Outrage in Richmond VA

Status
Not open for further replies.
That has application how?

Buzz,

Thank you. I could not have asked for a better set-up.

The comparison is all too accurate. The monsters (invaders) in TMADOMS were real. So is the BATFE (please, I am not calling the BATFE monsters, others can do that). But both caused something to happen.

The prejudice refers not to the actions of the invaders/BATFE but rather to the confused, frenzied reactions of the residents of Maple St/THR members and the ease with which both groups seemed to turn on one another.

Something happened at Richmond. Only a very few people seemd to be privy to the actions there. They sounded the alarm. Others asked what happened, asked for more facts. A few replies came out, "Why do you need more facts, we are telling you something bad happened, don't try to understand it, just jump on our bandwagon RIGHT NOW OR ELSE YOU ARE A PART OF THE PROBLEM!".

It seemed like those people who wanted to know more genuinely irritated others who just "knew".

So what happened? We have some 200 posts on this thread and I'll bet over half of them are angry messages to one another about relatively trivial matters that have not helped resolve the actual problem.

It takes calm heads to analyze the problem and develop a reasoned and effective response. And people who are willing to work with one another, not cast angry accusations.

That's why this whoe thread made me think of this old Twilight Zone story and the truth of the story.

Thanks for the chance to explain.
 
FPrice, thank you for the opportunity as well. You see, the instant reaction was largely contained within the side of ATFE apologists. It's opponents, if you will, were willing to believe a trusted and effective organization in the light of ATFE's history of abuses of civil rights. The lack of trust is ATFE's responsibility, not ours.

On the other hand, ATFE apologists seemed more interested in debunking the story or suggesting it had no credibility unless it came from the mass media. Based on the same evidence, they were saying to disbelieve, rather than to believe. If one is prejudice, is not the other an indicator of prejudice?

Now the tide has turned and the apologists are saying it's not as bad as it looks, or it's acceptable, or . . . they've shut up and gone away.
 
Once upon a time in a universe far, far away I got involved in political advocacy over an issue near and dear to my heart. As the situation was presented to me I had no alternative but to wade hip deep into the political process. What I was reacting to was an immediate danger to me and my family and I was not about to stand by and do nothing.

Or so I thought.

As I worked my way through the halls of a state legislature and through the news rooms of various daily papers I was repeated admonished to make sure I fully understood what I was reacting to. Being young and stooped I forged on ignoring free advice. Well one day I had lunch with a grizzled reporter (female) who took the time to demonstrate to me via chapter and verse how to research the particular issue was was reacting to. I took her advice and laid off the contacts and went to the library.

Bottom line? I was being used by an organization. I looked like an organ grinder monkey with all my hopping up and down and breathless warning of approaching doom. It was all a lie and I was being used.

Since that day I have refused to get excited about an issue until a fact level switch inside me trips. The facts have to reach a level before I get excited or begin to act. Never again will I be used by organizations regardless of how noble the cause.

Now to the Richmond event, something happened. It deserves action should it really happened. Am I ready to start the organ grinder monkey routine? Nope, not until I see verification of the facts. I further more want to see someone go on record and say flat out they were approached at home by LE and asked if the knew BillyBob was to the gun show buyin' guns.
 
WHOSE "real world?"

KLR declares:

"In the real world, LE (generally) makes a distinction between an interview and an interrogation."

How wonderful for LEO's like yourself (apparently).

"In the real world," having state troopers and / or BATmen suddenly appear on your doorstep and asking if you knew your spouse/relation/neighbor was acquiring firearms is NOT the equivalent of one's next-door neigbhor asking to borrow a cup of sugar.

"In the real world," the citizen so confronted might well feel intimidated, your rationalizations notwithstanding. :scrutiny:
 
Bottom line? I was being used by an organization. I looked like an organ grinder monkey with all my hopping up and down and breathless warning of approaching doom. It was all a lie and I was being used.
Much like Ms. Sheehan is being used in Texas today.
 
Response from NRA

Below is the response I received to my inquiry to the NRA. Several others have received a similar response. So, I guess everything is OK now?!?!

I want to know if any laws were indeed broken (some say yes, others no), and if so - who is being held accountable and how? If we break the law, we go to prison. ***?

This seems like a pretty lame response from the NRA. Are they afraid of the BATFE?


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.

Sincerely,

Amanda Millward
 
This seems like a pretty lame response from the NRA. Are they afraid of the BATFE?
I don't read it that way. They have accomplished what was in their area. Other organizations are taking care of making sure that there is an investigation into who should be spanked. Hopefull, the NRA won't go stomping in late to the party and mess up plan (as they have been known to do on occasion (e.g., DC lawsuit)).
 
I know this sounds like conspiracy-speak - but this all smells like a coverup to me. I looked on the NRA's page and don't even see a reference to this - but the Nelson County Shooting Range has a big story.

Lame response form the NRA. No mainstream media coverage. Hell, no local media coverage from I gather.
 
I don't get it.

On the other hand, ATFE apologists seemed more interested in debunking the story or suggesting it had no credibility unless it came from the mass media.
If your own curiosity causes you to ask for more sources to corroborate a story, you're automatically an ATFE apologist? Nice. :scrutiny:
 
Gewehr98...

If your own curiosity causes you to ask for more sources to corroborate a story, you're automatically an ATFE apologist? Nice.

Yeah, you facist, BATFE-lovin', AF types are all alike!

:neener:

NOTE: This was a gentle joke directed at a good friend of mine and is not meant to be taken seriously by conspiracy theorists, small children, or puppies.
NOTE OFF.
 
If your own curiosity causes you to ask for more sources to corroborate a story, you're automatically an ATFE apologist? Nice.

Nice strawman. Please show me where I argued everyone asking for sources was an apologist. A lot of us wanted additional sources, or made our comments contingent on this occurring. But suggesting that you wouldn't believe something like this unless it came from the mass media? Saying that we are hypocrites for believing VDCL (a group with a track record superior to the media) and comparing it to anti-gun groups (with a decidely inferior record for truthfullness)? And now, trying to explain something things away? Those go along way past the "tell us more" stage.
 
This is nothing new.

From the NRA.

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

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.

It is just a paraphrasing of the original alert.

How many sources do we really have for the "facts"?

We have the VCDL alert that sites un-named individuals.

We have Mr. Lalime, who states he was detained.

We have Ms. Gelles, who states there was an increased police presence.

Are there others? If so, and they aren't people just quoting these three sources, please list them.

I don't know what happened, I want to know. If all, or even some, of the alleged illegalities took place we need to get organized and put up a united front.

Until we are sure of what happened and who did what, and why, we need to be cautious. If we start a righteous protestation of something that is not completely true, it makes us look like idiots.

If we gather the facts, not the rhetoric or ego driven beliefs of what must have happened, but the facts of what really did happen, we can be more effective in making sure it doesn't happen again.

One of the things that bothers me the most is that the only person willing to be cited as a source is Mr. Lalime. Yes, Ms. Gelles said there was an increased presence at the show, but Mr. Lalime is the only one who has come out and allowed his name to be used to testify to real abuse.

Where are the citizens who were approached? Where are the statements from the neighbors and spouses? Where is even one statement from one of the 400+ LEO's who were involved? Surely you aren't suggesting that they are all JBT's who want to take citizens rights away.

Almost all of the follow up reports have been rehashes of the VCDL alert. The CNS story was basically the same. The packing.org posting was the alert. The NRA statement is nothing new, the same information was contained in the alert and came from the people involved in putting on the gun show.

So basically what it comes down to is that something happened. We are being asked to act/react/believe based on the reports that cite un-named people. All of the information we have, comes from 3 sources; the VCDL alert (which cites un-named individuals), Mr. Lalime (who was accosted by BATFE people) and Ms. Gelles (who has a financial stake, being one of the promoters). NO, I am not saying that any of these people is not being 100% honest and candid.

Every time some source reprints or quotes from the original alert, the cry goes out, "There's your proof". I'm sorry, simply repeating something does not make it the truth.

This happened almost 2 weeks ago, the first VCDL alert came out a week ago, there has been no new information in all that time.

Why?

We keep getting promises of "more to come", "I"ll let you know as things develope" and such, but we have really heard nothing new.

Why?

I am saying that we need to be sure of the facts before we mount a national campaign to put a stop to something when we aren't exactly sure of what happened. It would appear that the man in charge of VCDL is being cautious and not releasing anymore info, until he is sure of it, this is a good thing and very responsible.

Again, I don't know what happened.

I have a problem believing in a cause that is mainly mounted on the word of un-named individuals.

Please, if you have any other sources, not the VCDL alert or Mr. Lalime's account or Ms. Gelles account, please post them.

The thing that is most upsetting about this is the rift that seems to have developed between people who believe in the RKBA.

Just because someone wants to be sure of what happened in order to form an appropriate response, does not make them the enemy.

Just because someone wants to react right now, before all the facts are in, doesn't make them the enemy.

We are all on the same side here. We are just approaching this from different perspectives and experience levels.

DM
 
How many sources do we really have for the "facts"?

Do you really think the BATFE will come out with a press release? Do you really think the national media will pick this up? Aint gonna happen. The BATFE is not going to confirm or deny this, and will stay as far away from this as they can. Which should not come as a surprise, its SOP for the BATFE.
 
"Where are the citizens who were approached?"

I hope they're meeting with their lawyers. Do you want them to give you a day by day account of their actions and plans? Not eveyone wants to live their life in the on-line public eye.

"We keep getting promises of "more to come", "I"ll let you know as things develope" and such, but we have really heard nothing new.

Why?"

Because it's not about us, it's about them - they're the ones who were mistreated. I can only continue to suggest showing a little patience while decisions are made and actions taken.

John
 
Do you really think the BATFE will come out with a press release? Do you really think the national media will pick this up? Aint gonna happen. The BATFE is not going to confirm or deny this, and will stay as far away from this as they can. Which should not come as a surprise, its SOP for the BATFE.

So what you are saying is that we should believe whatever someone says someone else said without knowing who the original source is.

That is not the way I operate. I want to know who it is and what they are actually saying before I back them.

How many of you fell for the following? Be honest.

http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/airstrip.asp

http://www.snopes.com/autos/grace/sugar.asp this one was also busted on "Myth Busters" Yes I fell for this one too.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/clever/cigarson.asp Too bad, I have a couple hundred waiting for the torch.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/superbowl.asp

http://www.snopes.com/crime/justice/grambo.htm

and then there is this one that "ALL" of us "KNOW" is true.

http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/wild.asp#wild

So, I hope you don't mind if I would like a little more than "He said, they said" as evidence.

DM

P.S. I hope you get some humor out of the links, they were chosen for no particular reason. I think the last one is something that almost everyone believes to actually happen. (Oh, no, Walt Disney faked a wildlife sequence, Who are we to trust?)
 
JohnBT,

Because it's not about us, it's about them - they're the ones who were mistreated.

No, so far all we know is that they are the ones that someone else says were mistreated.

I can only continue to suggest showing a little patience while decisions are made and actions taken.


Isn't that the point I made in the post you just referrenced?

DM
 
Actually, be careful, Double Maduro...

Snopes isn't always the last word on things.

You pointed out this one:

http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/airstrip.asp

As somebody who's actually read, lived, and practiced the now-obsolete Strategic Air Command SIOP (Single Integrated Ops Plan) portion regarding post-attack B-52 and KC-135 reconstitution, I assure you that the Interstates do indeed play a major part. ;)
 
Gewehr98,

Cool.

It only points out that we should not believe everything we read on the internet.

Man I sure wouldn't want to have to land a B52 on a freeway, or have to dodge one either :eek: .

DM
 
Landing the BUFF wasn't the bitch.

It was the decontamination, maintenance/damage control, refueling, re-arming, crew swapping, and re-sortie turnaround on that same stretch of interstate that was painful. It all had to be done in a minimum amount of time to prevent being targeted and taken out like the B-52 and KC-135 airbases in the first place.
 
I'm a bit disturbed that there has been no further official explanation of what went on by the BATF. They have had a couple of weeks to explain themselves. Maybe a FOIA request should be arriving at their offices?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top