FBI raids (living in, better, options)

[marmac]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

While possibly true, how much time does he really have to micromanage the FBI?

I highly doubt the FBI would do these raids, that are gonna rattle the left wing of the Democrat party, w/o informing Obama in a briefing.

I highly doubt Obama allows the FBI to operate as rogue agents.

[audadvnc]

Originally Posted by marmac

I highly doubt Obama allows the FBI to operate as rogue agents.

Agreed. And sometimes the Fed is valid in its concerns. I remember once, about 1980, going to an Irish pub on Grand Ave in St. Paul (IIRC its name was "The Black Hand"), where good Irish musicians would play tearful ballads about past IRA martyrs - then the bar would pass collection pitchers around the packed (and liquored up) audience to contribute money for "our boys in Ireland" - i.e. funds for IRA guns and explosives.

Nowadays that kind of action would call down the Feds in short order.

[Ghengis]

Evidently some of the agents have not been applyiing themselves to their studies of what is permissable when carrying out surveillance...

Report: Significant cheating by FBI agents on exam (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/09/27/national/w065211D66.DTL - broken link)

Personally, I think it's more important that the agents use whatever means are necessary to do good on their tests so that we know our rights will be protected.

[eastside38]

Originally Posted by audadvnc

1. Carrying guns to public events = Stupid and dangerous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States)
(Nicholas Welch, Marcus Bascus Charged In Seton Hall Shooting

2. Assuming foreigners are terrorists = Stupid and arrogant (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=1011)

3. Assuming the Fed is on your side = Good cult baby, you get a treat! (Blind obedience)

Is that hard to understand?

4. As for the 2nd Amendment, I take it you are in a well regulated militia, with a documented hierarchy of leadership and authority, regular assembly schedules, military training, a chain of command, etc? If so, more power to you... most gun owners (myself included) are not, though. A random mob of armed Tea Party wingnuts at political rallies does not meet the "militia" standard: Militia | Define Militia at Dictionary.com And I'd bet the law professors would probably agree with me on that one.

I'm guessing your response is directed towards both of my posts. I'm numbering your points/articles so I can respond to them clearly.

"Remember, the FBI is composed of those of a higher intelligence than the gang strike force"

Wow, you wouldn't even throw me a bone for criticizing the Gang Strike Force. Libs such as yourself love jabs at organizations that abuse power.

1. You cite a Wikipedia article and a news article about a mass shooter at a college party to provide support for your argument that carrying guns to public events is "stupid and dangerous."

As for the Wikipedia article, I don't know where to begin because it does not address carrying guns to public events in any way, shape, or form. If I missed a section that addresses this, please reply back and let me know if I have missed the section or I will continue my assumption that you typed in “gun violence conceal and carry,” or something related to that into the search bar on the site, saw that the article, “Gun Violence in the United States” was the first result, thought to yourself, “This article will really throw that racist, gun-toting neocon for a loop,” and then copied and pasted the URL into your post without even looking at it. And remember, even if I missed a few statistics against conceal and carry in the article, it’s a WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE and can be edited by anyone, regardless of what the citations say at the bottom of the page, and thus can’t be proven with absolute certainty.


Much of the same can be said for the second article. It is clear that you did not read it at all, especially since the date of the article matches the date of your post. I’m feeling that, once again, you typed in “gun shooting at public events,” or something related to that on the Google search bar, clicked on the “News” button, saw that the article, “Nicholas Welch, Marcus Bascus Charged in Seton Hall Shooting” came up as the first result because of its chronological proximity to your search query (by almost 5 hours exactly), thought to yourself, “That unenlightened right-wing dinosaur won’t know what hit him,” and, once again, copied and pasted the URL into the post without so much as a glance at it. Further, I feel especially certain of this assumption not just because the article was published on the same day as your post, but also because of the content of the article.



The original article attached to the link (it’s a shorter one today and lacks the context of the shooting) describes an incident in which a man was not allowed into a party because it was over-crowded. He became so mad as a result of this that he received a gun from a friend, went into the house and started shooting. But hey, look on the bright side! You’ve stumbled upon something that you and I agree on: carrying a gun to a house full of people and opening fire on them is a very “stupid and dangerous” idea. To sum up so far, you’ve done nothing to explain why bringing a holstered firearm (with, may I add, no intent to use it aside from its presence as a means to exercise a constitutional right) to a public event is a bad idea, or as you put it, “Carrying guns to public events = Stupid and dangerous.”


2. I have a feeling that you’re responding to this statement of mine: “…I'm willing to bet that the ‘Palestinian solidarity conference’ that Mick Kelly went to had involvement from Hamas (Palestine), Hezbollah (Lebanon), or both.” Your response here is particularly disappointing for three reasons. One, it shows that you do not follow the news very closely or that you don’t have a solid grip on current events. I do not assume all foreigners are terrorists (what a stupid generalization of my statement), but I know that members of Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorists. I will also state that if the FBI has interest in a US citizen’s attendance at a Palestinian solidarity conference, it probably has knowledge of terrorists attending that same meeting. I’m not going to litter my post with links to news articles about atrocities that have been carried out under the direction of these organizations because they are too numerous to be counted. They can easily be found online from reputable (non-Wikipedia) sources.
Two, you chose to be intellectually dishonest and disregard the following literal statement that it “is just speculation” on my part that the meeting Mr. Kelly went to had terrorists present. In doing so, you ignore the implication that the attendants of the meeting might have been exclusively peaceful Palestinians.


Three, the Hassan piece is mediocre. I will not try to dispel what is written in the article as I am not knowledgeable as to the current (as of 2005) issues of xenophobia in Australia; I’ll take the authors word for it. Even so, I wrote better papers than this article in my Comp 1001 class four years ago and they were considered B-level work.


3. Okay, with great hesitation I’ll admit that I do belong to the cult in which I assume the Fed is on my side. That great article you posted is very accurate as far as life in the cult. I’ll admit that the initiation was quite strange – there was lots of flogging and numerous scatologic acts took place, but now I’m very glad that I joined. We have some strange rules, such as not being allowed to shop at the Seward co-op, paying homage to J. Edgar Hoover twice daily, and the mandated greeting, “Hail Mueller III.”


4. I disagree with your interpretation of the Second Amendment, and it is apparent that you don’t fully understand the conventions of 18th Century writing, as well as historic connotations of words. First off, your link to a definition of “militia” is just flat out wrong when speaking of what “militia” meant back when the Constitution was written. In those times, it was meant that a “militia” would be composed of the ordinary citizenry employed with the duty of protecting their communities before the age of police departments and when fear of permanent, standing armies repressing the people still ran high. But even if you don’t believe me, I’ll still post this rather credible link to the US Code for you to read in full http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt. Notice the “.gov” designation? Much more credible than Wikipedia, isn’t it? Who do you think the law professors agree with? I could go all day on this subject toe-to-toe with you and anyone else on this forum that disagrees, but my post is already very long and I’ll let you or someone else instigate me into typing more.



I appreciate the vapid post anyways.

[eastside38]

So audadvnc...it's been half a month...care to share your thoughts?

[audadvnc]

Originally Posted by eastside38

So audadvnc...it's been half a month...care to share your thoughts?

Horses for courses, of course. I believe we've both presented our cases appropriately, we just disagree.

[Mav031984]

I humbly disagree and agree with both of you on certain points regarding what, and who ACTUALLY looks out for You. I carry a modest firearm everywhere. For obvious reasons, because I have no idea if I may ever find myself in a mundane everyday situation that could turn into one of those cliche's where they say "Ooooh, poor guy, he was just at he wrong place, at the wrong time, derpitty derp." I call bullwinkle! You alone are the only (living and breathing) thing on this entire planet that you can trust. Except for me saying that!!!! It's a fact. Also, if I want to brandish an AR-15 semi-automatic weapon in public on my back, you shall believe I will. In fact the thing that stops "Actual" psychopaths/criminals so forth, is more Legal Guns!!! Don't even bother with anti-gun crap, specifically because MORE people have died from Illegal guns by untold hundreds of millions, than legal, because Anti-Gun laws don't stop, You guessed it!! ILLEGAL FIREARMS. Or do you think this issue has only happened in the United States??? .. Ask China about the 1960's. The numbers aren't even relative to comment on, but I try. As far as the FED goes, whether it's the FBI, CIA, NSA, HLS, FEMA, or even the Federal Reserve for that matter, I ask myself this 1 question. What if I endured a natural catastrophe, like Katrina, and had not already previously vacated, would any of these agencies, or programs help with ALL what they were initially created for???????????? I.E. Protecting ... My Rights??? My home?? My finances?? My Life and pursuit of happiness...????? Everything promised to every single American since the ..of course.. Constitution & Bill of Rights were written.???? If your answer is yes to ALL of those few sub-questions & the main question.. I am sorry, but here comes the child talk, "you still have the life experience of a toddler who can't (THINK) passed the growling in your belwy for a peanewt buttew and jelwy sanwich, and (SEE) behind the veil of their precious BWANKY!" Don't get me wrong, I have friends in the several of these "agencies" *cough* -companies* and I can't hate on them too much, they need to eat and sleep too. But that doesn't mean I'm going to entrust ALL my eggs in THEIR basket.. That is 5,000 year old Ancient basic knowledge. Lol. Silly Rabbits, you just got bit by the "Don't tread on me" Snake.

[Ghengis]

^ Excellent point(s) and a great presentation to boot, thanks for the enlightenment and affirmation.

[northstar22]

I would rather die than kill somebody, even in self-defense. I'm not judging anyone who does carry a gun for self-defense, just saying that I personally wouldn't take anyone's life in defense of my own.

[Mav031984]

Body armor may be right up your alley then.