When Defending Cops Becomes Impossible

[Ivanhoe]

3 hours ago, R011 said:

What's wrong with that?  They might actually look for criminal gun dealers rather than concentrating on whether legitimate ones have their paperwork in order.

How about prosecuting felons for gun possession?

Local and state LE routinely arrest folks with multiple felony convictions, and find a gun in their home or car. That's a felony. ATF never seems to show up for that. Slapping 5 federal on top of state sentences would make the US a much safer place, which is why they don't do it, I guess.

Federal LE needs violent crime to excuse un-Constitutional crackdowns on People That Feds Don't Like.

[Stargrunt6]

6 minutes ago, R011 said:

DOGE might consider whether consolidating the plethora of Federal law enforcement agencies might be a good idea.  BATFE, FBI, DEA, USSS, Dept of Education SWAT . . .

We should just have the Marshalls and the Secret Service.

[R011]

17 minutes ago, Stargrunt6 said:

We should just have the Marshalls and the Secret Service.

I suspect you need more than chasing fugitives, guarding courthouses, and chasing counterfeiters.

[Stargrunt6]

11 minutes ago, R011 said:

I suspect you need more than chasing fugitives, guarding courthouses, and chasing counterfeiters.

...

I'm implying you disband the FBI and fold over their duties to the SS. 

[R011]

1 hour ago, Stargrunt6 said:

...

I'm implying you disband the FBI and fold over their duties to the SS. 

They don't seem to be any better.  Nor do they have the FBI''s expertise lin several areas, like national crime stats and forensics.  At any rate, an amalgamated federal police service won't really resemble any of its parent agencies.

[PaulFormerlyinSaudi]

10 hours ago, R011 said:

What's wrong with that?  They might actually look for criminal gun dealers rather than concentrating on whether legitimate ones have their paperwork in order.

Well, gun-rights people are able to closely monitor the personnel and policies of the ATF. The FBI is much larger and would be less-carefully supervised. 

I would prefer not to have one huge national police force, YMMV. 

 

[rmgill]

4 hours ago, PaulFormerlyinSaudi said:

Well, gun-rights people are able to closely monitor the personnel and policies of the ATF. The FBis much larger and would be less-carefully supervised. 

No, we're not. The ATF has made a habit of charging people for NFA violations when they in fact had NFA paperwork correct. They've admitted such but will not do so in court. 

They will charge people with NFA violatiosn for broken guns and lie in court about the technical details. They'll charge someone with an NFA violation for a rifle with a broken firing pin, and which is slam firing (dangerous in a 7.62mm rifle). The technical inspection of the firearm by the ATF agent was to simply fire the gun and when it doubled deemed it as a machine gun. No furhter inspection of determination was made. 

OR they'll take a receiver that is partially assembled, fix it to a bench with a vice, attach other parts to it with chains and other components, make it fire one time and then deem it a firearm and functional AND an NFA violation. 

OR they'll vindictively pursue action against a technical expert who screws their case in court and seize their property under the auspices of an arrest and effectively commit theft. 

Or they'll inspect an FFL and find a mistake and then attempt to strip their license for missing paperwork. But if the ATF makes an error in paperwork, like losing their briefcase after an inspection, just delays any of the paperwork for more than 2 months for an FFL address relocation. 

Or, they'll bring out experts on firearms who can't even disassemble a firearm on camera but still assert expertise in that class of firearm. 

The ATF is full of criminal agents who break the law, are incompetent and violate the constitution as a matter of routine. 
 

4 hours ago, PaulFormerlyinSaudi said:

I would prefer not to have one huge national police force, YMMV. 

Instead we have what, 30? 

[Murph]

Not all cities, just the sh*tholes.  

[Murph]

15 hours ago, R011 said:

What's wrong with that?  They might actually look for criminal gun dealers rather than concentrating on whether legitimate ones have their paperwork in order.

+100, yes this!

[Murph]

On 3/3/2025 at 9:06 AM, rmgill said:

Dallas, Fort Worth and Miami seem to be run ok. Republican mayors. 

No, I DO have a problem with how democrats run cities. 

I think we need to explore your ability to logic. 

 

He has to hide, obfuscate, and deny, he has gotten the NARRATIVE.

[Murph]

12 hours ago, R011 said:

DOGE might consider whether consolidating the plethora of Federal law enforcement agencies might be a good idea.  BATFE, FBI, DEA, USSS, Dept of Education SWAT . . .

And every single one of them has a SWAT team.  WTF?  Why does the Agriculture Department need a SWAT team?  Armed carrots?  Federal Law enforcement needs to spend their first five years learning to be cops by handling the crap that real cops have to deal with.

[rmgill]

They don't. But when sweet Anti Terrorism money was shotgunned all over the federal budget, every agency got a SWAT team or more. 

Now, to a point, the Department of AG does need some degree of law enforcement capabilities. A friend of mine works for them and has to deal with dufuses who, for example capture feral hogs, transport them over state lines and get them butchered and markets them as farm raised. If such miscreants are found and arrested, he needs law enforcement powers for such, but it would probably be workable to avail one's self of local, state and federal sister agencies to assist in much the same way that the DEA does when working up state and local task force agents. 

[Murph]

33 minutes ago, rmgill said:

They don't. But when sweet Anti Terrorism money was shotgunned all over the federal budget, every agency got a SWAT team or more. 

Now, to a point, the Department of AG does need some degree of law enforcement capabilities. A friend of mine works for them and has to deal with dufuses who, for example capture feral hogs, transport them over state lines and get them butchered and markets them as farm raised. If such miscreants are found and arrested, he needs law enforcement powers for such, but it would probably be workable to avail one's self of local, state and federal sister agencies to assist in much the same way that the DEA does when working up state and local task force agents. 

No argument there, but I cannot see why they need a SWAT team, actually multiple SWAT teams.  

[rmgill]

Neither do I. 

[PaulFormerlyinSaudi]

7 hours ago, Murph said:

Not all cities, just the sh*tholes.  

Which cities do you like? Are they "Democrat-led?" 

[rmgill]

Does San Francisco count as well run to you Paul? 

[Stargrunt6]

2 hours ago, PaulFormerlyinSaudi said:

Which cities do you like? Are they "Democrat-led?" 

Every single city is democrat-run?

Or are you just going to limit the definition to megalopolises?

I do like Baton Rouge. I'm about to like it more.

https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/elections/baton-rouge-mayor-president-results/article_bd12b4f0-b354-11ef-ae0e-0332dd0cfc5a.html

 

[Murph]

Other than these overgrown cities like San Antonio Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, real people live somewhere other than the sh*t holes.

[Ivanhoe]

2 hours ago, rmgill said:

Does San Francisco count as well run to you Paul? 

Well, there are free needles for the picking, as well as free fertilizer for your garden.

[PaulFormerlyinSaudi]

16 hours ago, Stargrunt6 said:

Every single city is democrat-run?

I think you can educate us both. Try to make a list from (let's say) the 100 most-populated US cities. Show us the ones that have a Republican mayor and city council. I am willing to guess you might find one or two, but that would be about it. 

I think people complain about "Democratic cities" when they are just trying not to say they hate American cities. 

So I challenge you. Humiliate me. Show us how wrong I am by giving us a list of reasonably-sized US cities controlled by the Republicans. 

I bet you can't. 

 

 

[PaulFormerlyinSaudi]

16 hours ago, Murph said:

Other than these overgrown cities like San Antonio Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, real people live somewhere other than the sh*t holes.

More than 80% of Americans live in cities and urban areas. -=Cite=-

Would you say the vast majority of American are not real people? 

 

[Murph]

Only the democrat elites.  

[Stargrunt6]

2 hours ago, PaulFormerlyinSaudi said:

I think you can educate us both. Try to make a list from (let's say) the 100 most-populated US cities. Show us the ones that have a Republican mayor and city council. I am willing to guess you might find one or two, but that would be about it. 

I think people complain about "Democratic cities" when they are just trying not to say they hate American cities. 

So I challenge you. Humiliate me. Show us how wrong I am by giving us a list of reasonably-sized US cities controlled by the Republicans. 

I bet you can't. 

 

 

You didn't specify.

Even with that metric, that's a lot of "nice place to visit, wouldn't want to live there"'s.

 

[Mr King]

The majority of Democrat cities are shitholes where anarcho tyranny is the law of the land. The bigger they are and the more minorities they are home to, the more that holds true.

 

 

 

Edited March 5, 2025 by Mr King

[Stargrunt6]

13 minutes ago, Mr King said:

The majority of Democrat cities are shitholes where anarcho tyranny is the law of the land. The bigger they are and the more minorities they are home to, the more that holds true.

 

 

 

*checks me home town*

Yup, that's about right.

When shopping for a townhome, my realtor asked me if I was interested in something in Orleans parish. 

My response, thusly:

Before anyone says I'm being harsh