Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

5339 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Mar 2013 at 5:55 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 311 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report