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

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






Report