was anything that was improper and didn't comply with regulations, they would have seized it and pressed charges.
 
2013-03-30 06:25:31 PM

JerkyMeat: America is a prison


Right the definition of being in a prison is you can't everyone can't just use explosives however they want. That's the same farking thing.
 
2013-03-30 06:26:24 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Corvus: So now people in this thread believe that we can't regulate explosives anymore?

That everything is a "second amendment right"? A tank, an RPG and a nuke is ok too.

Sorry guys we have munition laws on explosives we always have.

Sorry, if there was anything that was improper and didn't comply with regulations, they would have seized it and pressed charges.


And? How would we have known that if they didn't investigate it?
 
2013-03-30 06:26:30 PM

odinsposse: Dr. Goldshnoz: Lionel Mandrake: The ATF looked into some weird guy with an explosives fetish?

OMFG!!1!  IT'S THE GODDAM FOURTH REICH!!!!


I'd be worried if they weren't looking into guys like that.

Because ATF should totally kick in everyone's door to look in on them just to be sure.

Baseless no-knock raids are okay when they happen to people I don't like.


You guys sound so oppressed.  How can you live in this Stalinist Hellhole?
 
2013-03-30 06:26:42 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Corvus: So now people in this thread believe that we can't regulate explosives anymore?

That everything is a "second amendment right"? A tank, an RPG and a nuke is ok too.

Sorry guys we have munition laws on explosives we always have.

Sorry, if there was anything that was improper and didn't comply with regulations, they would have seized it and pressed charges.


Did you read the article? There wasn't any explosives there. There was a video but they weren't there when they raided his place.

Read the article next time.
 
2013-03-30 06:26:43 PM

Corvus: So now people in this thread believe that we can't regulate explosives anymore?

That everything is a "second amendment right"? A tank, an RPG and a nuke is ok too.

Sorry guys we have munition laws on explosives we always have.


so you're the idiot in this thread that thinks that his following the law and getting his shiat kicked in anyway is proper "regulating"?
 
2013-03-30 06:27:51 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Corvus: So now people in this thread believe that we can't regulate explosives anymore?

That everything is a "second amendment right"? A tank, an RPG and a nuke is ok too.

Sorry guys we have munition laws on explosives we always have.

Sorry, if there was anything that was improper and didn't comply with regulations, they would have seized it and pressed charges.


So they can't go in and look at things to see if they're illegal unless they somehow already know that they're illegal?

That makes sense...
 
2013-03-30 06:28:03 PM
Satanic_Hamster: ...the Fed'shiat list:

That so works, filterpwnage and all.

/Wanders off to go cue up some classic L7
 
2013-03-30 06:28:18 PM

Lionel Mandrake: I'm an ATF apologist.


I know.
 
2013-03-30 06:29:02 PM

cameroncrazy1984: And? How would we have known that if they didn't investigate it?


Oo. How do I know you don't have an Amber Alert child chained up in your basement? We'd better investigate, just to make sure.
 
2013-03-30 06:29:05 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: Lionel Mandrake: The ATF looked into some weird guy with an explosives fetish?

OMFG!!1!  IT'S THE GODDAM FOURTH REICH!!!!


I'd be worried if they weren't looking into guys like that.

Because ATF should totally kick in everyone's door to look in on them just to be sure.


No but if they are making videos with what looks to be illegal explosives and positing the videos on YouTube - YES!
 
2013-03-30 06:30:02 PM

Lionel Mandrake: That makes sense...


Perfect sense, actually. If that letter of law is upheld you don't get people getting their doors kicked in so an ATF agent can say "shucks, got nuthin" or cops raiding tomato and squash grow setups in peoples basements.
 
2013-03-30 06:31:23 PM
I have a question for everyone. If someone posted a video that showed a group robbing a store (and it looked like it was real), do you think police should investigate those people? Should they check their house to see if they really stole the stuff in the video?

I bet almost everyone here would say yes. But because this is something some people in this thread identify themselves with they are blind to see it's the same thing.
 
2013-03-30 06:31:47 PM
Tannerite still legal? Flamethrowers and DXM too? M203's and machine guns (with approved govt kickback)?

Really? They are? Then leave the man alone.
 
2013-03-30 06:31:48 PM

Corvus: I'm too dumb to know what proper police work involves.


Yes. Yes you are.
 
2013-03-30 06:32:11 PM

Corvus: So now people in this thread believe that we can't regulate explosives anymore?

That everything is a "second amendment right"? A tank, an RPG and a nuke is ok too.

Sorry guys we have munition laws on explosives we always have.




1) no we haven't.
2) not all things that go boom are equal.
3) lol_whut.jpg rocket lauchers are legal with the right paperwork.


Tannerite (which I assume is the explosive in question) is used in reactive targets. So long as you are using it properly, it normally doesnt warrant a home inspection from the ATF.
 
2013-03-30 06:33:31 PM
Dr. Goldshnoz:  Hey, everybody! I'm a stupid moron with an ugly face and bigbutt andmy butt
smells and I like to
kiss my ownbutt.

I know
 
2013-03-30 06:33:45 PM

Corvus: Did you read the article? There wasn't any explosives there. There was a video but they weren't there when they raided his place.


Tannerite is legal. They said they found no *illegal* explosives.
 
2013-03-30 06:34:02 PM

Corvus: I have a question for everyone. If someone posted a video that showed a group robbing a store (and it looked like it was real), do you think police should investigate those people? Should they check their house to see if they really stole the stuff in the video?


Because every time some criminal has done this and it gets posted on FARK the thread is always "what a dumbass posting they were breaking the law on video tape" not once have I seen someone on FARK say "OMG the cops shouldn't have arrested him or raided his house".
 
2013-03-30 06:35:18 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: cameroncrazy1984: And? How would we have known that if they didn't investigate it?

Oo. How do I know you don't have an Amber Alert child chained up in your basement? We'd better investigate, just to make sure.


Well for one, I didn't post any YouTube videos of something that could be illegal.
 
2013-03-30 06:35:26 PM
No video?
 
2013-03-30 06:35:31 PM

Corvus: I have a question for everyone. If someone posted a video that showed a group robbing a store (and it looked like it was real), do you think police should investigate those people? Should they check their house to see if they really stole the stuff in the video?

I bet almost everyone here would say yes. But because this is something some people in this thread identify themselves with they are blind to see it's the same thing.


TANNERITE IS LEGAL.
 
2013-03-30 06:36:11 PM
So, why did they confiscate all his guns?  Is there a legal limit to the number of firearms you can own?  Or is this just YET AGAIN another over-reach of federal authority?

People wonder why the "gun nuts" go all apeshiat at the mention of gun control.
 
2013-03-30 06:36:28 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: I like to molest children. that doesn't mean I am a bad person.


Now I am ready to discuss this with you if you want to discuss it like an adult. If instead you want to lie and pretend I said things I never did, it shows you don't have points to back up your actual position and instead want to misrepresent and name call.
 
2013-03-30 06:36:33 PM
Buy from a hydroponics store? That's a raidin'

Buy one bag too much fertilizer? That's a raidin'

Sleep with a cops wife? That's a raidin'

Post a youtube video? That's a raidin'

Buy a big gulp? That's a raidin'

Walk with a broom under your arm near a school? That's a radin'
 
2013-03-30 06:36:47 PM
They've only murdered one guy in that compound, why would law enforcement be interested?
 
2013-03-30 06:37:20 PM

xanadian: So, why did they confiscate all his guns?


They didn't. They considered it, then backed off.
 
2013-03-30 06:37:32 PM

Corvus: Lenny_da_Hog: Corvus: So now people in this thread believe that we can't regulate explosives anymore?

That everything is a "second amendment right"? A tank, an RPG and a nuke is ok too.

Sorry guys we have munition laws on explosives we always have.

Sorry, if there was anything that was improper and didn't comply with regulations, they would have seized it and pressed charges.

Did you read the article? There wasn't any explosives there. There was a video but they weren't there when they raided his place.

Read the article next time.


Maybe you should read the article. To wit:

As was apparent in FPSRussia's videos, Myers had used Tannerite - a patented binary explosive traditionally used as a target for firearms practice, because hitting a target is accompanied by a resulting boom. Tannerite is famous for its exceptional stability and can only explode when directly hit by a bullet - even striking it with a hammer won't blow it up.

The extensive use of this explosive for purposes other than shooting practice possibly put federal agents on alert for any kind of explosive that would have meant FPSRussia's producers were in violation of federal law.

 So
Tannerite is not illegal to posses or detonate. The ATF was fishing for other explosives that would be illegal but didn't find any. The videos didn't show any illegal activity but resulted in an ATF raid anyway.
 
2013-03-30 06:39:30 PM
rt.com
Hammer & sickle tee. A kalishnikov.
Why did Obama send the ATF to raid one of his socialist buddies?
There must be more layers to this; layers like unto those upon the 'birth certificate'. I must study this out more.
 
2013-03-30 06:39:43 PM

Lionel Mandrake: odinsposse: Dr. Goldshnoz: Lionel Mandrake: The ATF looked into some weird guy with an explosives fetish?

OMFG!!1!  IT'S THE GODDAM FOURTH REICH!!!!


I'd be worried if they weren't looking into guys like that.

Because ATF should totally kick in everyone's door to look in on them just to be sure.

Baseless no-knock raids are okay when they happen to people I don't like.

You guys sound so oppressed.  How can you live in this Stalinist Hellhole?


Sorry, I forgot how much FARK loves the police and the arbitrary use of police authority. Carry on.
 
2013-03-30 06:40:41 PM

odinsposse: The videos didn't show any illegal activity but resulted in an ATF raid anyway.

The videos didn't show any illegal activity but resulted in an ATF raid anyway.

The videos didn't show any illegal activity but resulted in an ATF raid anyway.


The videos didn't show any illegal activity but resulted in an ATF raid anyway.

This is the problem here, folks.
 
2013-03-30 06:40:45 PM

Snapper Carr: Snapper Carr: cman: I am gonna wait for the "Better safe than sorry" portion of the Right to come out and defend ATF actions

Actually the ATF is one of the few agencies that both the left and the right generally agree should be taken out back and shot*

after fair trials, convictions, death sentences, and upheld appeals.

*Metaphorically speaking
//please don't break down my door in the middle of the night, I'm not threatening LEO's


FTFY. That's how you make a Constitutionally protected death threat.
 
2013-03-30 06:40:48 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Corvus: I have a question for everyone. If someone posted a video that showed a group robbing a store (and it looked like it was real), do you think police should investigate those people? Should they check their house to see if they really stole the stuff in the video?

I bet almost everyone here would say yes. But because this is something some people in this thread identify themselves with they are blind to see it's the same thing.

TANNERITE IS LEGAL.


So is shooting a fake robbery.
 
2013-03-30 06:41:57 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: odinsposse: The videos didn't show any illegal activity but resulted in an ATF raid anyway.

The videos didn't show any illegal activity but resulted in an ATF raid anyway.

The videos didn't show any illegal activity but resulted in an ATF raid anyway.

The videos didn't show any illegal activity but resulted in an ATF raid anyway.

This is the problem here, folks.


How did they know it was legal prior to investigating?
 
2013-03-30 06:42:03 PM

odinsposse: Lionel Mandrake: odinsposse: Dr. Goldshnoz: Lionel Mandrake: The ATF looked into some weird guy with an explosives fetish?

OMFG!!1!  IT'S THE GODDAM FOURTH REICH!!!!


I'd be worried if they weren't looking into guys like that.

Because ATF should totally kick in everyone's door to look in on them just to be sure.

Baseless no-knock raids are okay when they happen to people I don't like.

You guys sound so oppressed.  How can you live in this Stalinist Hellhole?

Sorry, I forgot how much FARK loves the police and the arbitrary use of police authority. Carry on.


Yeah, why did they focus on this guy?

I bet those Nazis just flopped open a phone book stabbed a finger down and crashed in on whatever poor sap's name they pointed at.

You could be next!  Better go buy more guns, patriots!!
 
2013-03-30 06:43:17 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Dr. Goldshnoz: odinsposse: The videos didn't show any illegal activity but resulted in an ATF raid anyway.

The videos didn't show any illegal activity but resulted in an ATF raid anyway.

The videos didn't show any illegal activity but resulted in an ATF raid anyway.

The videos didn't show any illegal activity but resulted in an ATF raid anyway.

This is the problem here, folks.

How did they know it was legal prior to investigating?


The guy probably said so right in the video!  And if you can't trust some internet guy with an explosives fetish, who can you trust?
 
2013-03-30 06:43:23 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Lenny_da_Hog: cameroncrazy1984: And? How would we have known that if they didn't investigate it?

Oo. How do I know you don't have an Amber Alert child chained up in your basement? We'd better investigate, just to make sure.

Well for one, I didn't post any YouTube videos of something that could be illegal.


I mean, if you posted a video with your kid, how do we know it's your kid? It could be a stolen kid.

Just like here -- he posted videos of himself doing things with legal products, but you seem to think it's okay to raid him just to make him prove they were all legal, because guns go "bang" and bad guys use them in Bruce Willis movies.
 
2013-03-30 06:44:09 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Lenny_da_Hog: Corvus: I have a question for everyone. If someone posted a video that showed a group robbing a store (and it looked like it was real), do you think police should investigate those people? Should they check their house to see if they really stole the stuff in the video?

I bet almost everyone here would say yes. But because this is something some people in this thread identify themselves with they are blind to see it's the same thing.

TANNERITE IS LEGAL.

So is shooting a fake robbery.



quick! Lock up Hollywood...
 
2013-03-30 06:45:38 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: cameroncrazy1984: Lenny_da_Hog: cameroncrazy1984: And? How would we have known that if they didn't investigate it?

Oo. How do I know you don't have an Amber Alert child chained up in your basement? We'd better investigate, just to make sure.

Well for one, I didn't post any YouTube videos of something that could be illegal.

I mean, if you posted a video with your kid, how do we know it's your kid? It could be a stolen kid.

Just like here -- he posted videos of himself doing things with legal products, but you seem to think it's okay to raid him just to make him prove they were all legal, because guns go "bang" and bad guys use them in Bruce Willis movies.


Or because some explosives are illegal and, you know, we need to make sure that people aren't just going around blowing up illegal explosives.

I guess you trust everything that people say on the internet? This guy said it was legal stuff, so that's good enough for the ATF, right?
 
2013-03-30 06:45:39 PM

cameroncrazy1984: How did they know it was legal prior to investigating?


Because he identifies what he's doing in each of his videos -- for example, "AK-47 + Tannerite!"
 
2013-03-30 06:46:37 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Lenny_da_Hog: cameroncrazy1984: Lenny_da_Hog: cameroncrazy1984: And? How would we have known that if they didn't investigate it?

Oo. How do I know you don't have an Amber Alert child chained up in your basement? We'd better investigate, just to make sure.

Well for one, I didn't post any YouTube videos of something that could be illegal.

I mean, if you posted a video with your kid, how do we know it's your kid? It could be a stolen kid.

Just like here -- he posted videos of himself doing things with legal products, but you seem to think it's okay to raid him just to make him prove they were all legal, because guns go "bang" and bad guys use them in Bruce Willis movies.

Or because some explosives are illegal and, you know, we need to make sure that people aren't just going around blowing up illegal explosives.

I guess you trust everything that people say on the internet? This guy said it was legal stuff, so that's good enough for the ATF, right?


Hey, Granny Johnson said those were her grandkids on that video, and you took her word for it?
 
2013-03-30 06:47:22 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Dr. Goldshnoz:  Hey, everybody! I'm a stupid moron with an ugly face and bigbutt andmy butt
smells and I like tokiss my ownbutt.

I know


I'm a tiny bit ashamed at how hard I laughed at that.

/not really
 
2013-03-30 06:47:24 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: cameroncrazy1984: How did they know it was legal prior to investigating?

Because he identifies what he's doing in each of his videos -- for example, "AK-47 + Tannerite!"


And people always tell the truth on the internet.
 
2013-03-30 06:47:29 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: cameroncrazy1984: How did they know it was legal prior to investigating?

Because he identifies what he's doing in each of his videos -- for example, "AK-47 + Tannerite!"


Oh, so he can't say it's Tannerite if it's really TNT, right? That's like, impossible to do!
 
2013-03-30 06:48:46 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: odinsposse: The videos didn't show any illegal activity but resulted in an ATF raid anyway.

The videos didn't show any illegal activity but resulted in an ATF raid anyway.

The videos didn't show any illegal activity but resulted in an ATF raid anyway.

The videos didn't show any illegal activity but resulted in an ATF raid anyway.

This is the problem here, folks.


Yep a YouTube video is not probable cause and the 4 th amendment bans fishing expeditions which is what this was
 
2013-03-30 06:49:57 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Lenny_da_Hog: cameroncrazy1984: How did they know it was legal prior to investigating?

Because he identifies what he's doing in each of his videos -- for example, "AK-47 + Tannerite!"

And people always tell the truth on the internet.


Well, this guy did. Lesson learned, right?
 
2013-03-30 06:50:25 PM
It's also impossible to have any other kind of explosive when you possess Tannerite. Literally impossible. That's just science.
 
2013-03-30 06:51:36 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Lenny_da_Hog: cameroncrazy1984: How did they know it was legal prior to investigating?

Because he identifies what he's doing in each of his videos -- for example, "AK-47 + Tannerite!"

Oh, so he can't say it's Tannerite if it's really TNT, right? That's like, impossible to do!


Different materials that have different properties that would have shown on the video.

Stop using what you don't know as a debate tactic.
 
2013-03-30 06:51:36 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Lenny_da_Hog: cameroncrazy1984: How did they know it was legal prior to investigating?

Because he identifies what he's doing in each of his videos -- for example, "AK-47 + Tannerite!"

Oh, so he can't say it's Tannerite if it's really TNT, right? That's like, impossible to do!


*facepalm*

Let's use an analogy. A guy posts videos on Youtube about growing a garden indoors. The DEA raids him to see if he is growing weed. You are basically saying that's okay because he certainly could be growing weed so they should kick down his door just in case.
 
2013-03-30 06:53:48 PM

cman: I am gonna wait for the "Better safe than sorry" portion of the Right to come out and defend ATF actions


Let me translate what you just said so everyone can understand it...

cman: "I have no clue what the hell I'm talking about and make incorrect assumptions about how other people think... Because it's so much easier than actually being honest about it."

FPS Russia runs a guns and explosions channel... Who the blinking hell do you think watches stuff like that? Could it be... right wingers who like guns? Nope, can't be, that makes too much damn sense to your poor little mind.

You are such an idiot.
 
2013-03-30 06:53:59 PM

cameroncrazy1984: It's also impossible to have any other kind of explosive when you possess Tannerite. Literally impossible. That's just science.


What evidence was there of the presence of other explosives?


This would be easier for you to get right if Kyle was brown.
 
2013-03-30 06:54:08 PM

odinsposse: cameroncrazy1984: Lenny_da_Hog: cameroncrazy1984: How did they know it was legal prior to investigating?

Because he identifies what he's doing in each of his videos -- for example, "AK-47 + Tannerite!"

Oh, so he can't say it's Tannerite if it's really TNT, right? That's like, impossible to do!

*facepalm*

Let's use an analogy. A guy posts videos on Youtube about growing a garden indoors. The DEA raids him to see if he is growing weed. You are basically saying that's okay because he certainly could be growing weed so they should kick down his door just in case.


Was the gardener's business partner found murdered?
 
2013-03-30 06:54:08 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Lenny_da_Hog: cameroncrazy1984: How did they know it was legal prior to investigating?

Because he identifies what he's doing in each of his videos -- for example, "AK-47 + Tannerite!"

Oh, so he can't say it's Tannerite if it's really TNT, right? That's like, impossible to do!


Today, we're using Tannerite!

Here's an explosion that learned ATF specialists should recognize as consistent with Tannerite!

Here's an ATF raid just to make sure I didn't go out of my way to put an illegal explosive in place, then tell you it's Tannerite, just to trick you! Because illegal explosives are so much more easily obtained than Tannerite, or something.
 
2013-03-30 06:56:18 PM

odinsposse: cameroncrazy1984: Lenny_da_Hog: cameroncrazy1984: How did they know it was legal prior to investigating?

Because he identifies what he's doing in each of his videos -- for example, "AK-47 + Tannerite!"

Oh, so he can't say it's Tannerite if it's really TNT, right? That's like, impossible to do!

*facepalm*

Let's use an analogy. A guy posts videos on Youtube about growing a garden indoors. The DEA raids him to see if he is growing weed. You are basically saying that's okay because he certainly could be growing weed so they should kick down his door just in case.


Question: are there illegal explosives that have detonation properties similar to that of Tannerite?
 
2013-03-30 06:56:21 PM
An ATF raid that doesn't end with the murder of dozens of innocent civilians during a liberal administration?

I am shocked.
 
2013-03-30 06:56:37 PM

xanadian: So, why did they confiscate all his guns? Is there a legal limit to the number of firearms you can own?  Or is this just YET AGAIN another over-reach of federal authority?

People wonder why the "gun nuts" go all apeshiat at the mention of gun control.


[quizzicaldog]

The ATF "considered" the idea apparently but decided at some point that they already had enough egg on their face and dropped it.

FTA:  No illegal explosives were found and no arrests were made, but considering the unprecedented arsenal stocked at one of the locations, the agents considered confiscating Myers' weapons. "The idea at one of the locations was to take firearms, but they did not do that," an ATF spokesperson said, according to Onlineathens.com.

I get that the ATF were on a fishing expedition here and that an unsolved murder is part of this deal but to me this looks less like the ATF doing their jobs properly and more like intimidation and shoddy police work.
 
2013-03-30 06:56:43 PM

quatchi: Blowing up shiat purely for the lulz is the new definition of "malicious" now? Oh, ffs.


It's probably also terrorism since it makes the ATF agents shiat their pants.
 
2013-03-30 06:57:47 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: xanadian: So, why did they confiscate all his guns?

They didn't. They considered it, then backed off.


Ah, I see that now.

I'm not even drunk yet.
 
2013-03-30 06:58:24 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Lenny_da_Hog: cameroncrazy1984: How did they know it was legal prior to investigating?

Because he identifies what he's doing in each of his videos -- for example, "AK-47 + Tannerite!"

Oh, so he can't say it's Tannerite if it's really TNT, right? That's like, impossible to do!


Your concern is justified. Similarly, an individual who posts a video featuring minors whom the individual claims to be their own children may in fact be a kidnapper who is submitting a video featuring kidnapped and abused children. Therefore, posting of any video featuring minors warrants investigation of the video creator by law enforcement.
 
2013-03-30 06:58:56 PM

odinsposse: cameroncrazy1984: Lenny_da_Hog: cameroncrazy1984: How did they know it was legal prior to investigating?

Because he identifies what he's doing in each of his videos -- for example, "AK-47 + Tannerite!"

Oh, so he can't say it's Tannerite if it's really TNT, right? That's like, impossible to do!

*facepalm*

Let's use an analogy. A guy posts videos on Youtube about growing a garden indoors. The DEA raids him to see if he is growing weed. You are basically saying that's okay because he certainly could be growing weed so they should kick down his door just in case.


Did the video contain footage of a warehouse full of plants that look like pot? And was the camera man found dead 3 months ago?
 
2013-03-30 06:59:42 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Question: are there illegal explosives that have detonation properties similar to that of Tannerite?


Why would you use illegal explosives when you can just buy Tannerite to mimic a Tannerite explosion?
 
2013-03-30 07:00:52 PM

cameroncrazy1984: odinsposse: cameroncrazy1984: Lenny_da_Hog: cameroncrazy1984: How did they know it was legal prior to investigating?

Because he identifies what he's doing in each of his videos -- for example, "AK-47 + Tannerite!"

Oh, so he can't say it's Tannerite if it's really TNT, right? That's like, impossible to do!

*facepalm*

Let's use an analogy. A guy posts videos on Youtube about growing a garden indoors. The DEA raids him to see if he is growing weed. You are basically saying that's okay because he certainly could be growing weed so they should kick down his door just in case.

Question: are there illegal explosives that have detonation properties similar to that of Tannerite?


Maybe. Is that evidence that illegal activity is taking place? Definitely not.
 
2013-03-30 07:00:56 PM

odinsposse: Corvus: Lenny_da_Hog: Corvus: So now people in this thread believe that we can't regulate explosives anymore?

That everything is a "second amendment right"? A tank, an RPG and a nuke is ok too.

Sorry guys we have munition laws on explosives we always have.

Sorry, if there was anything that was improper and didn't comply with regulations, they would have seized it and pressed charges.

Did you read the article? There wasn't any explosives there. There was a video but they weren't there when they raided his place.

Read the article next time.

Maybe you should read the article. To wit:

As was apparent in FPSRussia's videos, Myers had used Tannerite - a patented binary explosive traditionally used as a target for firearms practice, because hitting a target is accompanied by a resulting boom. Tannerite is famous for its exceptional stability and can only explode when directly hit by a bullet - even striking it with a hammer won't blow it up.

The extensive use of this explosive for purposes other than shooting practice possibly put federal agents on alert for any kind of explosive that would have meant FPSRussia's producers were in violation of federal law.
 So
Tannerite is not illegal to posses or detonate. The ATF was fishing for other explosives that would be illegal but didn't find any. The videos didn't show any illegal activity but resulted in an ATF raid anyway.


zembla.cementhorizon.com
 
2013-03-30 07:01:11 PM

xanadian: So, why did they confiscate all his guns?  Is there a legal limit to the number of firearms you can own?  Or is this just YET AGAIN another over-reach of federal authority?

People wonder why the "gun nuts" go all apeshiat at the mention of gun control.


According to the article, "The idea at one of the locations was to take firearms, but they did not do that,". Thus the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives considered confiscating legally possessed firearms, but ultimately agents did not do so. I am certain that absolutely no one posting in this discussion would have approved had firearms been confiscated despite the absence of any evidence of illegal activity on the premises.
 
2013-03-30 07:02:35 PM

randomjsa: FPS Russia runs a guns and explosions channel... Who the blinking hell do you think watches stuff like that?


[farmfilmreport.jpg]

/Wow, this thread is growing fast.
//Guess you could say it...
*takes off sunglasses*
///...Blowed up real good.
 
2013-03-30 07:04:15 PM

cman: I am gonna wait for the "Better safe than sorry" portion of the Right to come out and defend ATF actions


I'm left wondering how much of the article is accurate.  Several pieces of it didn't seem to make sense.

As for the BATFE, someone should have checked things out, but a 60-man raid is BS even with presumption of murder.

More interesting is the legal precedent; as currently  anything on the internets is legally "hearsay" and all-but worthless as evidence.
 
2013-03-30 07:05:11 PM

Robots are Strong: Did the video contain footage of a warehouse full of plants that look like pot? And was the camera man found dead 3 months ago?


Irrelevant, since neither the DEA nor the ATF investigate murders. Also I typed up a few tries but I can't stretch the analogy to cover "the cameraman was shot 3 months ago so why did the ATF need to search for illegal explosives?"
 
2013-03-30 07:05:37 PM
So obamas off the books cheney hit squad did not deter fps russia from making more videos so they decided to raid the facility and pray that the jack boot licking authoritarian leftists backed them up in their fishing expedition?

Remember its only authoritarian when a republican has the DEA raid legal marijuana dispensaries
 
2013-03-30 07:07:47 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Dr. Goldshnoz: odinsposse: The videos didn't show any illegal activity but resulted in an ATF raid anyway.

The videos didn't show any illegal activity but resulted in an ATF raid anyway.

The videos didn't show any illegal activity but resulted in an ATF raid anyway.

The videos didn't show any illegal activity but resulted in an ATF raid anyway.

This is the problem here, folks.

How did they know it was legal prior to investigating?


Because its obvious that the propane was ignited by the 4 open flame sources(blow torches)taped to the propane canister?
 
2013-03-30 07:08:22 PM

odinsposse: Robots are Strong: Did the video contain footage of a warehouse full of plants that look like pot? And was the camera man found dead 3 months ago?

Irrelevant, since neither the DEA nor the ATF investigate murders. Also I typed up a few tries but I can't stretch the analogy to cover "the cameraman was shot 3 months ago so why did the ATF need to search for illegal explosives?"


Yeah, law enforcement agencies never collaborate when one of their areas of expertise are needed... sheesh.
 
2013-03-30 07:09:35 PM

jaytkay: They've only murdered one guy in that compound, why would law enforcement be interested?



Ratliff was known as an outspoken gun advocate. In a message posted to Twitter on Aug 11, 2012, he wrote: "I went to the movies with my pistol in my pocket the whole time I was praying that somebody would try to pull a Batman!"

A producer behind a popular gun enthusiast YouTube channel was found dead with a single gunshot wound to the head at his business last week.


If only he had some form of protection with him at the time...

Sounds like some shady shiat is going on in Georgia...
 
2013-03-30 07:12:08 PM

Lionel Mandrake: The ATF looked into some weird guy with an explosives fetish?

OMFG!!1!  IT'S THE GODDAM FOURTH REICH!!!!


I'd be worried if they weren't looking into guys like that.


Umm you should be concerned they are looking at people who are blatantly telling everyone they do it.. as opposed to raiding those ppl skulking around.
 
2013-03-30 07:16:58 PM

cameroncrazy1984: It's also impossible to have any other kind of explosive when you possess Tannerite. Literally impossible. That's just science.


So you believe in people having to prove their innocence instead of the government proving that person is guilty?
 
2013-03-30 07:21:38 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Lenny_da_Hog: Corvus: So now people in this thread believe that we can't regulate explosives anymore?

That everything is a "second amendment right"? A tank, an RPG and a nuke is ok too.

Sorry guys we have munition laws on explosives we always have.

Sorry, if there was anything that was improper and didn't comply with regulations, they would have seized it and pressed charges.

And? How would we have known that if they didn't investigate it?


Well, there's the fact that he has always disclosed what explosives he's using and why.
 
2013-03-30 07:21:45 PM

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: It's also impossible to have any other kind of explosive when you possess Tannerite. Literally impossible. That's just science.

So you believe in people having to prove their innocence instead of the government proving that person is guilty?


You know, those bullets might have been made out of heroin. We should send in the DEA to make sure.
 
2013-03-30 07:23:20 PM

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: It's also impossible to have any other kind of explosive when you possess Tannerite. Literally impossible. That's just science.

So you believe in people having to prove their innocence instead of the government proving that person is guilty?


Everyone knows that's a basic American principle: Guilty until proven innocent. If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear. We shouldn't bother with pesky things like "probable cause" when there is a possibility that someone could be doing something illegal, even when there is no evidence what-so-ever to suggest they are. Just send in the police to do a raid so we know for sure. Anyone who doesn't believe that is just a terrorist sympathizer!
 
2013-03-30 07:25:21 PM

IoSaturnalia: Did nobody make it down to the last two paragraphs?

The raids on the Myers' properties were staged as part of an investigation into the death of 32-year-old Keith Richard Ratliff, who was found dead on January 3. Ratliff and the Myers family were co-owners of gun producer FPS Industries; Ratliff was also executive producer of the FPSRussia channel, acquiring or creating rare weapons for the show.
Ratliff was killed by a single bullet to the head. Though a large number of firearms were found at Ratliff's business premises, the murder weapon was not among them. The investigation continues, and so far no names of possible suspects or persons of interest have been revealed.

There's more to it than the man just hassling some youtube redneck who likes making things go boom.


I didn't. That changes it a lot.

/That was a crap article, I couldn't make heads or tails of it.
//Damnit, journalists.
 
2013-03-30 07:28:23 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Lenny_da_Hog: cameroncrazy1984: How did they know it was legal prior to investigating?

Because he identifies what he's doing in each of his videos -- for example, "AK-47 + Tannerite!"

And people always tell the truth on the internet.


Have you watched any of his videos? He's very up front with what he's using. He's even declined people's requests because they would be illegal. He's not a terrorist and he's not stupid.
 
2013-03-30 07:30:37 PM

PsiChick: I didn't. That changes it a lot.


Not really. A local sheriff could have done this with a warrant. They didn't need dozens of federal agents if that was the case.
 
2013-03-30 07:30:43 PM
No illegal explosives were found and no arrests were made, but considering the unprecedented arsenal stocked at one of the locations, the agents considered confiscating Myers' weapons.

So he had nothing illegal, but he had a LOT of non-illegal stuff, so they were considering just confiscating it.  He must have not had any guns they wanted, since they didn't.

I wish I could think of a story I had ever heard where something that was confiscated from someone was returned, but I'm coming up empty.
 
2013-03-30 07:32:24 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Question: are there illegal explosives that have detonation properties similar to that of Tannerite?


Oh, for fark's sake! Why would he use illegal explosives when Tannerite is legal and safe to handle? Especially with such a high-profile Youtube channel?

Are you stupid?
 
2013-03-30 07:35:07 PM

Corvus: I have a question for everyone. If someone posted a video that showed a group robbing a store (and it looked like it was real), do you think police should investigate those people? Should they check their house to see if they really stole the stuff in the video?

I bet almost everyone here would say yes. But because this is something some people in this thread identify themselves with they are blind to see it's the same thing.


So you DO think that the police should raid Freddie Wong next, then.
 
2013-03-30 07:36:23 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: PsiChick: I didn't. That changes it a lot.

Not really. A local sheriff could have done this with a warrant. They didn't need dozens of federal agents if that was the case.


Depends. Is this guy a rabid Tea Party\Freeper type? I'd go in with feds. Polite-as-fark feds, but they'd be in full-blown body armor in case someone's sniping. If not, yeah, sure.

/Haven't seen the vids so I can't make that call.
 
2013-03-30 07:38:40 PM

PsiChick: /Haven't seen the vids so I can't make that call.


Well, maybe you should.

/Knowing, it's half the battle to not looking like an ass.
 
2013-03-30 07:47:10 PM
In beofore if only the republicans would confirm a head to the ATF this would never happen....

odds are it would happen on a much much grander scale considering the nominees all have strong anti 2nd amendment opinions and are jack booted leftists......


Now pick up that can citizen.........
 
2013-03-30 07:48:36 PM

Ed Grubermann: PsiChick: /Haven't seen the vids so I can't make that call.

Well, maybe you should.

/Knowing, it's half the battle to not looking like an ass.


There's a finite amount of time I am willing to spend caring about things on Fark.
 
2013-03-30 07:53:55 PM

Satanic_Hamster: So you DO think that the police should raid Freddie Wong next, then.


Wait until they see what wong and Devin Graham did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYZmFo3_F1g
 
2013-03-30 07:55:28 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Question: are there illegal explosives that have detonation properties similar to that of Tannerite?


None that aren't missing certain key components like stability or detonation yield.  You can use other things which are a) vastly more expensive, b) explode if you sneeze too hard, c) don't produce nearly as visible an explosion for the weight used, or d) any mix of the above.

Seeing explosions doesn't mean illegal explosives were used, especially given that all the indicators (visual quality of the explosion, appearance of the explosive, handling of said explosive) point to Tannerite and nothing else.  This is like finding out someone has a prescription for oxycontin and thinking that means they must have heroin hiding in the house somewhere too.

Possession and use of things which are demonstrably legal != probable cause.
 
2013-03-30 07:55:42 PM

PsiChick: Ed Grubermann: PsiChick: /Haven't seen the vids so I can't make that call.

Well, maybe you should.

/Knowing, it's half the battle to not looking like an ass.

There's a finite amount of time I am willing to spend caring about things on Fark.


You care enough to post
 
2013-03-30 07:58:19 PM

Dimensio: xanadian: So, why did they confiscate all his guns?  Is there a legal limit to the number of firearms you can own?  Or is this just YET AGAIN another over-reach of federal authority?

People wonder why the "gun nuts" go all apeshiat at the mention of gun control.

According to the article, "The idea at one of the locations was to take firearms, but they did not do that,". Thus the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives considered confiscating legally possessed firearms, but ultimately agents did not do so. I am certain that absolutely no one posting in this discussion would have approved had firearms been confiscated despite the absence of any evidence of illegal activity on the premises.


Been reading through this thread for somebody to point out the obvious: ATF was ready to confinscate legal guns bc they felt there was "too many."

If they think there should be a limit in guns, maybe they should try to pass a law limiting the number of legally owned guns? Oh. Right. Because they can't. They aren't a legislative group.

/FARK the ATF
 
2013-03-30 07:58:20 PM

blastoh: Satanic_Hamster: So you DO think that the police should raid Freddie Wong next, then.

Wait until they see what wong and Devin Graham did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYZmFo3_F1g


The Second Amendment was never intended for homeowners to own canons!
 
2013-03-30 07:59:29 PM
I wonder if the 192 Report of the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution which preceded FOPA would have classified this as constitutionally improper.
 
2013-03-30 08:00:06 PM

redmid17: I wonder if the 1982 Report of the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution which preceded FOPA would have classified this as constitutionally improper.


FTFM
 
2013-03-30 08:13:30 PM

vicioushobbit: Dimensio: xanadian: So, why did they confiscate all his guns?  Is there a legal limit to the number of firearms you can own?  Or is this just YET AGAIN another over-reach of federal authority?

People wonder why the "gun nuts" go all apeshiat at the mention of gun control.

According to the article, "The idea at one of the locations was to take firearms, but they did not do that,". Thus the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives considered confiscating legally possessed firearms, but ultimately agents did not do so. I am certain that absolutely no one posting in this discussion would have approved had firearms been confiscated despite the absence of any evidence of illegal activity on the premises.

Been reading through this thread for somebody to point out the obvious: ATF was ready to confinscate legal guns bc they felt there was "too many."

If they think there should be a limit in guns, maybe they should try to pass a law limiting the number of legally owned guns? Oh. Right. Because they can't. They aren't a legislative group.

/FARK the ATF


Do you always get this pissed off about things that don't happen?
 
2013-03-30 08:18:03 PM
The guy buying lots of Tannerite AND DOCUMENTING ITS USE IN HIT VIDEOS isn't secretly building a stockpile for dangerous purposes.

And double standard time. Discovery and Hearst Communications have blatantly commercial shows that feature people shooting tannerite targets of larger than average size. Lawsuit to the max.
 
2013-03-30 08:18:12 PM
Five bucks says this was a backdoor way to check his guns if any were illegally modified.
 
2013-03-30 08:24:39 PM
I read the part about how someone was shot in the head. 5 bucks says the locals and the staties already knew the weapons was not on site, and this was a sham. While I don't know for sure One would think that the kind of weapon is look at asap, and looked for among the people the victim knew.
 
2013-03-30 08:26:18 PM
Wow, this thread went through the looking glass pretty damn quick.
 
2013-03-30 08:28:50 PM
I'm a filthy liberal and I'm not personally a fan of firearms, but even so...

Fark the ATF.  Follow the law just like the rest of us, assholes.
 
2013-03-30 08:30:46 PM

Phoenix87ta: I'm a filthy liberal and I'm not personally a fan of firearms, but even so...

Fark the ATF.  Follow the law just like the rest of us, assholes.


What law did they break?
 
2013-03-30 08:35:26 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Phoenix87ta: I'm a filthy liberal and I'm not personally a fan of firearms, but even so...

Fark the ATF.  Follow the law just like the rest of us, assholes.

What law did they break?


As far as I can tell, they completely lacked any kind of probable cause for the raid, and while considering confiscating his legal weapons because there were "too many" isn't against the law because they didn't actually DO it, it's still particularly troubling that they 1) considered it, and 2) quite happily announced that they were considering it, as if it were perfectly acceptable.

Basically, the ATF has repeatedly demonstrated their incompetence and their willingness to do whatever the fark they want.  That bothers me.
 
2013-03-30 08:38:57 PM

cman: I am gonna wait for the "Better safe than sorry" portion of the Right to come out and defend ATF actions


Of the right? Grab a Snickers, you're not going anywhere for awhile.
 
2013-03-30 08:39:47 PM

Corvus: So now people in this thread believe that we can't regulate explosives anymore?

That everything is a "second amendment right"? A tank, an RPG and a nuke is ok too.

Sorry guys we have munition laws on explosives we always have.


you must have missed the part where a government agency raided a guys property looking for illegal stuff and couldn't find any. Then you must have also missed the part where, because he videotapes shiat blowing up, they want him to get a manufacture license.

cause if you missed that, what oyu said would be totally legit.
 
2013-03-30 08:43:57 PM

Phoenix87ta: Lionel Mandrake: Phoenix87ta: I'm a filthy liberal and I'm not personally a fan of firearms, but even so...

Fark the ATF.  Follow the law just like the rest of us, assholes.

What law did they break?

As far as I can tell, they completely lacked any kind of probable cause for the raid, and while considering confiscating his legal weapons because there were "too many" isn't against the law because they didn't actually DO it, it's still particularly troubling that they 1) considered it, and 2) quite happily announced that they were considering it, as if it were perfectly acceptable.

Basically, the ATF has repeatedly demonstrated their incompetence and their willingness to do whatever the fark they want.  That bothers me.


So you're saying that 40+ agents of the ATF, FBI, and GBI did all this without a warrant?  You'd think someone would mention something like that.

I would like to hear more about why they "considered it," but I'm sure they were considering what - if any - laws might apply, and apparently concluded that none did, so they didn't take anything.  To me this sounds like the law worked pretty well, and nobody stepped over any lines.

Sop, again, what law did they break?

People here are getting all worked up over something that didn't happen!  WTF??
 
2013-03-30 08:45:44 PM

Crocodilly_Pontifex: Corvus: So now people in this thread believe that we can't regulate explosives anymore?

That everything is a "second amendment right"? A tank, an RPG and a nuke is ok too.

Sorry guys we have munition laws on explosives we always have.

you must have missed the part where a government agency raided a guys property looking for illegal stuff and couldn't find any. Then you must have also missed the part where, because he videotapes shiat blowing up, they want him to get a manufacture license.

cause if you missed that, what oyu said would be totally legit.


Do you get pissed off when a Doctor orders an X-ray and then doesn't find anything?
 
2013-03-30 08:46:16 PM

Lionel Mandrake: vicioushobbit: Dimensio: xanadian: So, why did they confiscate all his guns?  Is there a legal limit to the number of firearms you can own?  Or is this just YET AGAIN another over-reach of federal authority?

People wonder why the "gun nuts" go all apeshiat at the mention of gun control.

According to the article, "The idea at one of the locations was to take firearms, but they did not do that,". Thus the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives considered confiscating legally possessed firearms, but ultimately agents did not do so. I am certain that absolutely no one posting in this discussion would have approved had firearms been confiscated despite the absence of any evidence of illegal activity on the premises.

Been reading through this thread for somebody to point out the obvious: ATF was ready to confinscate legal guns bc they felt there was "too many."

If they think there should be a limit in guns, maybe they should try to pass a law limiting the number of legally owned guns? Oh. Right. Because they can't. They aren't a legislative group.

/FARK the ATF

Do you always get this pissed off about things that don't happen?


Yes.

The ATF is basically saying "We could take his guns if we wanted to, because we think he had too many.  We chose not to...this time."

And that kind of thing from a non-elected government agency just pisses me off.
 
2013-03-30 08:51:15 PM
I'm beginning to understand why H.S.T. topped himself. 

"No more Games. No more Bombs. No more Walking. No more Fun . . . Relax -- This won't hurt."

The New Left depresses the shiate out of everyone but themselves.
 
2013-03-30 08:51:30 PM

vicioushobbit: Lionel Mandrake: vicioushobbit: Dimensio: xanadian: So, why did they confiscate all his guns?  Is there a legal limit to the number of firearms you can own?  Or is this just YET AGAIN another over-reach of federal authority?

People wonder why the "gun nuts" go all apeshiat at the mention of gun control.

According to the article, "The idea at one of the locations was to take firearms, but they did not do that,". Thus the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives considered confiscating legally possessed firearms, but ultimately agents did not do so. I am certain that absolutely no one posting in this discussion would have approved had firearms been confiscated despite the absence of any evidence of illegal activity on the premises.

Been reading through this thread for somebody to point out the obvious: ATF was ready to confinscate legal guns bc they felt there was "too many."

If they think there should be a limit in guns, maybe they should try to pass a law limiting the number of legally owned guns? Oh. Right. Because they can't. They aren't a legislative group.

/FARK the ATF

Do you always get this pissed off about things that don't happen?

Yes.

The ATF is basically saying "We could take his guns if we wanted to, because we think he had too many.  We chose not to...this time."

And that kind of thing from a non-elected government agency just pisses me off.


And if they did that do you think that would be the end of it?  The first judge who asked for an explanation and didn't get one would give the guy all his guns back, there would probably be a lawsuit and a shiatload of people would get fired.

Save your outrage for when something outrageous happens.
 
2013-03-30 08:52:08 PM
Phoenix87ta:

Basically, the ATF has repeatedly demonstrated their incompetence and their willingness to do whatever the fark they want.  That bothers me.

"They shot my dog.  They shot my wife.  They shot my best friend.  They are very good shots."
 
2013-03-30 08:52:26 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: I'm beginning to understand why H.S.T. topped himself. 

"No more Games. No more Bombs. No more Walking. No more Fun . . . Relax -- This won't hurt."

The New Left depresses the shiate out of everyone but themselves.


Oh, my...your suffering sounds unbearable!  You poor thing!
 
2013-03-30 08:52:53 PM

Snapper Carr: cman: I am gonna wait for the "Better safe than sorry" portion of the Right to come out and defend ATF actions

Actually the ATF is one of the few agencies that both the left center-right and the right generally agree should be taken out back and shot.


Perhaps that's why the Republicans haven't let the agency have a new permanent director ever since they decreed that the Senate must approve of any permanent director?

/Another thing that plays right into Republican hands.
//Republican: Someone who says government is bad, then gets elected and proves himself right.
 
2013-03-30 08:52:54 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Phoenix87ta: Lionel Mandrake: Phoenix87ta: I'm a filthy liberal and I'm not personally a fan of firearms, but even so...

Fark the ATF.  Follow the law just like the rest of us, assholes.

What law did they break?

As far as I can tell, they completely lacked any kind of probable cause for the raid, and while considering confiscating his legal weapons because there were "too many" isn't against the law because they didn't actually DO it, it's still particularly troubling that they 1) considered it, and 2) quite happily announced that they were considering it, as if it were perfectly acceptable.

Basically, the ATF has repeatedly demonstrated their incompetence and their willingness to do whatever the fark they want.  That bothers me.

So you're saying that 40+ agents of the ATF, FBI, and GBI did all this without a warrant?  You'd think someone would mention something like that.

I would like to hear more about why they "considered it," but I'm sure they were considering what - if any - laws might apply, and apparently concluded that none did, so they didn't take anything.  To me this sounds like the law worked pretty well, and nobody stepped over any lines.

Sop, again, what law did they break?

People here are getting all worked up over something that didn't happen!  WTF??


I'm astounded that you're okay with what happened here.  The ATF raided this guy's property for doing something that was 100% legal.  I'm inclined to wonder how they got a warrant based on that weak shiat in the first place.  They then threatened to confiscate his legal property because he had too many of a particular item.  You don't find any of this slightly disconcerting?
 
2013-03-30 08:53:08 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Do you get pissed off when a Doctor orders an X-ray and then doesn't find anything?


This is isn't the doctor ordering an X-Ray, this is the fat TSA coont ordering a cavity search on you because she don't trust no honkeys with they guns and they white bread and mayonnaise sandwiches.


This is a scary farking raid not because of what they did but because they weren't all fired immediately for doing it.
 
2013-03-30 08:55:38 PM

Snapper Carr: cman: I am gonna wait for the "Better safe than sorry" portion of the Right to come out and defend ATF actions

Actually the ATF is one of the few agencies that both the left and the right generally agree should be taken out back and shot.


Hide your dog...
 
2013-03-30 08:56:13 PM

Lionel Mandrake: vicioushobbit: Lionel Mandrake: vicioushobbit: Dimensio: xanadian: So, why did they confiscate all his guns?  Is there a legal limit to the number of firearms you can own?  Or is this just YET AGAIN another over-reach of federal authority?

People wonder why the "gun nuts" go all apeshiat at the mention of gun control.

According to the article, "The idea at one of the locations was to take firearms, but they did not do that,". Thus the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives considered confiscating legally possessed firearms, but ultimately agents did not do so. I am certain that absolutely no one posting in this discussion would have approved had firearms been confiscated despite the absence of any evidence of illegal activity on the premises.

Been reading through this thread for somebody to point out the obvious: ATF was ready to confinscate legal guns bc they felt there was "too many."

If they think there should be a limit in guns, maybe they should try to pass a law limiting the number of legally owned guns? Oh. Right. Because they can't. They aren't a legislative group.

/FARK the ATF

Do you always get this pissed off about things that don't happen?

Yes.

The ATF is basically saying "We could take his guns if we wanted to, because we think he had too many.  We chose not to...this time."

And that kind of thing from a non-elected government agency just pisses me off.

And if they did that do you think that would be the end of it?  The first judge who asked for an explanation and didn't get one would give the guy all his guns back, there would probably be a lawsuit and a shiatload of people would get fired.

Save your outrage for when something outrageous happens.


I have enough outrage for all the things that require it.  Thanks for your concern.
 
2013-03-30 08:56:19 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: I'm beginning to understand why H.S.T. topped himself. 

"No more Games. No more Bombs. No more Walking. No more Fun . . . Relax -- This won't hurt."

The New Left depresses the shiate out of everyone but themselves.


Are you also 67?
 
2013-03-30 08:58:12 PM

IlGreven: Snapper Carr: cman: I am gonna wait for the "Better safe than sorry" portion of the Right to come out and defend ATF actions

Actually the ATF is one of the few agencies that both the left center-right and the right generally agree should be taken out back and shot.

Perhaps that's why the Republicans haven't let the agency have a new permanent director ever since they decreed that the Senate must approve of any permanent director?

/Another thing that plays right into Republican hands.
//Republican: Someone who says government is bad, then gets elected and proves himself right.


The ATF has been shiat for years and was shiat for decades when they had an appointed director.

/don't let that stop your little rant though
 
2013-03-30 09:01:10 PM

TheBigJerk: I'm left wondering how much of the article is accurate.


The last time a "Russia Times" story was GL'ed, it was about the "Monsanto Protection Act", or a provision of the 2013 farm bill that was "unprecedented"...except for the fact that it was also in the 2012 farm bill, and the 2011 farm bill, and every other farm bill since the GMO investigation began.  In other words, they like stirring up shiat from the right-wing.
 
2013-03-30 09:04:12 PM

Ontos: Snapper Carr: cman: I am gonna wait for the "Better safe than sorry" portion of the Right to come out and defend ATF actions

Actually the ATF is one of the few agencies that both the left and the right generally agree should be taken out back and shot.

Hide your dog...


And don't forget Ruby Ridge.

The ATF attacks an armed compound full of separatists who don't wanna pay taxes with overwhelming logistical and technological advantage. They then proceed to lose an agent to gunfire. Their response? Shooting an unarmed woman holding her baby.


fark those guys and their job. The normal police are enough to enforce gun laws and alcohol and tobacco are legal. I say gut the whole agency and turn them into a federal DOT that just goes from state to state and repairs potholes.
 
2013-03-30 09:06:42 PM

Phoenix87ta: Lionel Mandrake: Phoenix87ta: Lionel Mandrake: Phoenix87ta: I'm a filthy liberal and I'm not personally a fan of firearms, but even so...

Fark the ATF.  Follow the law just like the rest of us, assholes.

What law did they break?

As far as I can tell, they completely lacked any kind of probable cause for the raid, and while considering confiscating his legal weapons because there were "too many" isn't against the law because they didn't actually DO it, it's still particularly troubling that they 1) considered it, and 2) quite happily announced that they were considering it, as if it were perfectly acceptable.

Basically, the ATF has repeatedly demonstrated their incompetence and their willingness to do whatever the fark they want.  That bothers me.

So you're saying that 40+ agents of the ATF, FBI, and GBI did all this without a warrant?  You'd think someone would mention something like that.

I would like to hear more about why they "considered it," but I'm sure they were considering what - if any - laws might apply, and apparently concluded that none did, so they didn't take anything.  To me this sounds like the law worked pretty well, and nobody stepped over any lines.

Sop, again, what law did they break?

People here are getting all worked up over something that didn't happen!  WTF??

I'm astounded that you're okay with what happened here.  The ATF raided this guy's property for doing something that was 100% legal.  I'm inclined to wonder how they got a warrant based on that weak shiat in the first place.  They then threatened to confiscate his legal property because he had too many of a particular item.  You don't find any of this slightly disconcerting?


No, I don't.  Because nothing happened.

If I could look at the warrant or maybe know what led them to believe something might be found, I might find the reasoning pretty thin and conclude that the agents and whoever authorized this acted improperly.

But I see nothing illegal in their conduct, and I guess I'm just not inclined to see the ATF as some kind of American Gestapo or something.

They looked, they found nothing, they did nothing.
 
2013-03-30 09:08:32 PM

redmid17: IlGreven: Snapper Carr: cman: I am gonna wait for the "Better safe than sorry" portion of the Right to come out and defend ATF actions

Actually the ATF is one of the few agencies that both the left center-right and the right generally agree should be taken out back and shot.

Perhaps that's why the Republicans haven't let the agency have a new permanent director ever since they decreed that the Senate must approve of any permanent director?

/Another thing that plays right into Republican hands.
//Republican: Someone who says government is bad, then gets elected and proves himself right.

The ATF has been shiat for years and was shiat for decades when they had an appointed director.

/don't let that stop your little rant though


How the fark would you know? It hasn't had an appointed director in your lifetime, and that's by Republican and NRA design.
 
2013-03-30 09:10:12 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Phoenix87ta: Lionel Mandrake: Phoenix87ta: Lionel Mandrake: Phoenix87ta: I'm a filthy liberal and I'm not personally a fan of firearms, but even so...

Fark the ATF.  Follow the law just like the rest of us, assholes.

What law did they break?

As far as I can tell, they completely lacked any kind of probable cause for the raid, and while considering confiscating his legal weapons because there were "too many" isn't against the law because they didn't actually DO it, it's still particularly troubling that they 1) considered it, and 2) quite happily announced that they were considering it, as if it were perfectly acceptable.

Basically, the ATF has repeatedly demonstrated their incompetence and their willingness to do whatever the fark they want.  That bothers me.

So you're saying that 40+ agents of the ATF, FBI, and GBI did all this without a warrant?  You'd think someone would mention something like that.

I would like to hear more about why they "considered it," but I'm sure they were considering what - if any - laws might apply, and apparently concluded that none did, so they didn't take anything.  To me this sounds like the law worked pretty well, and nobody stepped over any lines.

Sop, again, what law did they break?

People here are getting all worked up over something that didn't happen!  WTF??

I'm astounded that you're okay with what happened here.  The ATF raided this guy's property for doing something that was 100% legal.  I'm inclined to wonder how they got a warrant based on that weak shiat in the first place.  They then threatened to confiscate his legal property because he had too many of a particular item.  You don't find any of this slightly disconcerting?

No, I don't.  Because nothing happened.

If I could look at the warrant or maybe know what led them to believe something might be found, I might find the reasoning pretty thin and conclude that the agents and whoever authorized this acted improperly.

But I see nothing illegal in their conduct, ...


"But they aren't allowed to look!"

/AKA the "I'M NOT TOUCHING YOU I'M NOT TOUCHING YOU I'M NOT TOUCHING YOU I'M NOT TOUCHING YOU I'M NOT TOUCHING YOU I'M NOT TOUCHING YOU I'M NOT TOUCHING YOU I'M NOT TOUCHING YOU I'M NOT TOUCHING YOU I'M NOT TOUCHING YOU" defense.
 
2013-03-30 09:11:12 PM

wildcardjack: The guy buying lots of Tannerite AND DOCUMENTING ITS USE IN HIT VIDEOS isn't secretly building a stockpile for dangerous purposes.

And double standard time. Discovery and Hearst Communications have blatantly commercial shows that feature people shooting tannerite targets of larger than average size. Lawsuit to the max.


It's awesome though. Because even though the ATF is struggling for manpower, they can raise it for a contest of incompetence with themselves or this particular undertaking, where it's not even remotely sure what law this guy would have violated, yet they can't be bothered to prosecute one of the tens of thousands of former felons who fails an NICS check for a gun. They didn't even have an inkling of probable cause, especially given that every gun show on television makes liberal use of this legal, fairly cheap, and incredibly stable explosive.
 
2013-03-30 09:13:08 PM

IlGreven: redmid17: IlGreven: Snapper Carr: cman: I am gonna wait for the "Better safe than sorry" portion of the Right to come out and defend ATF actions

Actually the ATF is one of the few agencies that both the left center-right and the right generally agree should be taken out back and shot.

Perhaps that's why the Republicans haven't let the agency have a new permanent director ever since they decreed that the Senate must approve of any permanent director?

/Another thing that plays right into Republican hands.
//Republican: Someone who says government is bad, then gets elected and proves himself right.

The ATF has been shiat for years and was shiat for decades when they had an appointed director.

/don't let that stop your little rant though

How the fark would you know? It hasn't had an appointed director in your lifetime, and that's by Republican and NRA design.


Unless you think I was born in 2006, you might want to recheck just about everything in your sentence there buddy. There have been four appointed ATF directors in my life, and I'm only 27.
 
2013-03-30 09:13:32 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Next on the Fed'shiat list:
Freddie Wong
Harley from Epic Meal Time


Waht ever happened to ROSMT?
 
2013-03-30 09:15:23 PM
There is some weapons grade derp in this thread.  I think the ATF should come in and clean house.
 
2013-03-30 09:16:07 PM

Lionel Mandrake: They looked, they found nothing, they did nothing.


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now do you see the outrage?

There's no reason to believe illegal weapons or explosives were in the possession of a popular entertainer who explicitly states what he's using for each effect in a number of videos.

This was a pointless raid conducted in bad faith by an untrustworthy agency against the wrong kind of target contrary to the stated goals of our very nation. How are you not outraged?
 
2013-03-30 09:17:34 PM

IlGreven: "But they aren't allowed to look!"


You're right, without probable cause, they aren't.

::No-knock:: FREEZE! We're here because we have reason to believe you are growing marijuana because your car was seen at Home Depot buying more than 6 planting pots!

Yeah, not ok with this either and it's the same principle.
 
2013-03-30 09:19:23 PM

doglover: Lionel Mandrake: They looked, they found nothing, they did nothing.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now do you see the outrage?


So you've seen the warrant and you know it didn't do those things?
 
2013-03-30 09:19:43 PM
Oh and this:

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-30 09:21:56 PM
We're about to get some awesome names for people though out of this:

FPSrussia
ATFhitler
GBIcletus
 
2013-03-30 09:22:02 PM

Lionel Mandrake: doglover: Lionel Mandrake: They looked, they found nothing, they did nothing.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now do you see the outrage?

So you've seen the warrant and you know it didn't do those things?


I have not. I doubt he has, and I doubt anyone will ever see the full copy until long after the fact. However given the ATF's hamfisted and often completely idiotic way of doing things, I would be extremely surprised if they actually got the process right.
 
2013-03-30 09:25:47 PM

Lionel Mandrake: doglover: Lionel Mandrake: They looked, they found nothing, they did nothing.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now do you see the outrage?

So you've seen the warrant and you know it didn't do those things?


Funny, the article doesn't even mention a warrant.

/I really hope they had one though, or this will get really fun.
 
2013-03-30 09:26:50 PM

Lionel Mandrake: doglover: Lionel Mandrake: They looked, they found nothing, they did nothing.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now do you see the outrage?

So you've seen the warrant and you know it didn't do those things?



Where's their oath and affirmations? Where's the illegal guns? Where's the illegal explosives? Where's the backlash for bearing false witness against those people who gave the oaths?
 
2013-03-30 09:28:43 PM

redmid17: Lionel Mandrake: doglover: Lionel Mandrake: They looked, they found nothing, they did nothing.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now do you see the outrage?

So you've seen the warrant and you know it didn't do those things?

I have not. I doubt he has, and I doubt anyone will ever see the full copy until long after the fact. However given the ATF's hamfisted and often completely idiotic way of doing things, I would be extremely surprised if they actually got the process right.


Hey, when I see something to be angry about, I'll be angry.

But I'm not going to assume all these agents from several different agencies were just bored and wanted to harass someone so they made up a bunch of shiat and got some stupid or drunk or bribed judge to sign off on it...because they could.

I'm no apologist for these guys, but I'm not going to assume that their actions are some kind of Keystone Kops meets the KGB farce until I see a reason to.
 
2013-03-30 09:28:55 PM
Side note:  Got a meeting at the ATF's Houston field office Tuesday.

Can anyone get me a "Free FPSRussia" t-shirt by then?  :0
 
2013-03-30 09:30:37 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Crocodilly_Pontifex: Corvus: So now people in this thread believe that we can't regulate explosives anymore?

That everything is a "second amendment right"? A tank, an RPG and a nuke is ok too.

Sorry guys we have munition laws on explosives we always have.

you must have missed the part where a government agency raided a guys property looking for illegal stuff and couldn't find any. Then you must have also missed the part where, because he videotapes shiat blowing up, they want him to get a manufacture license.

cause if you missed that, what oyu said would be totally legit.

Do you get pissed off when a Doctor orders an X-ray and then doesn't find anything?


If the Doctor came to my house and forced me to get an x-ray... Yeah, I'd be pretty pissed.
 
2013-03-30 09:30:52 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Oh, so he can't say it's Tannerite if it's really TNT, right? That's like, impossible to do!


He's sponsored by a company that sells Tannerite.  He has a video where he does a tour of the facility where they make the Tannerite he uses in his videos.  He shows himself setting up the Tannerite.

Why, when he's getting free Tannerite and money for using Tannerite, would he instead spend money (thus digging into his monetized YouTube account profits) to use TNT?

It's almost as if you have no idea WTF you are talking about.
 
2013-03-30 09:32:35 PM

doglover: Lionel Mandrake: doglover: Lionel Mandrake: They looked, they found nothing, they did nothing.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now do you see the outrage?

So you've seen the warrant and you know it didn't do those things?


Where's their oath and affirmations? Where's the illegal guns? Where's the illegal explosives? Where's the backlash for bearing false witness against those people who gave the oaths?


Oh right...you have to know something illegal is there before you can get a warrant to see if there's anything illegal there.  In order to get the proof, you need to already have it.

If it comes out that there was no warrant or something, believe me, I'll be plenty mad.  Until I have a reason to be pissed, I think I'll just remain calm.
 
2013-03-30 09:33:18 PM

cman: I am gonna wait for the "Better safe than sorry" portion of the Right to come out and defend ATF actions


You're not going to find anybody on that end of the political spectrum that likes the ATF.  In fact, most of them have wanted to disband the entire agency for decades, back to at least the Waco and Ruby Ridge era.

ATF is a bunch of worthless morons running around doing the bidding of a handful of political appointees who are full-blown malicious jackbooted thugs.  And they apparently have lots of backing because they can even run guns to Mexican drug cartels, get border patrol agents murdered, and never have to face any serious consequences.
 
2013-03-30 09:37:42 PM

Lionel Mandrake: I'm no apologist for these guys, but I'm not going to assume that their actions are some kind of Keystone Kops meets the KGB farce until I see a reason to.


Do you not see where it's the ATF?

The ATF was formerly part of the United States Department of the Treasury, having been formed in 1886 as the "Revenue Laboratory" within the Treasury Department's Bureau of Internal Revenue. The history of ATF can be subsequently traced to the time of the revenuers or "revenoors"[6] and the Bureau of Prohibition, which was formed as a unit of the Bureau of Internal Revenue in 1920, was made an independent agency within the Treasury Department in 1927, was transferred to the Justice Department in 1930, and became, briefly, a division of the FBI in 1933.

When the Volstead Act, which established prohibition in the United States, 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 (ATU) of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Special Agent Eliot Ness and several members of The "Untouchables", who had 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 Bureau of Internal Revenue was renamed "Internal Revenue Service" (IRS),[7] and the ATU was given the additional responsibility of enforcing federal tobacco tax laws. At this time, the name of the ATU was changed to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division (ATTD).

In 1968, with the passage of the Gun Control Act, the agency changed its name again, this time to the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Division of the IRS and first began to be referred to by the initials "ATF"



They were formed by the tax men, bounced around a bit and given the mandate to swing the bick dick of the Volstead Act around and fark good honest Americans who just want a damn beer after work right up the ass. Their accomplishment was busting Capone. Oh wait, they never did that and had to rely on the IRS to cover their asses. Anyway, after they failed at their one job horribly they were bounced some more and given more responsibilities and pretty much wound up in charge of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. But god knows why because they're perpetual fark ups and they're horrible at every job but catching the smallest of small fry.

The Past 40 Years of Failure
 
2013-03-30 09:38:41 PM

Phoenix87ta: The ATF raided this guy's property for doing something that was 100% legal.  I'm inclined to wonder how they got a warrant based on that weak shiat in the first place.


I'm guessing the unsolved murder was the tipping point in getting the warrant okayed whether that was the given reason or not.

The real reasons are probably slightly more complicated.

In the eyes of the ATF this guy's top 10 youtube video channel is probably seen as "part of the problem" and they have probably been looking for an excuse to do this for a while. How they imagined this would turn out making them look like the good guys is anybody's guess. If they were trying to justify their agencies budget by mounting a largish operation on a high profile target with the actual result of making anyone safer then they did a piss poor job of it.

End of the day this kind of tactic just makes their job harder by confirming the suspicions of gun grabbin' federales held by the real whackjobs out there and upping their already too-high paranoia levels . Which *is* a form of job security for the ATF, I guess. So there's that.

/And before anyone points it out, yeah, I know they didn't actually grab any guns here but threatening to do so really isn't helping anyone's cause.
 
2013-03-30 09:41:21 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Dr. Goldshnoz: Lionel Mandrake: The ATF looked into some weird guy with an explosives fetish?

OMFG!!1!  IT'S THE GODDAM FOURTH REICH!!!!


I'd be worried if they weren't looking into guys like that.

Because ATF should totally kick in everyone's door to look in on them just to be sure.

Or, everyone who  posts videos of sh*t exploding on YouTube. I'd be alright with that.


NO. There is a reason why there are very specific rules, guidelines, laws and procedures for police to kick in people's doors, and there's a reason the founding fathers thought it was important enough to deal with in the constitution. And raiding people solely on the knowledge of LEGAL activity, with no actual evidence which would suggest illegal activity, is a no-no. A big old no-no.

And this is a big problem right now. And it's not just that FPSRussia guy. This kind of shiat happens WAY TOO OFTEN. Notice in that link the only way the police could have gotten a warrant was under false pretenses, as the only possible way they could have suspected he was growing pot was from either randomly using FLIR to invade his privacy or by raiding him on the basis of perfectly legal and normal activity - both of which are prohibited. So the police used an illegal warrant (I'm sure there's a more precise way of phrasing that) in both of these cases.

How do we as a country start to crack down on this?
 
2013-03-30 09:42:55 PM
Satanic_Hamster: Side note:  Got a meeting at the ATF's Houston field office Tuesday.

Can anyone get me a "Free FPSRussia" t-shirt by then?  :0


*points at Satanic_Hamster*

You. You, I like!

:>D
 
2013-03-30 09:45:27 PM

Phoenix87ta: Lionel Mandrake: Phoenix87ta: I'm a filthy liberal and I'm not personally a fan of firearms, but even so...

Fark the ATF.  Follow the law just like the rest of us, assholes.

What law did they break?

As far as I can tell, they completely lacked any kind of probable cause for the raid, and while considering confiscating his legal weapons because there were "too many" isn't against the law because they didn't actually DO it, it's still particularly troubling that they 1) considered it, and 2) quite happily announced that they were considering it, as if it were perfectly acceptable.

Basically, the ATF has repeatedly demonstrated their incompetence and their willingness to do whatever the fark they want.  That bothers me.


When a prosecutor charges someone and doesn't win, there's some loss of face.  It's news.  In the papers.  When a judge approves a search warrant and there is a failure (like cops go to wrong address which is on the warrant, cops shoot the dog, there's tomatoes where there should be MJ, etc.) it's really hard to find out which judge approved the search warrant and at least vote against him in the next election.
 
2013-03-30 09:45:47 PM

doglover: Do you not see where it's the ATF?


I don't see where that justifies jumping to conclusions.
 
2013-03-30 09:48:59 PM
You don't carry out investigations where there has been no evidence of a crime with an armed raid like this. Videos of tannerite are not evidence of a crime. This is farking scary. I mean yes, lots of criminals are stupid. But this is why I rail against prohibitory laws. They can be used very easily to justify just about any action through the principle of adjacency. We outlaw red cars, this one looks orangish so let's see if we can get it off the streets. We ban 44 ounce sodas, this place is selling 32 ounce drinks, let's break down their doors and see if they have illegal 44oz cups in the back. We ban yardsticks, let's send in the FBI on a raid to see if anyone's rulers are too long.

By the way, I would like to know how much damage was caused in this raid. Because insurance policies don't cover law enforcement actions.
 
2013-03-30 09:50:27 PM

Lionel Mandrake: doglover: Do you not see where it's the ATF?

I don't see where that justifies jumping to conclusions.


So when the perpetual fark up agency is perpetually farking up and something they're doing yet again goes wrong you don't think it's safe to logically assume this is yet another go round in a well know cycle of fark ups and instead have infinite faith that this time it's not their fault and they did a good job for once?

Man, I wish I was you. Every morning when the sun comes again up must blow your freakin' mind.


For the rest of us:

In May 2008, William Newell, Special Agent in charge of the Phoenix ATF Office, said: "When 90 percent-plus of the firearms recovered from these violent drug cartels are from a U.S. source, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to stem the illegal flow of these firearms to these thugs."[27] According to the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, "ATF told the OIG that the 90-percent figure ... could be misleading because it applied only to the small portion of Mexican crime guns that are traced."[28] Under Operations "Fast and Furious", "Too Hot to Handle", and "Wide Receiver", indictments show that the Phoenix ATF Office, over protests from the gun dealers and some ATF agents involved and without notifying Mexican authorities, facilitated the sale of over 2,500 firearms (AK-47 rifles, FN 5.7mm pistols, AK-47 pistols, and .50 caliber rifles) to traffickers destined for Mexico.[29][30][31][32][33] Many of these same guns are being recovered from crime scenes in Arizona[34] and throughout Mexico,[35] which is artificially inflating ATF's eTrace statistics of U.S. origin guns seized in Mexico. One gun is alleged to be the weapon used by a Mexican national to murder Customs and Border Protection Agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010.
 
2013-03-30 09:51:36 PM
Have the people whose property was raided made any comments?
 
2013-03-30 09:53:45 PM

Lionel Mandrake: And if they did that do you think that would be the end of it?  The first judge who asked for an explanation and didn't get one would give the guy all his guns back, there would probably be a lawsuit and a shiatload of people would get fired.


You do realize that the government has basically made all government agents immune from legal action even if they knowingly and willfully violate your rights, don't you?
 
2013-03-30 09:54:04 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Have the people whose property was raided made any comments?


i.qkme.me
 
2013-03-30 09:54:29 PM

doglover: Lionel Mandrake: doglover: Do you not see where it's the ATF?

I don't see where that justifies jumping to conclusions.

So when the perpetual fark up agency is perpetually farking up and something they're doing yet again goes wrong you don't think it's safe to logically assume this is yet another go round in a well know cycle of fark ups and instead have infinite faith that this time it's not their fault and they did a good job for once?


I don't know where you got that idea...

But I think it's safe to avoid jumping to conclusions.

Good for the blood pressure, too.
 
2013-03-30 09:55:56 PM

Lionel Mandrake: doglover: Do you not see where it's the ATF?

I don't see where that justifies jumping to conclusions.


If I had a rap sheet that looked like the list of ATF fark ups, every LEO (hell, every person) would always assume that whatever I was doing it was no good and going to end very badly.

They are a completely mismanaged organization existing with a jurisdiction so vague yet wide-reaching they basically just troll around doing whatever the fark they want to.

The shiat they should be doing they aren't allowed to both due to Congressional neutering and the fact every other LEOrganization doesn't trust them to go for coffee w/o shooting a few innocent people or getting the government's pants sued off for some colossal clusterfark.

The FBI has to babysit them which doesn't work when they just go off and do whatever the fark they want. They have no regard for other elements of law enforcement or people actually educated and trained to do the job they pretend to do.

It's a retirement home for the LEOs that can't cut it at any other Federal Agency with a proven track record of abysmal failure. You might not see where that justifies jumping to conclusions, and you would be in the minority in that regard.

They are at the absolute top of the list for organizations that need shut the fark down. There is nothing they do that can't be done better by the FBI or local LE.

In fact, if their duties were rolled into those of the FBI's their duties would actually get fulfilled, which is the very reason why shiat-kicking redneck retarded congressmen insist on keeping them alive but neutered.
 
2013-03-30 09:56:17 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Lionel Mandrake: And if they did that do you think that would be the end of it?  The first judge who asked for an explanation and didn't get one would give the guy all his guns back, there would probably be a lawsuit and a shiatload of people would get fired.

You do realize that the government has basically made all government agents immune from legal action even if they knowingly and willfully violate your rights, don't you?


So is it time to grab our guns and overthrow the tyrants?
 
2013-03-30 09:58:02 PM

Lionel Mandrake: odinsposse: Dr. Goldshnoz: Lionel Mandrake: The ATF looked into some weird guy with an explosives fetish?

OMFG!!1!  IT'S THE GODDAM FOURTH REICH!!!!


I'd be worried if they weren't looking into guys like that.

Because ATF should totally kick in everyone's door to look in on them just to be sure.

Baseless no-knock raids are okay when they happen to people I don't like.

You guys sound so oppressed.  How can you live in this Stalinist Hellhole?


It's awful!  The window's dirty, the mattress stinks.  This ain't no place to be a man!

/Don't get me started on the filthy floor and the thin walls!
 
2013-03-30 09:58:43 PM

Lionel Mandrake: But I think it's safe to avoid jumping to conclusions.


You're the one jumping to conclusions.

The ATF is a horrible agency and they've been the lynchpin in every boondoggle from the St Valentine's Day Massacre up through Waco and the retaliatory Oklahoma City Bombing all the way on though to Operation: Help Mexican Criminals Kill Border Patrol Agents

Their track record speaks for itself. It's jumping to any conclusions to assume they are in violation of SOP and the Constitution, because they usually are.
 
2013-03-30 09:59:20 PM

Lionel Mandrake: So is it time to grab our guns and overthrow the tyrants?


Who said anything about that?

Absolutely rich coming from a guy that just went off on not jumping to conclusions.
 
2013-03-30 10:07:19 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Do you get pissed off when a Doctor comes into your home(uninvited), and orders an X-ray, because he saw that you had fallen off of your skateboard in a youtube video, and then doesn't find anything?


Yes.
 
2013-03-30 10:09:01 PM

Snapper Carr: cman: I am gonna wait for the "Better safe than sorry" portion of the Right to come out and defend ATF actions

Actually the ATF is one of the few agencies that both the left and the right generally agree should be taken out back and shot.


Nope.  The ATF is a fabulous agency that enforces the 2nd Amendment ban on gun ownership unless you belong to a well-regulated militia.  Now if only Commerce would do their job and restrict the production of these illegal weapons.
 
2013-03-30 10:09:39 PM

MurphyMurphy: Lionel Mandrake: So is it time to grab our guns and overthrow the tyrants?

Who said anything about that?

Absolutely rich coming from a guy that just went off on not jumping to conclusions.


It was a joke, skippy.  Although I am genuinely curious about what the breaking point would be.

doglover: Lionel Mandrake: But I think it's safe to avoid jumping to conclusions.

You're the one jumping to conclusions.


How so?

All I said is that I see no reason to assume that they broke laws or did anything horrific.  And I also said that if further information came out that indicated they had, I would be pissed off like you guys.

So what conclusion did I jump to?
 
2013-03-30 10:11:01 PM

Lionel Mandrake: How so?

All I said is that I see no reason to assume that they broke laws or did anything horrific



That's how.

The ATF is like the TSA of LEOs.
 
2013-03-30 10:13:32 PM

JosephFinn: 2nd Amendment ban on gun ownership unless you belong to a well-regulated militia.


Or, as the text would actually have it, you are one of "the people".

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

Militia is made up of people.

The people is NOT made up of the militia.

That said, it is an add on, and subtraction is an option.
 
2013-03-30 10:15:30 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Lenny_da_Hog: The Second Amendment was never intended for homeowners to own canons!


What's a canon?

Oh, you meant cannons. Well, history might disagree...
 
2013-03-30 10:18:27 PM

doglover: Lionel Mandrake: How so?

All I said is that I see no reason to assume that they broke laws or did anything horrific


That's how.


What?  Are you f*cking serious?

Well, enjoy your outrage.

As additional info comes out, I may or may not be raging right along with you in the next thread about it.

Do forgive me for not just assuming something terrible happened.  I'm one of those people who likes to have evidence before making conclusions.  You'll thank me if I'm ever a juror at your trial.
 
2013-03-30 10:18:57 PM

Lionel Mandrake: It was a joke, skippy. Although I am genuinely curious about what the breaking point would be.


That breaking point, the moment a populace turns rebellious against it's government, has never occurred as a shift or break from ideological fundamentals.

Historically, rebellion always has been and always will be a result of current or imminent wealth disparity and unacceptably low quality of life.

You can piss on the constitution, declare martial law nation-wide... as long as people are fat and feel like they are getting enough of the pie to keep them that way you can get away with just about anything.

Despite what rhetoric everywhere would have you believe, people don't stand up and fight for what they believe in. They fight when they have absolutely no other option left.
 
2013-03-30 10:19:15 PM

Lionel Mandrake: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Lionel Mandrake: And if they did that do you think that would be the end of it?  The first judge who asked for an explanation and didn't get one would give the guy all his guns back, there would probably be a lawsuit and a shiatload of people would get fired.

You do realize that the government has basically made all government agents immune from legal action even if they knowingly and willfully violate your rights, don't you?

So is it time to grab our guns and overthrow the tyrants?


You stated that there "would probably be a lawsuit and a shiatload of people would get fired".  I was pointing out that you're not in touch with reality, because there are laws on the books preventing exactly what you claim would happen.  Why you jumped to the "overthrow the tyrants" shtick, I have no idea.
 
2013-03-30 10:40:40 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Lionel Mandrake: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Lionel Mandrake: And if they did that do you think that would be the end of it?  The first judge who asked for an explanation and didn't get one would give the guy all his guns back, there would probably be a lawsuit and a shiatload of people would get fired.

You do realize that the government has basically made all government agents immune from legal action even if they knowingly and willfully violate your rights, don't you?

So is it time to grab our guns and overthrow the tyrants?

You stated that there "would probably be a lawsuit and a shiatload of people would get fired".  I was pointing out that you're not in touch with reality, because there are laws on the books preventing exactly what you claim would happen.  Why you jumped to the "overthrow the tyrants" shtick, I have no idea.


Seems like he jumped to conclusions on that one, before he had evidence of you wanting to overthrow a tyrant.
 
2013-03-30 10:43:44 PM
An article from Russia Today, subby?

I guess you don't get prisonplanet.com articles greenlit anymore?
 
2013-03-30 11:01:50 PM

Ed Grubermann: He's not a terrorist and he's not stupid.


How many videos show him wearing eye/ear protection?
 
2013-03-30 11:07:00 PM

Kaybeck: How many videos show him wearing eye/ear protection?


Keep in mind, a number of his videos use video editing software; he's not actually firing guns in real life in some of them.
 
2013-03-30 11:07:47 PM

Kaybeck: Ed Grubermann: He's not a terrorist and he's not stupid.

How many videos show him wearing eye/ear protection?


Only the ones that require ear protection have it. When he's indoors or has a large weapon, he wears ear mufflers. Outdoors the sound can't reverberate so it's not so important to wear hearing protection. You only get one hit from the wave.

The glasses are omnipresent so I assume they're safety glassed. They make those, you know. Just because it's for protection doesn't mean it has to look like ass.

images1.opticsplanet.com
 
2013-03-30 11:09:15 PM

doglover: Only the ones that require ear protection have it. When he's indoors or has a large weapon, he wears ear mufflers. Outdoors the sound can't reverberate so it's not so important to wear hearing protection. You only get one hit from the wave.

The glasses are omnipresent so I assume they're safety glassed. They make those, you know. Just because it's for protection doesn't mean it has to look like ass.


That and they also make some damn small / non-obvious ear plugs.
 
2013-03-30 11:09:52 PM

Kaybeck: Ed Grubermann: He's not a terrorist and he's not stupid.

How many videos show him wearing eye/ear protection?


A: Several
 
2013-03-30 11:13:31 PM
 
2013-03-30 11:22:26 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: I'm beginning to understand why H.S.T. topped himself. 

"No more Games. No more Bombs. No more Walking. No more Fun . . . Relax -- This won't hurt."

The New Left depresses the shiate out of everyone but themselves.


The New Left?  This isn't 1973 any more.  The New Left fizzled.  Even the New Left Review has about like 5 subscribers left.
 
2013-03-30 11:27:02 PM

doglover: Outdoors the sound can't reverberate so it's not so important to wear hearing protection. You only get one hit from the wave.


It doesn't seem so important.

Until you hit your 30's and realize (in between the episodes of ringing tinnitus) that in situations with any ambient sound you can't always make out a person talking that is standing right in front of you.

Just because you're not firing an AK in a concrete hallway doesn't mean it's not incredibly bad for your hearing.
 
2013-03-30 11:33:09 PM

MurphyMurphy: Until you hit your 30's and realize (in between the episodes of ringing tinnitus) that in situations with any ambient sound you can't always make out a person talking that is standing right in front of you.


I hit that in my 20's. Yay a childhood of ear infections and a youth of clubs. I also started balding in my teens. Thanks DNA!


So I've got a fatalistic approach to safety equipment. I'll use the equipment myself. I'll force kids and n00bs to use the equipment when they're around me. But once you're over 18 I don't give a rat's ass what you do to yourself. As long as you're not endangering anyone else, go do stupid shiat with improper gear if you choose. It's called freedom.

Remember that thing we claim to celebrate and idolize? The eff are double ee dom word? Yeah, that includes the freedom to risk you own life in trivial pursuits.
 
2013-03-30 11:33:26 PM

Kaybeck: Ed Grubermann: He's not a terrorist and he's not stupid.

How many videos show him wearing eye/ear protection?


Almost all of them.  Safety glasses and ear protection can still do those things without being big, ugly, and day-glow orange.

I know you all want to find a way to justify the ATF for coming in on a questionable warrant and threatening this guy for owning a bunch of things he's legally allowed to own, but you've officially started scraping the bottom of the barrel on excuses.  The guy combines safe gun use with creative engineering and humorous schtick.  That's all he does and it's not a crime.  Just give up already, seriously.
 
2013-03-30 11:41:43 PM

Xaneidolon: Lenny_da_Hog: Lenny_da_Hog: The Second Amendment was never intended for homeowners to own canons!

What's a canon?

Oh, you meant cannons. Well, history might disagree...


Guess who didn't watch the video.
 
2013-03-30 11:47:04 PM

s2s2s2: JosephFinn: 2nd Amendment ban on gun ownership unless you belong to a well-regulated militia.

Or, as the text would actually have it, you are one of "the people".

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

Militia is made up of people.

The people is NOT made up of the militia.

That said, it is an add on, and subtraction is an option.


That's a nice try, but it clearly is talking about bearing arms as part of a well-regulated militia and the people who make up such a militia, not the other way around.
 
2013-03-30 11:47:52 PM

doglover: So I've got a fatalistic approach to safety equipment. I'll use the equipment myself. I'll force kids and n00bs to use the equipment when they're around me. But once you're over 18 I don't give a rat's ass what you do to yourself. As long as you're not endangering anyone else, go do stupid shiat with improper gear if you choose. It's called freedom.

Remember that thing we claim to celebrate and idolize? The eff are double ee dom word? Yeah, that includes the freedom to risk you own life in trivial pursuits.


That's called: simply not giving a shiat about other people unless you in some way could be held responsible

Sometimes all a 18y/o needs is someone to say "hey, don't be a dumb ass, put these on"... but I can see how that might be a bit too much to handle for some people.

Freedom doesn't enter into it, I never suggested it should be illegal not to wear eye/ear protection.
 
2013-03-30 11:50:31 PM

MurphyMurphy: doglover: So I've got a fatalistic approach to safety equipment. I'll use the equipment myself. I'll force kids and n00bs to use the equipment when they're around me. But once you're over 18 I don't give a rat's ass what you do to yourself. As long as you're not endangering anyone else, go do stupid shiat with improper gear if you choose. It's called freedom.

Remember that thing we claim to celebrate and idolize? The eff are double ee dom word? Yeah, that includes the freedom to risk you own life in trivial pursuits.

That's called: simply not giving a shiat about other people unless you in some way could be held responsible

Sometimes all a 18y/o needs is someone to say "hey, don't be a dumb ass, put these on"... but I can see how that might be a bit too much to handle for some people.

Freedom doesn't enter into it, I never suggested it should be illegal not to wear eye/ear protection.


Did you miss the part about forcing kids and noobs to wear protection?

If you tell an adult to do something once, you shouldn't need to do it again. If it were me, then I would tell them to go home. I don't want morons around me when I'm having fun.
 
2013-03-30 11:57:22 PM

JosephFinn: That's a nice try, but it clearly is talking about bearing arms as part of a well-regulated militia and the people who make up such a militia, not the other way around.


The Supreme Court has thus far disagreed.  Regardless of your thoughts on the matter, or even what was actually intended, the law of the land says the 2nd Amendment means "everybody gets guns", whether or not they are in a "militia".
 
2013-03-30 11:58:35 PM

redmid17: MurphyMurphy: doglover: So I've got a fatalistic approach to safety equipment. I'll use the equipment myself. I'll force kids and n00bs to use the equipment when they're around me. But once you're over 18 I don't give a rat's ass what you do to yourself. As long as you're not endangering anyone else, go do stupid shiat with improper gear if you choose. It's called freedom.

Remember that thing we claim to celebrate and idolize? The eff are double ee dom word? Yeah, that includes the freedom to risk you own life in trivial pursuits.

That's called: simply not giving a shiat about other people unless you in some way could be held responsible

Sometimes all a 18y/o needs is someone to say "hey, don't be a dumb ass, put these on"... but I can see how that might be a bit too much to handle for some people.

Freedom doesn't enter into it, I never suggested it should be illegal not to wear eye/ear protection.

Did you miss the part about forcing kids and noobs to wear protection?

If you tell an adult to do something once, you shouldn't need to do it again. If it were me, then I would tell them to go home. I don't want morons around me when I'm having fun.


Three times. You tell them three times on three separate occasions and you test 'em a few after to make sure they know what's what. If they mess up after that, that's on them.
 
2013-03-31 12:28:34 AM

PsiChick: Ed Grubermann: PsiChick: /Haven't seen the vids so I can't make that call.

Well, maybe you should.

/Knowing, it's half the battle to not looking like an ass.

There's a finite amount of time I am willing to spend caring about things on Fark.


Then why waste your precious time commenting on things you know jack shiat about? And really, you don't have three minutes to watch a video? I knew you were intellectually lazy, but Jeez.
 
2013-03-31 12:29:50 AM
Two words. Box truck.
 
2013-03-31 12:36:01 AM
This reads like a press release.  I'm calling bullshiat put out by his PR flac to drum up viewers.
 
2013-03-31 12:37:20 AM

Ed Grubermann: PsiChick: Ed Grubermann: PsiChick: /Haven't seen the vids so I can't make that call.

Well, maybe you should.

/Knowing, it's half the battle to not looking like an ass.

There's a finite amount of time I am willing to spend caring about things on Fark.

Then why waste your precious time commenting on things you know jack shiat about? And really, you don't have three minutes to watch a video? I knew you were intellectually lazy, but Jeez.


Because clearly the comment of 'if there was a pressing reason go for it, if not then they're assholes, I don't know' is so offensive to you personally you just have to go around annoying me to watch vids that I really don't care that much about.

And aren't you that guy that ignores my ten well-cited sources and posts maybe three highly biased studies instead?
 
2013-03-31 12:42:31 AM

IrateShadow: This reads like a press release.  I'm calling bullshiat put out by his PR flac to drum up viewers.


Local News story.
 
2013-03-31 12:44:53 AM

PsiChick: Because clearly the comment of 'if there was a pressing reason go for it, if not then they're assholes, I don't know' is so offensive to you personally you just have to go around annoying me to watch vids that I really don't care that much about.


No, you opined that he might be one of them Teabagger loonies, but you didn't know. Which you could have found out in just a few minutes. If you had bothered. Baseless speculation. I expect nothing less from you.

And aren't you that guy that ignores my ten well-cited sources and posts maybe three highly biased studies instead?

Can't say that I am.
 
2013-03-31 01:08:41 AM

Ed Grubermann: PsiChick: Ed Grubermann: PsiChick: /Haven't seen the vids so I can't make that call.

Well, maybe you should.

/Knowing, it's half the battle to not looking like an ass.

There's a finite amount of time I am willing to spend caring about things on Fark.

Then why waste your precious time commenting on things you know jack shiat about? And really, you don't have three minutes to watch a video? I knew you were intellectually lazy, but Jeez.


Stay mad.
 
2013-03-31 01:18:05 AM

IlGreven: redmid17: IlGreven: Snapper Carr: cman: I am gonna wait for the "Better safe than sorry" portion of the Right to come out and defend ATF actions

Actually the ATF is one of the few agencies that both the left center-right and the right generally agree should be taken out back and shot.

Perhaps that's why the Republicans haven't let the agency have a new permanent director ever since they decreed that the Senate must approve of any permanent director?

/Another thing that plays right into Republican hands.
//Republican: Someone who says government is bad, then gets elected and proves himself right.

The ATF has been shiat for years and was shiat for decades when they had an appointed director.

/don't let that stop your little rant though

How the fark would you know? It hasn't had an appointed director in your lifetime, and that's by Republican and NRA design.


I know you ran from the thread after I asked about the ATF directors and their "appointedness" pre 2006, but I just wanted to let you know it's okay. Arguing from ignorance makes you look like a complete moron and I don't blame you.
 
2013-03-31 01:25:33 AM

JosephFinn: That's a nice try, but it clearly is talking about bearing arms as part of a well-regulated militia and the people who make up such a militia, not the other way around.


Unless one is applying the rules of grammar.
 
2013-03-31 01:31:16 AM

s2s2s2: JosephFinn: That's a nice try, but it clearly is talking about bearing arms as part of a well-regulated militia and the people who make up such a militia, not the other way around.

Unless one is applying the rules of grammar.


Even if one were to apply the rules of grammar, your original point is still correct. The prefatory clause is not anything but context and is subordinate to the main clause and, consequently, the people.
 
2013-03-31 02:11:54 AM

Lionel Mandrake: I bet those Nazis just flopped open a phone book stabbed a finger down and crashed in on whatever poor sap's name they pointed at.


I read about a case some years ago of the cops working in conjunction with a "flexible" judge getting search warrants for random homes in the county.  They were specifically targeting larger (expensive) homes in hopes of finding a bit of pot so they could seize the homes as part of asset forfeiture.  The got a couple before their little scheme caught up to them.  Unfortunately, I don't really remember any details of the case so don't know what happened to the sheriff and the judge who ran the operation.  I would hope jail time was involved.

No, I don't think there's a massive conspiracy to fark everyone by law enforcement.  The government isn't organized enough for an actual conspiracy.  But I do believe it's entirely possible for rogue elements of the government, especially local governments, to fark people up big time.
 
2013-03-31 02:29:59 AM
We have police chiefs saying they don't prosecute people who lie on 4473s because it's a "paperwork problem," 500+ murders a year in Chicago, yet the ATF sees fit to send 50 agents to the house of a guy with one of the most popular YT channels on the planet because they were looking for illegal explosives.  They found no evidence of wrongdoing, nor is there any evidence of wrongdoing posted in any of his videos.  They considered taking his guns anyway.  And there are people of a certain ideological bent in here defending this because he's an icky gun owner, never mind the implications for the 4th Amendment.

Truly sickening.
 
2013-03-31 02:36:35 AM
Also, I wonder what the chances are that the morons heading this ATF operation actually thought this guy had anything to do with Russia.

And what do you want to bet those FBI agents had to repeatedly tell the ATF they weren't allowed to confiscate the weapons solely because they happened to find a crap load of them?

I know hypotheticals are just that, but something tells me this whole thing was a cluster fark of an operation that had those knowing better just watching and shaking their heads.
 
2013-03-31 02:39:41 AM

Fark It: We have police chiefs saying they don't prosecute people who lie on 4473s because it's a "paperwork problem," 500+ murders a year in Chicago, yet the ATF sees fit to send 50 agents to the house of a guy with one of the most popular YT channels on the planet because they were looking for illegal explosives.  They found no evidence of wrongdoing, nor is there any evidence of wrongdoing posted in any of his videos.  They considered taking his guns anyway.  And there are people of a certain ideological bent in here defending this because he's an icky gun owner, never mind the implications for the 4th Amendment.

Truly sickening.


I've always said that reps like Feinstein and Schumer would do better if they would just be honest about their intentions, but they haven't seen to take that to heart. I know the ATF doesn't take marching orders from them specifically, but it sure seems like the ATF has seen it fit to take their mission in the direction of "We are going to fark up as badly as possible and see if anyone says anything" while still staying a federal agency.
 
2013-03-31 02:41:31 AM

MurphyMurphy: Also, I wonder what the chances are that the morons heading this ATF operation actually thought this guy had anything to do with Russia.

And what do you want to bet those FBI agents had to repeatedly tell the ATF they weren't allowed to confiscate the weapons solely because they happened to find a crap load of them?

I know hypotheticals are just that, but something tells me this whole thing was a cluster fark of an operation that had those knowing better just watching and shaking their heads.


The downside to the bolded is that the civilians involved have little to no recourse in this particular matter.
 
2013-03-31 02:42:36 AM

redmid17: s2s2s2: JosephFinn: That's a nice try, but it clearly is talking about bearing arms as part of a well-regulated militia and the people who make up such a militia, not the other way around.

Unless one is applying the rules of grammar.

Even if one were to apply the rules of grammar, your original point is still correct. The prefatory clause is not anything but context and is subordinate to the main clause and, consequently, the people.


The white, landowning, male people.   Everyone else didn't really count at the time.  But that was then and this is now.
 
2013-03-31 02:47:38 AM

TheBigJerk: redmid17: s2s2s2: JosephFinn: That's a nice try, but it clearly is talking about bearing arms as part of a well-regulated militia and the people who make up such a militia, not the other way around.

Unless one is applying the rules of grammar.

Even if one were to apply the rules of grammar, your original point is still correct. The prefatory clause is not anything but context and is subordinate to the main clause and, consequently, the people.

The white, landowning, male people.   Everyone else didn't really count at the time.  But that was then and this is now.


Thanks for the history lesson. Next you can tell us why the evolution of the constitution included a difference in "the people" and hasn't changed for the 2nd Amendment.

/i doubt you'll be able to put anything coherent together
//on the off hand I'm wrong, please enlighten me
 
2013-03-31 02:48:50 AM

yukichigai: JosephFinn: That's a nice try, but it clearly is talking about bearing arms as part of a well-regulated militia and the people who make up such a militia, not the other way around.

The Supreme Court has thus far disagreed.  Regardless of your thoughts on the matter, or even what was actually intended, the law of the land says the 2nd Amendment means "everybody gets guns", whether or not they are in a "militia".


Wow, you could not be less correct.  Leaving aside the Supreme's incorrect ruling in Heller, they've always been consistent in ruling for reasonable regulations. The Supremes could have cleared all of this up in 1939 but US V Millerwas unfortuantely more vague than it should have been.  So no, the 2nd Amendment has never been interpreted by anyone besides insane people as "everybody gets guns."
 
2013-03-31 02:57:43 AM

JosephFinn: yukichigai: JosephFinn: That's a nice try, but it clearly is talking about bearing arms as part of a well-regulated militia and the people who make up such a militia, not the other way around.

The Supreme Court has thus far disagreed.  Regardless of your thoughts on the matter, or even what was actually intended, the law of the land says the 2nd Amendment means "everybody gets guns", whether or not they are in a "militia".

Wow, you could not be less correct.  Leaving aside the Supreme's incorrect ruling in Heller, they've always been consistent in ruling for reasonable regulations. The Supremes could have cleared all of this up in 1939 but US V Millerwas unfortuantely more vague than it should have been.  So no, the 2nd Amendment has never been interpreted by anyone besides insane people as "everybody gets guns."


So your answer is "sweeping aside everything that proves me wrong, I'm clearly right?" Even the Catholic Church couldn't pull that off. I'm pretty impressed. However I will ask you clear up some of the vagaries of the Miller decision. Since SBS and SBRs were clearly in militia use at the time, can you make sure they take them off the NFA list? It's quite annoying to have to go through the NFA process for when it is quite obviously still in use with the military and police.

Heck even Canada allows SBS sales to the general firearm owning public as short as 8", and they aren't even a real country*.

*they are
 
2013-03-31 03:02:05 AM

redmid17: The downside to the bolded is that the civilians involved have little to no recourse in this particular matter.


Civilians have little to no recourse in any particular matter involving government action.

We've neutered the use of courts for little guys to voice grievances against the big guys... especially against the government and its employees.

All they can do is shout and wave their hands and hope someone with political power uses that power to capitalize on and lend legitimacy to their cause.
 
2013-03-31 03:05:19 AM

Fark It: We have police chiefs saying they don't prosecute people who lie on 4473s because it's a "paperwork problem," 500+ murders a year in Chicago, yet the ATF sees fit to send 50 agents to the house of a guy with one of the most popular YT channels on the planet because they were looking for illegal explosives.  They found no evidence of wrongdoing, nor is there any evidence of wrongdoing posted in any of his videos.  They considered taking his guns anyway.  And there are people of a certain ideological bent in here defending this because he's an icky gun owner, never mind the implications for the 4th Amendment.

Truly sickening.


...and people wonder why gun rights advocates are a little rightfully paranoid.  Yes, when you put all the evidence together, the ATF IS out to get them sometimes.
 
2013-03-31 03:06:08 AM

redmid17: JosephFinn: yukichigai: JosephFinn: That's a nice try, but it clearly is talking about bearing arms as part of a well-regulated militia and the people who make up such a militia, not the other way around.

The Supreme Court has thus far disagreed.  Regardless of your thoughts on the matter, or even what was actually intended, the law of the land says the 2nd Amendment means "everybody gets guns", whether or not they are in a "militia".

Wow, you could not be less correct.  Leaving aside the Supreme's incorrect ruling in Heller, they've always been consistent in ruling for reasonable regulations. The Supremes could have cleared all of this up in 1939 but US V Millerwas unfortuantely more vague than it should have been.  So no, the 2nd Amendment has never been interpreted by anyone besides insane people as "everybody gets guns."

So your answer is "sweeping aside everything that proves me wrong, I'm clearly right?" Even the Catholic Church couldn't pull that off. I'm pretty impressed. However I will ask you clear up some of the vagaries of the Miller decision. Since SBS and SBRs were clearly in militia use at the time, can you make sure they take them off the NFA list? It's quite annoying to have to go through the NFA process for when it is quite obviously still in use with the military and police.

Heck even Canada allows SBS sales to the general firearm owning public as short as 8", and they aren't even a real country*.

*they are


So you're just going to ignore everything I said, I see. OK, have fun arguing with cracks in the walls since you don;t want to talk to reasonable people.
 
2013-03-31 03:17:39 AM

JosephFinn: Leaving aside the Supreme's incorrect ruling in Heller, they've always been consistent in ruling for reasonable regulations.


Heller struck down a law that did not allow a lay abiding citizen to own a firearm of any kind for purposes of self defense in their own home.  The ruling in Heller was not inconsistent with other rulings allowing for reasonable regulations of firearms.  It just held that a total ban is not a reasonable regulation.  Which of course, it isn't.
 
2013-03-31 03:22:53 AM

JosephFinn: redmid17: JosephFinn: yukichigai: JosephFinn: That's a nice try, but it clearly is talking about bearing arms as part of a well-regulated militia and the people who make up such a militia, not the other way around.

The Supreme Court has thus far disagreed.  Regardless of your thoughts on the matter, or even what was actually intended, the law of the land says the 2nd Amendment means "everybody gets guns", whether or not they are in a "militia".

Wow, you could not be less correct.  Leaving aside the Supreme's incorrect ruling in Heller, they've always been consistent in ruling for reasonable regulations. The Supremes could have cleared all of this up in 1939 but US V Millerwas unfortuantely more vague than it should have been.  So no, the 2nd Amendment has never been interpreted by anyone besides insane people as "everybody gets guns."

So your answer is "sweeping aside everything that proves me wrong, I'm clearly right?" Even the Catholic Church couldn't pull that off. I'm pretty impressed. However I will ask you clear up some of the vagaries of the Miller decision. Since SBS and SBRs were clearly in militia use at the time, can you make sure they take them off the NFA list? It's quite annoying to have to go through the NFA process for when it is quite obviously still in use with the military and police.

Heck even Canada allows SBS sales to the general firearm owning public as short as 8", and they aren't even a real country*.

*they are

So you're just going to ignore everything I said, I see. OK, have fun arguing with cracks in the walls since you don;t want to talk to reasonable people.


Look whether or not you think Heller and McDonald are reasonable, you still have to deal with them, stare decisis and all. When you have some points you feel like expounding upon, please let us know. I'm very open to a lot of arguments or points of contention. You are literally ignoring the reality of the situation. That's kind of hard to address.
 
2013-03-31 03:27:56 AM
No illegal explosives were found and no arrests were made, but considering the unprecedented arsenal stocked at one of the locations, the agents considered confiscating Myers' weapons. "

Because when you follow the law, that obviously means that the feds still get to go fishing...

It doesn't matter if he owns 1 gun or 1 million guns, compliance with the law is compliance with the law.
 
2013-03-31 04:38:45 AM
JosephFinn:

Wow, you could not be less correct.  Leaving aside the Supreme's incorrect ruling in Heller, they've always been consistent in ruling for reasonable regulations. The Supremes could have cleared all of this up in 1939 but US V Millerwas unfortuantely more vague than it should have been.  So no, the 2nd Amendment has never been interpreted by anyone besides insane people as "everybody gets guns."

img.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-31 04:53:57 AM

Fark It: We have police chiefs saying they don't prosecute people who lie on 4473s because it's a "paperwork problem," 500+ murders a year in Chicago, yet the ATF sees fit to send 50 agents to the house of a guy with one of the most popular YT channels on the planet because they were looking for illegal explosives.  They found no evidence of wrongdoing, nor is there any evidence of wrongdoing posted in any of his videos.  They considered taking his guns anyway.  And there are people of a certain ideological bent in here defending this because he's an icky gun owner, never mind the implications for the 4th Amendment.

Truly sickening.


My guess is they had to pull the field agents used in the search from a few field offices and that doesn't come cheap. But since he's a gun owner let's look the other way and just blame him because others did the same.
 
2013-03-31 06:00:32 AM
How many guns does it take to become a gun nut?  I have 5 now.  I want to know?  Please tell me fark scaredie cats.
 
2013-03-31 07:28:25 AM
Byron Todd Jones (born May 23, 1957 in Cincinnati, Ohio) is an American lawyer and the acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). He is also currently serving as the United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota.

As part of a push to improve gun control announced on January 16, 2013, President Barack Obama nominated Jones to serve as permanent director of the ATF. Due to gun lobby opposition, the bureau has not had a permanent director since the position was made subject to U.S. Senate approval in 2006. If he is confirmed, an interim U.S. Attorney for Minnesota would be appointed to replace him in that position.


upload.wikimedia.org

Seems legit.
 
2013-03-31 08:01:51 AM

PsiChick: IoSaturnalia: Did nobody make it down to the last two paragraphs?

The raids on the Myers' properties were staged as part of an investigation into the death of 32-year-old Keith Richard Ratliff, who was found dead on January 3. Ratliff and the Myers family were co-owners of gun producer FPS Industries; Ratliff was also executive producer of the FPSRussia channel, acquiring or creating rare weapons for the show.
Ratliff was killed by a single bullet to the head. Though a large number of firearms were found at Ratliff's business premises, the murder weapon was not among them. The investigation continues, and so far no names of possible suspects or persons of interest have been revealed.

There's more to it than the man just hassling some youtube redneck who likes making things go boom.

I didn't. That changes it a lot.

/That was a crap article, I couldn't make heads or tails of it.
//Damnit, journalists.


When you consider that it's RT which is basically Russian state propaganda probably intended to make America look like a country full of nutjobs from both the left and right, it's best to take what they say with a grain of salt.
 
2013-03-31 08:04:29 AM
It's funny to see how many right-wingers are taking Russian state media seriously.
 
2013-03-31 08:09:34 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: IrateShadow: This reads like a press release.  I'm calling bullshiat put out by his PR flac to drum up viewers.

Local News story.


FTL:

Nearly 40 law enforcement officers converged Tuesday on the property of a Franklin County man whose business partner was shot to death in January in a homicide that continues to trouble investigators.

So basically, they're under investigation since their business partner was murdered.

OMFG what an outrage!
 
2013-03-31 08:11:22 AM

Mrtraveler01: So basically, they're under investigation since their business partner was murdered.

OMFG what an outrage!


except that isn't what the raid was for you pro 4th Amendment liberal, you.
 
2013-03-31 08:14:12 AM

USP .45: Mrtraveler01: So basically, they're under investigation since their business partner was murdered.

OMFG what an outrage!

except that isn't what the raid was for you pro 4th Amendment liberal, you.


So you're saying that if there wasn't a murder investigation going on, this raid still would've occurred?
 
2013-03-31 08:15:44 AM

Mrtraveler01: So you're saying that if there wasn't a murder investigation going on, this raid still would've occurred?


you're the one denying the story altogether simply because it's RT. Please tell us more about RT agents making up stories in small-town America.
 
2013-03-31 08:18:55 AM

Mrtraveler01: So you're saying that if there wasn't a murder investigation going on, this raid still would've occurred?


I don't often execute search warrants to gather evidence for a homicide, but when I do, I do it 4 months later and use a bureau that doesn't investigate murders.
 
2013-03-31 08:19:31 AM

USP .45: Mrtraveler01: So you're saying that if there wasn't a murder investigation going on, this raid still would've occurred?

you're the one denying the story altogether simply because it's RT. Please tell us more about RT agents making up stories in small-town America.


I didn't say the story was made up. I just said what someone else said, they highlight these stories to show what a screwed up country this one is to cover up what an even more screwed up country Russia is.
 
2013-03-31 08:22:12 AM

Mrtraveler01: I didn't say the story was made up. I just said what someone else said, they highlight these stories to show what a screwed up country this one is to cover up what an even more screwed up country Russia is.


So you repeated something already stated, are missing the point of the discussion (psst, it isn't geopolitical), and are siding with the ATF.

0/3 not a good start yo.
 
2013-03-31 08:24:04 AM

USP .45: Mrtraveler01: So you're saying that if there wasn't a murder investigation going on, this raid still would've occurred?

I don't often execute search warrants to gather evidence for a homicide, but when I do, I do it 4 months later and use a bureau that doesn't investigate murders.


The Georgia Bureau of Investigation doesn't investigate murders?

/they were with the ATF in this raid
 
2013-03-31 08:26:39 AM

Mrtraveler01: The Georgia Bureau of Investigation doesn't investigate murders?

/they were with the ATF in this raid


i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-31 08:28:33 AM

USP .45: Mrtraveler01: So basically, they're under investigation since their business partner was murdered.

OMFG what an outrage!

except that isn't what the raid was for you pro 4th Amendment liberal, you.




To be specific, they gave differing reasons for the raid depending on which agency was asked. The cops said they were there for the murder, the Feds said they were there about the explosives.
Apparently some agents failed the course on how to not be suspicious.

They were both there because this guy was showing off guns and special effects on YouTube and they thought they'd make an easy score on some kind of paperwork error.
This was a fishing trip on taxpayer dollars.
 
2013-03-31 08:35:29 AM

way south: They were both there because this guy was showing off guns and special effects on YouTube and they thought they'd make an easy score on some kind of paperwork error.
This was a fishing trip on taxpayer dollars.


You have your theories, I have mine.

All I'm saying is that the story didn't decide to mention that he was under investigation to the murder until the very end of the story so they could play up the whole "ATF raids innocent explosives owner" angle.
 
2013-03-31 08:40:12 AM

Mrtraveler01: All I'm saying is that the story didn't decide to mention that he was under investigation to the murder until the very end of the story so they could play up the whole "ATF raids innocent explosives owner" angle.


The murder happened 4 months ago and was reported. The ATF raid, and the reasons for them being there a few days ago are clearly an independent topic for a news story. Nice try though.
 
2013-03-31 08:44:33 AM

USP .45: The murder happened 4 months ago and was reported


And was still under investigation even back in early March.

http://www.independentmail.com/news/2013/mar/07/ratliff-murder-inves ti gation-active-gbi-says/

Investigators don't just stop investigating murders over a certain amount of time. Especially 2+ months after the murder (it happened in Janurary).
 
2013-03-31 09:02:32 AM
I would love to see the reaction to this if the show was called FPS Algeria and the host was a Muslim with a funny sounding name. Something tells me it would be quite different.

Hell, the same people here saying it was an over reaction by the ATF are some of the same people who were cheering when a Muslim temple was being legally erected and got defaced. farking hypocrites.
 
2013-03-31 09:02:35 AM

Mrtraveler01: And was still under investigation even back in early March.


You've convinced me that the ATF raid was for a murder investigation. Thanks for the information.
 
2013-03-31 09:06:59 AM

dinch: Hell, the same people here saying it was an over reaction by the ATF are some of the same people who were cheering when a Muslim temple was being legally erected and got defaced. farking hypocrites.


That's quite the claim, obviously you'll be posting quotes to prove this in a few moments, right?
 
2013-03-31 09:08:13 AM
I'm on my phone and it's too hard to look that up. Are you saying that's incorrect?
 
2013-03-31 09:08:35 AM

dinch: I would love to see the reaction to this if the show was called FPS Algeria and the host was a Muslim with a funny sounding name. Something tells me it would be quite different.

Hell, the same people here saying it was an over reaction by the ATF are some of the same people who were cheering when a Muslim temple was being legally erected and got defaced. farking hypocrites.


Yes, something would be different, you'd have the so called liberals actually contributing to the outrage, unless of course it's an Arab making anti-Islamic videos on youtube, then it's wellfarkthatguy. Additionally, vandals defacing religious grounds in an isolated incident =/= a federal agency with a dubious track record continuing the trend.
 
2013-03-31 09:09:26 AM

Mrtraveler01: way south: They were both there because this guy was showing off guns and special effects on YouTube and they thought they'd make an easy score on some kind of paperwork error.
This was a fishing trip on taxpayer dollars.

You have your theories, I have mine.

All I'm saying is that the story didn't decide to mention that he was under investigation to the murder until the very end of the story so they could play up the whole "ATF raids innocent explosives owner" angle.




I'm saying it because this. is. what. ATF. does. They go after small operations and try to hit them with the book, knowing they can't afford a legal battle. Its low hanging fruit to them.
An actual criminal has a better chance of being bitten by a shark than being arrested by the ATF.
 
2013-03-31 09:13:36 AM
I understand the differences in the situations. It's a bit of apples to oranges except where rights are concerned. Do I think an ATF raid on this guys property was justified? Don't really know but from what I'm seeing, no, not really. I'd it was an investigation into a murder than that would fall outside of the ATFs scope, no? I just find it ridiculous how rights for people change based on their skin color and beliefs. Now, are you going to say that statement is incorrect?
 
2013-03-31 09:14:25 AM

dinch: I'm on my phone and it's too hard to look that up. Are you saying that's incorrect?


I'm saying I've not seen that, so if you're going to claim such a thing, you should be prepared to provide evidence instead of excuses.
 
2013-03-31 09:15:57 AM
You haven't seen the reaction of right wingers to temples being built in places they seem improper? Seriously? Where the hell have you been?
 
2013-03-31 09:21:14 AM

Warlordtrooper: Dr. Goldshnoz: odinsposse: The videos didn't show any illegal activity but resulted in an ATF raid anyway.

The videos didn't show any illegal activity but resulted in an ATF raid anyway.

The videos didn't show any illegal activity but resulted in an ATF raid anyway.

The videos didn't show any illegal activity but resulted in an ATF raid anyway.

This is the problem here, folks.

Yep a YouTube video is not probable cause and the 4 th amendment bans fishing expeditions which is what this was


Thanks to the PATRIOT act, that's no longer the case.
 
2013-03-31 09:22:02 AM

dinch: You haven't seen the reaction of right wingers to temples being built in places they seem improper? Seriously? Where the hell have you been?


dinch: Hell, the same people here saying it was an over reaction by the ATF are some of the same people who were cheering when a Muslim temple was being legally erected and got defaced.


Already dragging those goalposts around, I see.
 
2013-03-31 09:23:27 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: dinch: You haven't seen the reaction of right wingers to temples being built in places they seem improper? Seriously? Where the hell have you been?

dinch: Hell, the same people here saying it was an over reaction by the ATF are some of the same people who were cheering when a Muslim temple was being legally erected and got defaced.

Already dragging those goalposts around, I see.


You have a problem with reading comprehension?
 
MFK
2013-03-31 09:24:25 AM

HeWhoHasNoName: Fark It: We have police chiefs saying they don't prosecute people who lie on 4473s because it's a "paperwork problem," 500+ murders a year in Chicago, yet the ATF sees fit to send 50 agents to the house of a guy with one of the most popular YT channels on the planet because they were looking for illegal explosives.  They found no evidence of wrongdoing, nor is there any evidence of wrongdoing posted in any of his videos.  They considered taking his guns anyway.  And there are people of a certain ideological bent in here defending this because he's an icky gun owner, never mind the implications for the 4th Amendment.

Truly sickening.

...and people wonder why gun rights advocates are a little rightfully paranoid.  Yes, when you put all the evidence together, the ATF IS out to get them sometimes.


Right. So you have these people who are anonymously blowing shiat up with high explosives and sophisticated weaponry -over and over again. One of the owners was murdered and the case is unsolved. But clearly, this is all in good fun and the government has no "legit" reason for finding out wtf is going on over there because a bunch of yahoos like watching them on youtube.

it's all a conspiracy to take yer guns.

(epicfacepalm.jpg)
 
2013-03-31 09:26:07 AM

USP .45: Mrtraveler01: And was still under investigation even back in early March.

You've convinced me that the ATF raid was for a murder investigation. Thanks for the information.


No problem. Glad I could help out.

That's why I usually check into local newspapers and tv stations before taking a blog (or in this case Russian State Media) for their word.

Because blogs and sites like RT tend to omit things in order to push something completely different:

In this case: "ATF raids innocent explosives owner  who is part of a murder investigation"
 
2013-03-31 09:28:08 AM

way south: Mrtraveler01: way south: They were both there because this guy was showing off guns and special effects on YouTube and they thought they'd make an easy score on some kind of paperwork error.
This was a fishing trip on taxpayer dollars.

You have your theories, I have mine.

All I'm saying is that the story didn't decide to mention that he was under investigation to the murder until the very end of the story so they could play up the whole "ATF raids innocent explosives owner" angle.

I'm saying it because this. is. what. ATF. does. They go after small operations and try to hit them with the book, knowing they can't afford a legal battle. Its low hanging fruit to them.
An actual criminal has a better chance of being bitten by a shark than being arrested by the ATF.


ATF"s track record is less than stellar. But in this case the Georgia Bureau of Investigation was also involved in this raid.

Now I don't live in Georgia but if the GBI has a shady record too, let me know.

But that being said, if this was just a raid because they thought he had "illegal explosives", why would the GBI be involved too?
 
2013-03-31 09:30:53 AM

dinch: BraveNewCheneyWorld: dinch: You haven't seen the reaction of right wingers to temples being built in places they seem improper? Seriously? Where the hell have you been?

dinch: Hell, the same people here saying it was an over reaction by the ATF are some of the same people who were cheering when a Muslim temple was being legally erected and got defaced.

Already dragging those goalposts around, I see.

You have a problem with reading comprehension?


No, but you apparently do.  How does "having a reaction to a temple being in a place that seems improper" equal "cheering when a temple is defaced"?  You know that the former can be voicing mild disapproval, while the latter is supportive of criminal behavior, right?
 
2013-03-31 09:31:01 AM
A lot of sharp legal minds in here.

"I know this raid was unconstitutional because I am very emotional about the subject of guns and I masturbate to Youtube firearms video "
 
2013-03-31 09:34:25 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: dinch: BraveNewCheneyWorld: dinch: You haven't seen the reaction of right wingers to temples being built in places they seem improper? Seriously? Where the hell have you been?

dinch: Hell, the same people here saying it was an over reaction by the ATF are some of the same people who were cheering when a Muslim temple was being legally erected and got defaced.

Already dragging those goalposts around, I see.

You have a problem with reading comprehension?

No, but you apparently do.  How does "having a reaction to a temple being in a place that seems improper" equal "cheering when a temple is defaced"?  You know that the former can be voicing mild disapproval, while the latter is supportive of criminal behavior, right?


They both have happened. You know that, right?

Just curious, what was your stand on the issue?
 
2013-03-31 09:35:10 AM

MFK: Right. So you have these people who are anonymously blowing shiat up with high explosives and sophisticated weaponry -over and over again.


All of which was legal. You may not like it but it's legal.

Sandra Fluke takes lots of dick. Lots and lots of dick, over and over. She needs subsidized birth control just to keep all that semen in check, and she's testified before Congress to make it so. If a business associate gets murdered, does the ATF raid her medicine locker with the expressed purpose of looking for illegal duplicate prescriptions?
 
2013-03-31 09:38:31 AM

USP .45: Sandra Fluke takes lots of dick. Lots and lots of dick, over and over. She needs subsidized birth control just to keep all that semen in check, and she's testified before Congress to make it so.


Really?
 
2013-03-31 09:40:12 AM

USP .45: MFK: Right. So you have these people who are anonymously blowing shiat up with high explosives and sophisticated weaponry -over and over again.

All of which was legal. You may not like it but it's legal.

Sandra Fluke takes lots of dick. Lots and lots of dick, over and over. She needs subsidized birth control just to keep all that semen in check, and she's testified before Congress to make it so. If a business associate gets murdered, does the ATF raid her medicine locker with the expressed purpose of looking for illegal duplicate prescriptions?


?... Well, that was a dumb comparison. Anyway, kids are up and it's time to hunt for eggs. Happy spring
 
2013-03-31 09:40:58 AM

Mrtraveler01: USP .45: Sandra Fluke takes lots of dick. Lots and lots of dick, over and over. She needs subsidized birth control just to keep all that semen in check, and she's testified before Congress to make it so.

Really?


awwww, are you going to whiteknight over an obvious joke?

/meant DEA btw
 
2013-03-31 09:42:12 AM

dinch: BraveNewCheneyWorld: dinch: BraveNewCheneyWorld: dinch: You haven't seen the reaction of right wingers to temples being built in places they seem improper? Seriously? Where the hell have you been?

dinch: Hell, the same people here saying it was an over reaction by the ATF are some of the same people who were cheering when a Muslim temple was being legally erected and got defaced.

Already dragging those goalposts around, I see.

You have a problem with reading comprehension?

No, but you apparently do.  How does "having a reaction to a temple being in a place that seems improper" equal "cheering when a temple is defaced"?  You know that the former can be voicing mild disapproval, while the latter is supportive of criminal behavior, right?

They both have happened. You know that, right?

Just curious, what was your stand on the issue?


Oh, I'm sure, someone, somewhere did both, but you're claiming that those people are here, so please let us know who they are, because I strongly suspect you're a lying piece of shiat, and the fact that you keep dodging all efforts to get you to provide any form of evidence isn't helping your case.
 
2013-03-31 09:42:44 AM

USP .45: Mrtraveler01: USP .45: Sandra Fluke takes lots of dick. Lots and lots of dick, over and over. She needs subsidized birth control just to keep all that semen in check, and she's testified before Congress to make it so.

Really?

awwww, are you going to whiteknight over an obvious joke?

/meant DEA btw


Sorry, my snark detector is on the fritz.
 
2013-03-31 09:42:48 AM

dinch: Well, that was a dumb comparison.


it's a hilarious comparison unless you watch GLEE. It's reasonably accurate too.

Public figure embraces regulated but legal items that certain people don't like, tangentially related murder occurs, respective 3 letter agency raids property looking for items not connected to the murder.
 
2013-03-31 09:47:52 AM
A guy gets murdered. The ATF obtains a legal search warrent for the murdered guys business partner. After conducting the search the ATF finds nothing illegal, and leaves the guy with all his guns and s'plosion stuff.

I'm outraged.
 
MFK
2013-03-31 09:49:42 AM

USP .45: MFK: Right. So you have these people who are anonymously blowing shiat up with high explosives and sophisticated weaponry -over and over again.

All of which was legal. You may not like it but it's legal.

Sandra Fluke takes lots of dick. Lots and lots of dick, over and over. She needs subsidized birth control just to keep all that semen in check, and she's testified before Congress to make it so. If a business associate gets murdered, does the ATF raid her medicine locker with the expressed purpose of looking for illegal duplicate prescriptions?


Nice.

And you wonder why the rest of us find that you gun enthusiasts" are a bunch of assholes.
 
2013-03-31 09:50:41 AM

Mrtraveler01: way south: Mrtraveler01: way south: They were both there because this guy was showing off guns and special effects on YouTube and they thought they'd make an easy score on some kind of paperwork error.
This was a fishing trip on taxpayer dollars.

You have your theories, I have mine.

All I'm saying is that the story didn't decide to mention that he was under investigation to the murder until the very end of the story so they could play up the whole "ATF raids innocent explosives owner" angle.

I'm saying it because this. is. what. ATF. does. They go after small operations and try to hit them with the book, knowing they can't afford a legal battle. Its low hanging fruit to them.
An actual criminal has a better chance of being bitten by a shark than being arrested by the ATF.

ATF"s track record is less than stellar. But in this case the Georgia Bureau of Investigation was also involved in this raid.

Now I don't live in Georgia but if the GBI has a shady record too, let me know.

But that being said, if this was just a raid because they thought he had "illegal explosives", why would the GBI be involved too?




Why wouldn't the Feds burn off local resources while conducting their operations?
This has been a regular bone of contention between our local PD and the DEA. It costs them nothing to take extra manpower and equipment.

...and since when is it ok to go moseying through someone's house looking for a murder weapon if you haven't got an evidence trail leading you there?
"He happens to own alot pf guns, so let's see if the gun we want is there" is a damn flimsy excuse if I ever heard one.

If this was your house and some cop pushed his way in to have a look around, you'd be filing lawsuits.
 
2013-03-31 09:52:21 AM

log_jammin: The ATF obtains a legal search warrent for the murdered guys business partner.


the business partner was exploded? tell me more.

oh he was shot right? but they didn't take any of the weapons for ballistic fingerprinting

oh because they were expressly there for explosives, so please tell me about how the business partner was exploded to death.
 
2013-03-31 09:56:18 AM

MFK: Nice.

And you wonder why the rest of us find that you gun enthusiasts" are a bunch of assholes.


"Bloomberg should make black guys illegal so at the next CPAC I can watch her suck on one."

Funniest shiat I've read on Fark in a long time.

Get a sense of humor that doesn't involve Dwight Schrute.

/I mean she testified to congress about her birth control demands, that writes itself.
 
2013-03-31 09:58:22 AM

USP .45: log_jammin: The ATF obtains a legal search warrent for the murdered guys business partner.

the business partner was exploded? tell me more.

oh he was shot right? but they didn't take any of the weapons for ballistic fingerprinting

oh because they were expressly there for explosives, so please tell me about how the business partner was exploded to death.


They weren't "expressly there for explosives". As the article stated, it was part of a murder investigation and the ATF, along with the FBI and the local cops were conducting a search warrant.

Whine about the ATF all you want, but my comment was 100% factual.
 
2013-03-31 10:05:08 AM

MFK: So you have these people who are anonymously blowing shiat up with high explosives and sophisticated weaponry


Anonymously? Just because it's not in the video description link doesn't mean it's a secret. FPS Russia is a character.

The don't call Captain Jack Sparrow "Johnny Depp" during the movie, but his name is in the opening sequence and the end credits. Why should the FPS Russia character be any different?
 
2013-03-31 10:05:55 AM

log_jammin: As the article stated, it was part of a murder investigation and the ATF, along with the FBI and the local cops were conducting a search warrant.


tell me more about how warrants work like signing the same birthday card.
 
2013-03-31 10:10:24 AM

log_jammin: A guy gets murdered. The ATF obtains a legal search warrent for the murdered guys business partner. After conducting the search the ATF finds nothing illegal, and leaves the guy with all his guns and s'plosion stuff.

I'm outraged.


Except that the ATF was there to look for explosives.

So it's more like toilet clogs, you call a plumber, and animal control shows up and forces their way in to make sure you your dogs haven't bitten anyone today.
 
2013-03-31 10:15:01 AM

USP .45: log_jammin: As the article stated, it was part of a murder investigation and the ATF, along with the FBI and the local cops were conducting a search warrant.

tell me more about how warrants work like signing the same birthday card.


In other words. You got nothing.

See you later.
 
2013-03-31 10:40:21 AM
So many bunched panties in here. If you want to exist in the explosives for entertainment game. Expect the Feds to keep an eye on you. Especially when one of your workers is killed.
 
2013-03-31 10:42:32 AM

Mrtraveler01: USP .45: Mrtraveler01: And was still under investigation even back in early March.

You've convinced me that the ATF raid was for a murder investigation. Thanks for the information.

No problem. Glad I could help out.

That's why I usually check into local newspapers and tv stations before taking a blog (or in this case Russian State Media) for their word.

Because blogs and sites like RT tend to omit things in order to push something completely different:

In this case: "ATF raids innocent explosives owner  who is part of a murder investigation"


You have one of the biggest troll accounts on Fark agreeing with you.  Grats.
 
2013-03-31 10:55:31 AM

Lionel Mandrake: Save your outrage for when something outrageous happens.


I'd say baseless 60-man ATF raids are pretty outrageous for a farking murder investigation.

I'd then go on to say that smarmy comments, them wanting him to get a manufacturing license (what the fark for?!) are also pretty outrageous.

Where is the probable cause for that raid? Under what grounds should FPS Industries have to acquire an FFL for manufacturing?

This was an ATF farkup, and it is outrageous.
 
2013-03-31 11:00:41 AM

Bigdogdaddy: How many guns does it take to become a gun nut?  I have 5 now.  I want to know?  Please tell me fark scaredie cats.


Well, if you said that you had 5 cats I'd say that you were closing in on Crazy Cat Person.
 
2013-03-31 11:02:03 AM

TsukasaK: Under what grounds should FPS Industries have to acquire an FFL for manufacturing?


He did make that arrow shell for his 12 gauge that one time. That's kind of like manufacturing, if you call sticking a prefabricated cylinder into another larger prefabricated cylinder with a cotton ball on it to keep it from falling out manufacturing.

He could mass produce those for tens of cents of illegal profit.
 
2013-03-31 11:07:18 AM

Mrtraveler01: PsiChick: IoSaturnalia: Did nobody make it down to the last two paragraphs?

The raids on the Myers' properties were staged as part of an investigation into the death of 32-year-old Keith Richard Ratliff, who was found dead on January 3. Ratliff and the Myers family were co-owners of gun producer FPS Industries; Ratliff was also executive producer of the FPSRussia channel, acquiring or creating rare weapons for the show.
Ratliff was killed by a single bullet to the head. Though a large number of firearms were found at Ratliff's business premises, the murder weapon was not among them. The investigation continues, and so far no names of possible suspects or persons of interest have been revealed.

There's more to it than the man just hassling some youtube redneck who likes making things go boom.

I didn't. That changes it a lot.

/That was a crap article, I couldn't make heads or tails of it.
//Damnit, journalists.

When you consider that it's RT which is basically Russian state propaganda probably intended to make America look like a country full of nutjobs from both the left and right, it's best to take what they say with a grain of salt.


Oh, lovely.

Ed Grubermann: PsiChick: Because clearly the comment of 'if there was a pressing reason go for it, if not then they're assholes, I don't know' is so offensive to you personally you just have to go around annoying me to watch vids that I really don't care that much about.

No, you opined that he might be one of them Teabagger loonies, but you didn't know. Which you could have found out in just a few minutes. If you had bothered. Baseless speculation. I expect nothing less from you.

And aren't you that guy that ignores my ten well-cited sources and posts maybe three highly biased studies instead?

Can't say that I am.


Hmm. I have no idea who you are, but I know I've debated with you before...well, nice seeing you again anyway.
 
MFK
2013-03-31 11:08:49 AM

USP .45: MFK: Nice.

And you wonder why the rest of us find that you gun enthusiasts" are a bunch of assholes.

"Bloomberg should make black guys illegal so at the next CPAC I can watch her suck on one."

Funniest shiat I've read on Fark in a long time.

Get a sense of humor that doesn't involve Dwight Schrute.

/I mean she testified to congress about her birth control demands, that writes itself.


Please. Proceed.
 
2013-03-31 11:09:30 AM
No illegal explosives were found and no arrests were made, but considering the unprecedented arsenal stocked at one of the locations, the agents considered confiscating Myers' weapons

I'm pretty sure there's no upper limit on the number of firearms you are allowed to own.

It sounds more like the Feds looked at his collection and said "Damn, I want those for my rec room!"
 
2013-03-31 11:23:12 AM

MFK: USP .45: MFK: Nice.

And you wonder why the rest of us find that you gun enthusiasts" are a bunch of assholes.

"Bloomberg should make black guys illegal so at the next CPAC I can watch her suck on one."

Funniest shiat I've read on Fark in a long time.

Get a sense of humor that doesn't involve Dwight Schrute.

/I mean she testified to congress about her birth control demands, that writes itself.

Please. Proceed.


That comment was IIRC in reference to Sarah Palin, not Sandra Fluke.
 
2013-03-31 12:31:15 PM
I suspect they were just fishing for a murder weapon or something to break the case of the dead guy. That being said, I've never heard of this guy until yesterday, and now I've watched one of his shows and I liked it. Streisand effect for the win!
 
2013-03-31 12:31:47 PM

IoSaturnalia: Did nobody make it down to the last two paragraphs?

The raids on the Myers' properties were staged as part of an investigation into the death of 32-year-old Keith Richard Ratliff, who was found dead on January 3. Ratliff and the Myers family were co-owners of gun producer FPS Industries; Ratliff was also executive producer of the FPSRussia channel, acquiring or creating rare weapons for the show.
Ratliff was killed by a single bullet to the head. Though a large number of firearms were found at Ratliff's business premises, the murder weapon was not among them. The investigation continues, and so far no names of possible suspects or persons of interest have been revealed.

There's more to it than the man just hassling some youtube redneck who likes making things go boom.


I've said it in other threads: but GODDAMNIT, if I actually take time to learn context and understand a complex issue, someone ELSE will have gotten to express their distaste for...WHATEVER BEFORE me! And everyone knows that expressing an opinion FIRST makes it THE MOST valid!!
 
2013-03-31 12:32:11 PM

duenor: That comment was IIRC in reference to Sarah Palin, not Sandra Fluke.


I know.
 
2013-03-31 12:54:55 PM
I don't like the "malicious intent" or "manufacturing" claims because they seem pretty baseless... that said, given that it is a murder investigation and they knew the places they were going to were going to be well armed to that extent, the ATF was the right agency to execute the warrants.
 
2013-03-31 01:35:26 PM
a 50-calibur sniper rifle,

Why do you hate spell-check? And basic knowledge of bullet sizing?
 
2013-03-31 01:44:27 PM

firefly212: I don't like the "malicious intent" or "manufacturing" claims because they seem pretty baseless... that said, given that it is a murder investigation and they knew the places they were going to were going to be well armed to that extent, the ATF was the right agency to execute the warrants.


Um. Since when is being well-armed the jurisdiction of the ATF? They are there to enforce firearms laws, not get into firefights.

The FBI, SWAT teams, etc., all have more experience in protecting officers than the ATF.
 
2013-03-31 02:05:20 PM
Yeesh....who is next on their list?  Hickok45?
 
2013-03-31 03:32:22 PM

The_Sponge: Yeesh....who is next on their list?  Hickok45?


TexGrebner, I hope.  Maybe they can keep him from giving himself another case of Glock leg.
 
2013-03-31 06:40:30 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Do you get pissed off when a Doctor orders an X-ray and then doesn't find anything?


What the fark is wrong with you?

Are you just some lifer troll that spends his time coming up with shiat like this?
 
2013-04-01 08:37:16 AM
So a recording of what COULD have been an illegal explosion is enough to get you raided?
 
Let me now when the ATF plans to raid every movie and tv studio in america.
 
2013-04-01 12:49:07 PM

Corvus: I have a question for everyone. If someone posted a video that showed a group robbing a store (and it looked like it was real), do you think police should investigate those people? Should they check their house to see if they really stole the stuff in the video?

I bet almost everyone here would say yes. But because this is something some people in this thread identify themselves with they are blind to see it's the same thing.


No, they should not investigate the individuals they should figure out who the victim is and question the victim to determine if there was a crime committed   Then and ONLY then should they investigate the individuals.
 
2013-04-01 05:19:34 PM
I don't see what the deal is. There's no federal law against manufacturing explosives in your own home for your own consumption. There are storage, transport, use, and sale laws, sure, but just making them isn't illegal on the federal level. State level, often, but some states have loopholes. I've done it several times, mostly because I was interested in the chemistry.
 
2013-04-01 05:33:33 PM
In fact, many explosives, such as azides and nitrotetrazoles, are extremely important compounds in pharmaceutical biochemistry, and indeed chemistry in general, i.e. the diazotization reaction.
 
2013-04-02 03:22:52 PM
To the antis in this thread, I would like to point out that you sound smug. Which is pretty much the norm.

Have you ever considered approaching a discussion with an open mind? I have news for you, you don't know everything and your opinions are not always correct.

Liberals are like children who didn't have parents around to teach them how to behave in public.
 
2013-04-02 10:13:48 PM

OwnTheRide: To the antis in this thread, I would like to point out that you sound smug. Which is pretty much the norm.

Have you ever considered approaching a discussion with an open mind? I have news for you, you don't know everything and your opinions are not always correct.

Liberals are like children who didn't have parents around to teach them how to behave in public.


Says the guy making broad, sweeping generalizations.

As a pro-gun liberal, kindly knock that shiat off.
 
Displayed 311 of 311 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report