Playboypenguin
Moderator
Evidence? Or is this stuff along the same lines as the government creating AIDs and spreading it in the ghetto?
Owner of broken rifle surrenders for 30-month sentence
- Thread starter bugaboo
- Start date
No, this was along the lines of having the BATF, when they had more funding come into our bar/restaurant and ask to see our records of drunk customers. What happened for awhile was we had to keep a log of customers that appeared intoxicated, and if we served them. You'll see in the bar business that all you can really go on is appearance of intoxication for serving. What they tried to do was make the case for the bar to be negligent, by requiring us to keep records of how we treated such people. They would send in a plant, and, if we served him, they would ask to see our records.
Their most blatant stuff was sending in some girl that looked like a Playboy bunny, and have her ask for a drink. Would turn out she was 20 and 11 months, 29 days, but, if you don't ask for I.D. they would fine or suspend your license.
The odd part of all this is much like their approach to the firearm industry, they actually try and put out of business the industry they regulate. Currently, they have been incredibly successful. My local gunshop guy told me Kali has gone from 6000 shops to 1500. They are being visited every 6 months, and, they pretty much deal in antiques or collectables.
My friend is a gunsmith. He had a guy come in, and ask for a shotgun sawed off to 18" still legal. I think he left it at 18.5" to be safe. Anyway, he's been around the block, so, he took pictures, had the pictures and a statement notorized, and put it in his safe. It was a BATF frame, and, they said the gun was chopped to 16". He brought out his evidence, and, there was one VERY mad Federal judge, who threw the case out.
Recently the BATF came up in Congress, and, their actions did not reflect well on their position as a Federal Agency.
Hopefully, Congress will cut their budget again, which is what stopped the 3rd party liability harassment in our restaurant.
Their most blatant stuff was sending in some girl that looked like a Playboy bunny, and have her ask for a drink. Would turn out she was 20 and 11 months, 29 days, but, if you don't ask for I.D. they would fine or suspend your license.
The odd part of all this is much like their approach to the firearm industry, they actually try and put out of business the industry they regulate. Currently, they have been incredibly successful. My local gunshop guy told me Kali has gone from 6000 shops to 1500. They are being visited every 6 months, and, they pretty much deal in antiques or collectables.
My friend is a gunsmith. He had a guy come in, and ask for a shotgun sawed off to 18" still legal. I think he left it at 18.5" to be safe. Anyway, he's been around the block, so, he took pictures, had the pictures and a statement notorized, and put it in his safe. It was a BATF frame, and, they said the gun was chopped to 16". He brought out his evidence, and, there was one VERY mad Federal judge, who threw the case out.
Recently the BATF came up in Congress, and, their actions did not reflect well on their position as a Federal Agency.
Hopefully, Congress will cut their budget again, which is what stopped the 3rd party liability harassment in our restaurant.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I do not see where that is real evidence of anything. It all seems like "tales" passed from friend to friend. What was the case information for your friend?
Why would you ever serve alcohol to a young, pretty girl without asking for ID in the first place? That is not a conspiracy, that is the law.
I have no problems with this as every law agency I know of does this exact thing and have several friends who run bars get busted exactly for that except rather than a playnoy bunny, which I have never heard of being used, they usually offer a plea deal to an 18 year old stoned out of their mind an it works.
My cousin was the manager of a Winn-Dixie and when they first started opening on Sunday the second Sunday they were open the first customer through was a ABC agent who threw a six-pack on the counter and the girl rang him up.
My neighbor plopped a six pack on the counter one day and the girl siad I need to see some ID. My neighbor said, "Honey I could hug you, today is ny 40th birthday". She did look young.
They can always do like one fellow I know of that wrote them a check for his fine and then stopped payment on the check. That didn't go over too well.
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
Please keep the discussion on topic. 
We're trying to concentrate on the "F", not the "A" in this thread.
We're trying to concentrate on the "F", not the "A" in this thread.
Well, in the current climate, with constant audits and harassment of local gunshops, by the BATF, and the state of Kali, I'm not posting my friends' case. Retaliation is a VERY real part of this government agency.
Open your bar, and see what it's like. Or better, get your FFL...
You see in my time, some of felt it was a bit strange that folks could be drafted at 18 but, couldn't buy a beer until 3 years later...
Open your bar, and see what it's like. Or better, get your FFL...
You see in my time, some of felt it was a bit strange that folks could be drafted at 18 but, couldn't buy a beer until 3 years later...
The BATF, and anyone associated with firearms enforcement in said agency, can rot in hell. They are waging war on the Constitution and are far worse enemies of this country than Osama Bin Laden could ever hope to be. I hope every single one of them meets a violent, painful death.
Equally sickening is to see American gun owners defending these sorts of predations on their fellow American gun owners. Obviously such people are suffering from Stockholm syndrome, sucking up to and admiring those who are holding them in a state of subjugation. It's EXACTLY like the Loyalists during the time of the American Revolution.
USGov: "We can own full-auto weapons, but you can't. Do as we say, not as we do. There's one standard for us, and another standard for you."
Gunowners: "Yes, sir! That's the way it should be! We bow to your authority!"
Even if that guy had deliberately altered his weapon -- and everything I've heard says it was merely malfunctioning, which is far from unheard of in semi-auto guns -- the REAL law of this land is that full-auto weapons are protected by the Second Amendment. All handheld firearms are so protected for the reason that ultimate power in the American system of government is held by the People. They are there so we can fight for our freedom.
"Oh," you say, "but we have our military to defend our freedom." Really? Well, when is our standing army going to take out the BATF?
Equally sickening is to see American gun owners defending these sorts of predations on their fellow American gun owners. Obviously such people are suffering from Stockholm syndrome, sucking up to and admiring those who are holding them in a state of subjugation. It's EXACTLY like the Loyalists during the time of the American Revolution.
USGov: "We can own full-auto weapons, but you can't. Do as we say, not as we do. There's one standard for us, and another standard for you."
Gunowners: "Yes, sir! That's the way it should be! We bow to your authority!"
Even if that guy had deliberately altered his weapon -- and everything I've heard says it was merely malfunctioning, which is far from unheard of in semi-auto guns -- the REAL law of this land is that full-auto weapons are protected by the Second Amendment. All handheld firearms are so protected for the reason that ultimate power in the American system of government is held by the People. They are there so we can fight for our freedom.
"Oh," you say, "but we have our military to defend our freedom." Really? Well, when is our standing army going to take out the BATF?
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Post #47 borders on threatening government officials and is in very poor taste. It really reflects poorly on gun owners as a whole.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
You don't see where that could be seen as threatening and in poor taste?
Just who do you think the people that are holding these automatic weapons in the military are??? They are citizens. You can hold one too...as could any citizen if they have the balls to join up. This absurd notion that soldiers and LEO's are somehow separate from us is ridiculous.
If that is how we interpret Scalia, then his stipulation of a "common usage" requirement is silly. The obvious reason is that probably every AR-15 in civilian hands today would be an M16 if not for the unconstitutional regulations that prevent it. The argument amounts to saying that it's constitutional to regulate M16s because there are already onerous laws on the books regulating M16s.Musketeer said:
----------------
I have to wonder: If the Supreme Court had ruled that individual citizens had no right to own any firearms here, would people here just say, "Oh well, that's that," and turn in their guns when told to do so? After all, we're all good law-abiding subjects who do whatever our masters command, right?
I always thought the right of a people to government by consent of the governed (inextricably tied to the possession of arms) was God-given (or natural, if you prefer). When did the Supreme Court become God?
Threatening? No. Saying you hope something violent happens to someone is not a threat. Saying you're going to commit violence against someone is a threat.Playboypenguin said:
As far as "poor taste," I'll tell you what I think is in poor taste: Defending the enemies of the Bill of Rights.
Sure, I can hold one as long as I agree to ONLY use it in service to the Almighty State -- i.e., to do as commanded by the government.
Yeah, it's really absurd. Tell that to the people who had their arms confiscated from them by soldiers (National Guard) and cops -- probably carrying automatic weapons -- after Katrina.
Gun control laws always make exceptions for LE and the military, and there's a reason for that: such laws are there to ensure that the citizenry does not act as a final check on government power, even though that is what our Founders intended.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Who do you think gave you the rights you enjoy while living in this country? The government, of the people and for the people, did. They did not spontaneously happen. If you think they did go live in the middle east and try to spout that belief.
If you hate the government so much, it is a free country...leave.
Stagger Lee
New member
So how's the weather on your planet? Here on Earth, in America, BATFE is quite supportive of businesses under it's jurisdiction that obey the laws--the vast majority of such businesses. The only ones that they try to put out of business are the repeat violators, and of course the criminal element, most of whom do not own actual businesses but still invlove themselves with firearms, illegal alcohol, untaxed cigarettes and the like. THAT'S what BATFE does, and the compliance checks that they do on licensed businesses are few and far from intrusive.
And I call BS on this one without reservation. of course you can put me in my place in a heartbeat by just giving us the court docket number so that we can all see that a federal judge dismissed a case against your friend and why.
The "criminals" who rebelled against the British during the American Revolution made this country what it is. But even they didn't give me my rights. My rights, like yours and everyone else's, are innate, even if government doesn't recognize them.
Basically, as long as someone isn't harming or recklessly endangering others or their property, and as long as he isn't disrupting other people's right to a functioning society, he has the right to do as he pleases.
The worst thing a repressive government can do to you is take your life, which you will one day lose anyway to old age, disease, etc. If I lived in the Middle East, I'd still speak my mind, even if it got me killed.
I've thought about leaving, but that's far from a trivial task. It involves leaving family and friends behind, possibly learning a new language, finding a new job, etc.
Besides, why should I have to leave? This country belongs to dissenters just as much as to those who see everything in it through rose-colored glasses. No, I think I'll stay here and do my part, however small in the grand scheme of things, to fix America. Because this country was founded for people who love freedom more than life itself, and I'm such a person. I don't equate "my country" with "my government."
That's really all I have to say about it.
Last edited:
Stagger Lee
New member
I also back PlayboyPenguin 100%. I think that the poster who calls himself "Steelcore" is engaging in threatening and seditious behavior and it's posters like that which cause me to steer clear of many other gun forums. I only want to associate with good Americans and not psychos or future Tim McVeighs who delude themselves into thinking that they are the victim of some massive government conspiracy because they and only they actually understand the Bill of Rights. Fact is, I know several BATFE agents and I'd much rather associate any of them than you--and I've never even met you--because they're doing their part to take down criminals and risking their lives for the safety of the rest of us while you're just spewing bile on the internet.
Steelcore, I also suggest that if you want to be a macho man and run around with machine guns, you do as many of us have done and enlist. Then you wouldn't have to try to talk the talk the internet--you could actually walk the walk. And maybe a few years of actually giving something back to this great country alongside some real patriotic men and women would change your point of view.
Steelcore, I also suggest that if you want to be a macho man and run around with machine guns, you do as many of us have done and enlist. Then you wouldn't have to try to talk the talk the internet--you could actually walk the walk. And maybe a few years of actually giving something back to this great country alongside some real patriotic men and women would change your point of view.
I'm not the ONLY one who understands the Bill of Rights, but I most certainly DO understand it.
And there's no "government conspiracy" in regards to stealing our rights; there's no need for one. Why would the government need to conspire when the overwhelming majority of Americans are eager to obey the slightest nod of their masters?
Yes, I feel so much safer now that this family man Olofson doesn't have a burst setting on his AR-15 (if he even had that).
I am not the least bit afraid of people who have unregistered NFA weapons. They are no more of a danger to me than some gangbanger with a .38 revolver, and probably less so. It isn't the weapon that makes a murderer or a psychopath, it's the person who holds the weapon.
There's nothing "macho" about running around with machine guns. Being a real man, in my view, is about nothing more than thinking for yourself and standing up for what you believe in. Your views may differ, but those are mine.
And why the hell would I want to join the military now (even if I were young enough)? It's not being used to defend America (except via the deterrent to foreign aggression presented by our nukes, air power, etc.), and it sure as hell isn't being used to "defend freedom." Those unfortunate souls are being taken advantage of in order to redraw the Middle East to neocon/Israel-firster specifications. (Read some PNAC papers from the 90s if you doubt that.)
The real enemies of our freedom -- in fact, the ONLY enemies of our freedom -- are those who write, enforce, and support laws that place the government and its enforcers on a pedestal above the rest of the population.
As far as talking the talk versus walking the walk -- well, I have little doubt that one day there will be widespread gun confiscations in America, with the military probably participating (just like after Katrina) if there is any disobedience. When that day comes, we'll see which people man up and which people surrender.
Last edited:
CGSteve8718
New member
Victimless crime. Arbitrary law. Period.
Yes, I did enlist and got to play with machine guns and select fire rifles, but that's not the point.
Yes, I did enlist and got to play with machine guns and select fire rifles, but that's not the point.
Let's accept that for the sake of argument.
So what? Is there some law or legal precedent indicating that arbitrary laws are not enforceable or that victimless crimes may not be prosecuted? Just for fun, let's open it wide and accept ANY verifiable laws or precedents for ANY known country or civilization, past or present.
But isn't the argument you're making here essentially reducible to "might makes right"?JohnKSa said:
Just because governments can write and enforce certain laws, does that mean they are always morally correct in doing so? Or is morality only determined by the will of those in power? Was slavery in America moral when it was legal and when abolitionist John Brown was considered a criminal for defending the rights of human beings? How about when German "criminals" hid Jews in attics and basements during the Nazi years? With all due respect, these are questions that you should really consider carefully.
To address your question more directly: not only can arbitrary laws be enforced and victimless crimes be prosecuted, but so can downright tyrannical laws (which are arguably the same thing). And this state of affairs has existed throughout history. There has never been a shortage of power-hungry people eager to write such laws, nor a lack of people willing to enforce any law in exchange for a paycheck, a sense of personal power that comes from being attached to the "big machine," etc. For that reason, a lot of history has played out as a series of conflicts between people who felt the need to dominate others and people who just wanted to be left alone.