cropcirclewalker
member
I don't know if I want to believe all this snopes stuff. Maybe if we could get some corroboration by the Managed Media? 
Outrage in Richmond VA
- Thread starter Leatherneck
- Start date
- Status
Waitone
Member
Which explains stretches of interstate that are far bigger and robust than the traffic would justify. I have in my mind's eye I-85 North between Lexington, NC and Greensboro, NC a distance of about 30 miles. Not many bridges over the road but a few under the road. 3 lanes in both directions. And my personal favorite, concrete construction waaay out in the sticks and little traffic. I always thought some industrious politician bought the construction due to political favoritism but is suppose the reason is defense.
Quote:
However, BATFE has acknowledged that its presence at this show was excessive and counterproductive.
In particular, BATFE has stated that it will no longer coordinate or conduct the type of wholesale, highly intrusive "residency verifications" that took place in connection with the Richmond show.
From the original VCDL alert
Quote:
Steve and Annette were told by the BATFE in DC that BATFE would no longer be sending officers to people's houses who were purchasing a
firearm and that what happened in Richmond should not have happened.
AND THEY SHOULD FIRE THE BOZO WHO ORDERED/PLANNED THE OPERATION.
However, BATFE has acknowledged that its presence at this show was excessive and counterproductive.
In particular, BATFE has stated that it will no longer coordinate or conduct the type of wholesale, highly intrusive "residency verifications" that took place in connection with the Richmond show.
From the original VCDL alert
Quote:
Steve and Annette were told by the BATFE in DC that BATFE would no longer be sending officers to people's houses who were purchasing a
firearm and that what happened in Richmond should not have happened.
AND THEY SHOULD FIRE THE BOZO WHO ORDERED/PLANNED THE OPERATION.
Let's go forward
Ok here is what we have to date.
1. Ms Gelles, promoter, states that there was excessive police presence at the Richmond show. It is difficult to tell how many state police are ever at the Richmond show as the common communications center is set up by state police employees hired by Ms. Gelles. I have noticed many county / state police officers in uniform at the Richmond show and most seem to be there to socialize with others in the communications center. I for one believe Ms Giles. Let’s get a freedom of information request in to the Richmond City, Henrico County and State police as to why they were there in the number of greater than 400. Remember they were NOT there to investigate a crime, no crime had taken place. They were there on patrol so there should be no reason not to release this information.
2. Mr. Lalime was the only one detained / interrogated. I believe that he was detained. That is one [1] out of four thousand [4,000] attendees. That is 0.00025% of attendees. Is that an excessive quantity? I do not know but the police would have that statistic. Again freedom of information act request on the detained / interrogated at Richmond shows.
3. VCDL is the only organization / person to claim that BATFE / local / state police visited homes and interrogated family members / neighbors about persons attending the Richmond show. All that is needed is a public statement from an attorney(s) representing some or all of these persons. The attorney(s) do not have to release their client’s names until they file for court action when it will then become a public record. Maybe VCDL should or could help these persons obtain appropriate legal counsel, good idea.
We go forward from here.
Ok here is what we have to date.
1. Ms Gelles, promoter, states that there was excessive police presence at the Richmond show. It is difficult to tell how many state police are ever at the Richmond show as the common communications center is set up by state police employees hired by Ms. Gelles. I have noticed many county / state police officers in uniform at the Richmond show and most seem to be there to socialize with others in the communications center. I for one believe Ms Giles. Let’s get a freedom of information request in to the Richmond City, Henrico County and State police as to why they were there in the number of greater than 400. Remember they were NOT there to investigate a crime, no crime had taken place. They were there on patrol so there should be no reason not to release this information.
2. Mr. Lalime was the only one detained / interrogated. I believe that he was detained. That is one [1] out of four thousand [4,000] attendees. That is 0.00025% of attendees. Is that an excessive quantity? I do not know but the police would have that statistic. Again freedom of information act request on the detained / interrogated at Richmond shows.
3. VCDL is the only organization / person to claim that BATFE / local / state police visited homes and interrogated family members / neighbors about persons attending the Richmond show. All that is needed is a public statement from an attorney(s) representing some or all of these persons. The attorney(s) do not have to release their client’s names until they file for court action when it will then become a public record. Maybe VCDL should or could help these persons obtain appropriate legal counsel, good idea.
We go forward from here.
FPrice
Member
And your point is?
The Air Force started life as the Army Air Corps. Army Air Corps. As authorized under the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12.
The Air Force became a separate service under the National Security Act of 1947 and Executive Order 9877. As authorized by the Constitution. Article 1. Section 8. Clause 18.
"Off we go, into the Wild Blue Yonder...."
F Price,
USAF
1967-2005
mmike87
Member
Not true - I received an E-mail in response to my inquiry with the NRA-ILA and they confirmed that the incidents in question had indeed occured.
Thank you for your inquiry concerning the activities of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) at a recent gun show in Richmond, Virginia.
The show promoter and his attorneys have met with senior BATFE headquarters personnel to discuss this matter. Everyone involved agrees that BATFE attendance at gun shows can be legitimate both for investigating federal firearms violations and for educating dealers and the public about federal firearms laws. However, BATFE has acknowledged that its presence at this show was excessive and counterproductive.
In particular, BATFE has stated that it will no longer coordinate or conduct the type of wholesale, highly intrusive "residency verifications" that took place in connection with the Richmond show.
Please rest assured that the NRA will continue to examine problems with the enforcement of federal firearms laws as part of our ongoing efforts to protect Second Amendment rights.
KLR
Member
Frosty-
Deny him battle (on the Constitutional issue, I mean). You will feel better for it.
Deny him battle (on the Constitutional issue, I mean). You will feel better for it.
FPrice
Member
Klr...
I do not look upon myself as "denying". Instead I prefer to try to educate.
All within the Constitution of course.
I do not look upon myself as "denying". Instead I prefer to try to educate.
All within the Constitution of course.
KLR
Member
Truth be told: I kind of enjoyed the exchanges with Cropcirclewalker during the Drega thread. Just don't tell him I said that.
FPrice
Member
I did not pay much attention to that thread.
As found by Congress? Are you referring to the 1982 Report of the Subcommitte to the Constitution? If you are seriously presenting that document as proof of ATF abuses, you obviously haven't read it. Also, a subcommittee comprised of 5 members of Congress hardly can be considered to speak for the whole Legislature.
That particular document has been discussed here before: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=1020820&highlight=footnotes#post1020820
Ironically it was discussed on a thread about ATF doing a bust related to undercover work at gun shows.
So is that what you're talking about or do you having something else to hang that claim on?
Then there is this:
I never said ATF or any other LE wasn't working that gun show. I did however express skepticism that they did anything illegal, or immoral, and I'm certainly skeptical of the original claims of 400 LEOs working that event, although numbers are meaningless. The mere presence of LE does not indicate anything was done wrong. There has been nothing presented to corroborate the allegations of abuse. I still am VERY skeptical of the accounts presented.
Also, the tide isn't turning on anything. The same people are just being quoted over and over. Nothing new has been posted to corroborate any allegations of illegal acts by LE.
cropcirclewalker
member
I can see youse guys talking up there.
Like I said, I will not hijack a thread.
You wanna talk about the violation of art. 1 sec. 8 clause 12 and 18 of the constitution, start another thread.
I like to think I am educating too. even though many think I am a tin hatted conspiracy BS artist who has a small mind and all like that.
Like I said, I will not hijack a thread.
You wanna talk about the violation of art. 1 sec. 8 clause 12 and 18 of the constitution, start another thread.
I like to think I am educating too. even though many think I am a tin hatted conspiracy BS artist who has a small mind and all like that.
Yeah, I have access, just like you do:
www.google.com
www.findlaw.com
www.law.cornell.edu
www.atf.gov
www.usdoj.gov
Etc, Etc, Etc . . .
What makes me different from you is not who my employer is, but the fact I'm willing to actually do some research and get some facts, "and all like that."
JohnBT
Member
"So what you are saying is that we should believe whatever someone says someone else said without knowing who the original source is."
No, frankly I don't care what you believe. It's not about you. Take it for what it's worth.
I haven't been mislead by VCDL yet. That you can believe.
John
Member www.vcdl.org
NRA Endowment Member
P.S. - I'd refer you to a thread on GlockTalk, but I suppose you wouldn't believe it because it's secondhand info. It contains statements by a LEO in the Shennandoah Valley (that puts him generally in the area from Roanoke to Winchester) who has been in contact with an officer from over this way, maybe more than one, who has said that he'll tell him more face to face and only face to face because they've all been issued a gag order on the gun show. What does this prove? Nothing, but it's interesting.
No, frankly I don't care what you believe. It's not about you. Take it for what it's worth.
I haven't been mislead by VCDL yet. That you can believe.
John
Member www.vcdl.org
NRA Endowment Member
P.S. - I'd refer you to a thread on GlockTalk, but I suppose you wouldn't believe it because it's secondhand info. It contains statements by a LEO in the Shennandoah Valley (that puts him generally in the area from Roanoke to Winchester) who has been in contact with an officer from over this way, maybe more than one, who has said that he'll tell him more face to face and only face to face because they've all been issued a gag order on the gun show. What does this prove? Nothing, but it's interesting.
cropcirclewalker
member
Mr. DMF, this thread has
probably run it's course, there is another cleaner thread which I have just found so this one is likely to get clamped soon, (maybe that's yer mission) so I will get involved.
As you can see, I have been registered for a month longer than you. You, however, have likely 2.5 times as many posts.
I am self employed and a self confessed forum junkie. I can sit before my computer and type away, day or night, and there is nobody to look over my shoulder. I can contribute all that I can afford. I estimate 4 hours per day at least.
YOU,
with 250 percent more posts who works fer .gov are either sitting in front of a terminal with nothing to do or are hired to do it.
I like to think that I am a prolific poster. 4 hours per day (not just this forum).
I can type.
Based on those factors, it is reasonable for me to assume that you spend at least 10 hours per day sitting before the terminal. Thus I have to assume that you are employed by .gov as an internet moniter type.
I don't belong so I don't know what they would call your MOS, I only suspect that it exists.
Thus, I had to assume that you had access.
I don't belong to the KKK. I hear that at least 1/3 of the KKK members are FBI informants. Am I such a dullard to believe that .gov doesn't hire agent provocateurs (sp?) to cruise the forums? The gun forums?
Disclaim all you want, it is my considered opinion that you have access.
If this fiasco in Richmond was all a big mistake, I am fully confident that you would have posted the link proving it by now.
At no time during this post was I wearing your favored "Tin Hat".
probably run it's course, there is another cleaner thread which I have just found so this one is likely to get clamped soon, (maybe that's yer mission) so I will get involved.
As you can see, I have been registered for a month longer than you. You, however, have likely 2.5 times as many posts.
I am self employed and a self confessed forum junkie. I can sit before my computer and type away, day or night, and there is nobody to look over my shoulder. I can contribute all that I can afford. I estimate 4 hours per day at least.
YOU,
with 250 percent more posts who works fer .gov are either sitting in front of a terminal with nothing to do or are hired to do it.
I like to think that I am a prolific poster. 4 hours per day (not just this forum).
I can type.
Based on those factors, it is reasonable for me to assume that you spend at least 10 hours per day sitting before the terminal. Thus I have to assume that you are employed by .gov as an internet moniter type.
I don't belong so I don't know what they would call your MOS, I only suspect that it exists.
Thus, I had to assume that you had access.
I don't belong to the KKK. I hear that at least 1/3 of the KKK members are FBI informants. Am I such a dullard to believe that .gov doesn't hire agent provocateurs (sp?) to cruise the forums? The gun forums?
Disclaim all you want, it is my considered opinion that you have access.
If this fiasco in Richmond was all a big mistake, I am fully confident that you would have posted the link proving it by now.
At no time during this post was I wearing your favored "Tin Hat".
JohnBT
Member
Don't think it was 1947.
"Strictly speaking, the U.S. Army Air Corps was re-designated as the U.S. Army Air Forces in 1941. For perhaps traditional reasons or perhaps to distance it from the separated Air Force service stemming from 1947, the U.S. Army Air Forces of WWII are still often and affectionately referred to as the Army Air Corps.
- googled up at random
My father was in the Pacific from '42 on with the 13th Air Force/The Jungle Air Force on a bunch of little islands running generally in the direction of the Solomons to the Admiralty Islands, New Guinea, Morotai, and the Philippines.
John
"Strictly speaking, the U.S. Army Air Corps was re-designated as the U.S. Army Air Forces in 1941. For perhaps traditional reasons or perhaps to distance it from the separated Air Force service stemming from 1947, the U.S. Army Air Forces of WWII are still often and affectionately referred to as the Army Air Corps.
- googled up at random
My father was in the Pacific from '42 on with the 13th Air Force/The Jungle Air Force on a bunch of little islands running generally in the direction of the Solomons to the Admiralty Islands, New Guinea, Morotai, and the Philippines.
John
KLR
Member
From www.af.mil specifically: http://www.af.mil/history/milestones.asp?dec=1940&sd=01/01/1940&ed=12/31/1949
Edited because I forgot the most important part:
cropcirclewalker
member
Since this thread is probably circling the drain I will get into it.
I personally was a nasal elevator (sorry, naval avaitor). Even if the Army is/was the source of the "Air Force" according to article 1 section 8 clause 12 it shoud be in service for no longer than 2 years.
I am not trying to hurt youse guys in the Air Force. I love my country. I love my constitution.
I swore an oath to protect and defend my constitution which I still try to honor.
If you can look at article 1, section 8, clause 12 and tell me that it justifies a standing Army (which the founders held to be repugnant), I will be incredulous.
I have nothng against military service. I did it myself. Just please look at the constitution and justify for me the Air Force.
clause 18 only authorizes congress to pass laws in support of the first 17 clauses. Navy? Yes. Army? 2 years? Yes. Air Force? Sorry, Just like the BATFE and abortion, it's in the penumbra.
The operative tune shold be, "Anchors Aweigh"
I personally was a nasal elevator (sorry, naval avaitor). Even if the Army is/was the source of the "Air Force" according to article 1 section 8 clause 12 it shoud be in service for no longer than 2 years.
I am not trying to hurt youse guys in the Air Force. I love my country. I love my constitution.
I swore an oath to protect and defend my constitution which I still try to honor.
If you can look at article 1, section 8, clause 12 and tell me that it justifies a standing Army (which the founders held to be repugnant), I will be incredulous.
I have nothng against military service. I did it myself. Just please look at the constitution and justify for me the Air Force.
clause 18 only authorizes congress to pass laws in support of the first 17 clauses. Navy? Yes. Army? 2 years? Yes. Air Force? Sorry, Just like the BATFE and abortion, it's in the penumbra.
publius
Member
True that they hated standing armies, but the Constitution clearly makes them an option. It just ensures that Congress will have to vote to keep that army every two years.
Is the Air Force within the intent of maintaining a navy? I think certainly it is. I think that if you went back and told the Founders that we would be able to operate in the air, and in space, they would immediately authorize both.
BTW, the line between flying and floating is not always clear.
B
BeLikeTrey
Guest
Thanks for the flood in my inbox.
Sure wish people could've argued over IM or PM. Love getting 500 notifications of arguements in my inbox. Don't know how many people had to ask nicely to be recognized but I guess it wasn't enough.
Hope I can find a cleaner INFORMATIVE thread...
Sure wish people could've argued over IM or PM. Love getting 500 notifications of arguements in my inbox. Don't know how many people had to ask nicely to be recognized but I guess it wasn't enough.
Hope I can find a cleaner INFORMATIVE thread...
jefnvk
Member
Wow, I can't believe I just heard that.
I've been here two less months than you, and have 6 times your posts. What does that make me?
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Don't ask. You do not want to know.
cropcirclewalker
member
Mr. BeLikeTrey was lamenting the thread drift, and I was going to link him up with
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=153250
but when I went over there to copy the link, I see he is already there.
So.....
Art. 1, Section 4,Clause 2:
What the founders created and what we have now are 2 different things. Like Franklin said coming out of the convention hall when asked what kind of .gov they formed, "A republic, if you can keep it."
We haven't kept it.
The Navy has its own air component. The Navy has its own ground fighting component (usually called an army). The Navy has a constitutional authority to be provided and maintained. The Standing Army which we have now was never intended to happen. The Air Force, BATFE, all the other alphabet agencies and on and on are all in the penumbra.
It's not your fault. (well, anymore than it's all our faults)
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=153250
but when I went over there to copy the link, I see he is already there.
So.....
Art. 1, Section 4,Clause 2:
The date the founders told congress to meet makes it clear (to me, anyway) how much control the federal system was to have over the Sovereign States.
What the founders created and what we have now are 2 different things. Like Franklin said coming out of the convention hall when asked what kind of .gov they formed, "A republic, if you can keep it."
We haven't kept it.
The Navy has its own air component. The Navy has its own ground fighting component (usually called an army). The Navy has a constitutional authority to be provided and maintained. The Standing Army which we have now was never intended to happen. The Air Force, BATFE, all the other alphabet agencies and on and on are all in the penumbra.
It's not your fault. (well, anymore than it's all our faults)
FPrice
Member
JohnBT...
The operative words are "U.S. Army Air Forces".
It's kinda hard to be your own service when your name contains another service's name. And since the AF counts it's anniversaries from 1947, it's a good bet that my original post was correct.
YOU can buy the beers over this one!
The operative words are "U.S. Army Air Forces".
It's kinda hard to be your own service when your name contains another service's name. And since the AF counts it's anniversaries from 1947, it's a good bet that my original post was correct.
YOU can buy the beers over this one!
Carl N. Brown
Member
Finally reached the end of this....
I Finally reached the end of this thread and would like to drop
my two cents in the ante.
When I debated issues in Mensa newletters in the 1980s
I learned quickly to get at least three corroborating sources
independent of each other (not three quotes of one source),
preferrably with different points of view, to get an accurate
and irrefutable picture. Otherwise I got my hide nailed to the
wall by some PhD.
Half or more of what I read were people jumping to conclusions
either anti jack booted storm trooper or defensive of law
enforcement (blue wall of silent solidarity stuff). At least a
few people tried to verify who did what when.
I still would like to know not only what happened but why.
We need to keep asking questions of authority, not throwing
accusations at each other or going off half cocked.
I Finally reached the end of this thread and would like to drop
my two cents in the ante.
When I debated issues in Mensa newletters in the 1980s
I learned quickly to get at least three corroborating sources
independent of each other (not three quotes of one source),
preferrably with different points of view, to get an accurate
and irrefutable picture. Otherwise I got my hide nailed to the
wall by some PhD.
Half or more of what I read were people jumping to conclusions
either anti jack booted storm trooper or defensive of law
enforcement (blue wall of silent solidarity stuff). At least a
few people tried to verify who did what when.
I still would like to know not only what happened but why.
We need to keep asking questions of authority, not throwing
accusations at each other or going off half cocked.
- Status