If you smoke dope, read this

[Expat]

Obviously all you pot heads should start removing all hair from your person.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Ok, So This Guy...

... knowingly sold 2 guns to an illegal drug user (actually trafficker)-illegal, knowingly made a straw buy for people who could not own firearms-illegal, knowingly used drugs-illegal-illegal. Jury deadlocked on his threat to kill a DEA agent (cited as a mistrial).

What am I missing here? Seems like good police work to me?
Are there some rights here that were stomped on? If so, please cite.

Surprising that lawful gun owners are finding some kinship with a scumbag.

News from DEA, Domestic Field Divisions, New York News Releases, 06/10/11

 

[jbombelli]

... knowingly sold 2 guns to an illegal drug user (actually trafficker)-illegal, knowingly made a straw buy for people who could not own firearms-illegal, knowingly used drugs-illegal-illegal. Jury deadlocked on his threat to kill a DEA agent (cited as a mistrial).

What am I missing here? Seems like good police work to me?
Are there some rights here that were stomped on? If so, please cite.

Surprising that lawful gun owners are finding some kinship with a scumbag.

News from DEA, Domestic Field Divisions, New York News Releases, 06/10/11

If you still don't understand after all of the discussions we've had on this forum, then you're beyond hope. But here, let me help you.

When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, there are two categories of people. You either believe one or the other:

1. A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

2. A well regulated, government-controlled militia, being necessary to the security of what was once a free state, the right of those people of acceptable moral character as defined by the legislature with input from law enforcement and special interests, to keep and bear those arms that don't shoot too fast, aren't too quiet, aren't too scary looking, aren't too easy to conceal, are made with a certain number of American made parts, and are suitable primarily for sporting purposes shall not be infringed, except in such manner as the legislature, courts or law enforcement deem appropriate.

The fact that you even had to ask that question defines which category you fall under. You don't believe in the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. You believe in the REVOCABLE PRIVILEGE to keep and bear arms. If you believed it was actually a right, and you understood what rights were, you would have never asked that - you would have already known the answer.

 

[squirrelhntr]

You cannot hardly apply for any job now without agreeing to drug testing. (because you "might" be a junkie) This is because of the insurance industry we have in this country. This needs to stop. I have resigned from several good paying jobs because they wanted me to sign my rights away. It is important to understand that this has nothing to do with drugs. It's about control. People accept the theatrical stuff in our airports because they feel safer if they comply. The Govt. couldn't care less about how safe you are. They simply want you to submit to their wishes. I told my last boss maybe we should have your mama tested for VD because she "might" be a danger to society. I cannot believe what has happened to this country in my lifetime. And now we have the TSA on our interstate highways stopping individuals who "might" be terrorists. Maybe we should just lock everybody in the country up so they don't cause any trouble.

Way to many rules already. I stay cornfused.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If you still don't understand after all of the discussions we've had on this forum, then you're beyond hope. But here, let me help you.

When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, there are two categories of people. You either believe one or the other:

1. A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

2. A well regulated, government-controlled militia, being necessary to the security of what was once a free state, the right of those people of acceptable moral character as defined by the legislature with input from law enforcement and special interests, to keep and bear those arms that don't shoot too fast, aren't too quiet, aren't too scary looking, aren't too easy to conceal, are made with a certain number of American made parts, and are suitable primarily for sporting purposes shall not be infringed, except in such manner as the legislature, courts or law enforcement deem appropriate.

The fact that you even had to ask that question defines which category you fall under. You don't believe in the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. You believe in the REVOCABLE PRIVILEGE to keep and bear arms. If you believed it was actually a right, and you understood what rights were, you would have never asked that - you would have already known the answer.

Again, ill ask you, please specifically advise how were his rights infringed?

And yes, I believe in the REVOCABLE PRIVILEGE to keep and bear arms, and as the Constitution was originally drafted by the founders, so did they. If bearing arms could not be revocable, then confined criminals could contest laws as they currently stand (I'm using an extreme, but the point is still made).

 

[jbombelli]

Again, ill ask you, please specifically advise how were his rights infringed?

And yes, I believe in the REVOCABLE PRIVILEGE to keep and bear arms, and as the Constitution was originally drafted by the founders, so did they. If bearing arms could not be revocable, then confined criminals could contest laws as they currently stand (I'm using an extreme, but the point is still made).

And this is why I wouldn't pi** in your mouth if your stomach was on fire.

The ONLY people who don't have the right to keep/bear are those currently incarcerated, for obvious reasons. Every person walking free has that right. That you are an American and think otherwise fills me with disgust.

HOW did they do it? Go back and read the freaking article. Was somebody not arrested? Were somebody's firearms not taken? Reading comprehension is your friend.

As to what the founders thought?

No free man shall be debarred the use of arms. - Thomas Jefferson

 

[Kutnupe14]

And this is why I wouldn't pi** in your mouth if your stomach was on fire.

You can be petty sir, but I will not return the favor. I would hope that better words would come to mind if you are in disagreement.

The ONLY people who don't have the right to keep/bear are those currently incarcerated, for obvious reasons. Every person walking free has that right. That you are an American and think otherwise fills me with disgust.

You say that the 2nd Amendment is not a revocable privilege, and yet in the same breath, you state that for "obvious reasons," that the incarcerated do not have the right. That's contradictory. It's either universal or it isn't, and apparently you believe that it isn't. Not only that, but you are incorrect as to the incarcerated being the only persons that do not have that right.

HOW did they do it? Go back and read the freaking article. Was somebody not arrested? Were somebody's firearms not taken? Reading comprehension is your friend.

Ok, I will ask for a THIRD time please specifically cite how this person's rights were infringed. The ATF sums up the situation nicely

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Law enforcement’s job is hard enough in trying to stop illegal gun runners from selling their weapons under the radar. It is even more difficult when a federally licensed gun dealer exploits the rules and regulations in place to monitor gun sales and works hand in hand with criminals and drug dealers seeking to obtain guns through illegal means.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Rumble was a criminal pure and simple. People that knowingly and intentionally sell firearms to drug dealers, and other person engage in open warfare on our streets are a threat to all. Putting him in jail, call me crazy, is a good thing.

As to what the founders thought?

No free man shall be debarred the use of arms. - Thomas Jefferson

Funny. You understand that the Bill of Rights was a restriction on Federal govt when it was first drafted, not state govts, right? The quote you chose to include to use as proof, is taken from his drafts of the Constitution of Virginia (a state).
No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson
I find it even funnier that you look to a serial rapist (ref Sally Hemming) to make you point about the "rights of men."

 

[jbombelli]

You can be petty sir, but I will not return the favor. I would hope that better words would come to mind if you are in disagreement.



You say that the 2nd Amendment is not a revocable privilege, and yet in the same breath, you state that for "obvious reasons," that the incarcerated do not have the right. That's contradictory. It's either universal or it isn't, and apparently you believe that it isn't. Not only that, but you are incorrect as to the incarcerated being the only persons that do not have that right.



Ok, I will ask for a THIRD time please specifically cite how this person's rights were infringed. The ATF sums up the situation nicely

Rumble was a criminal pure and simple. People that knowingly and intentionally sell firearms to drug dealers, and other person engage in open warfare on our streets are a threat to all. Putting him in jail, call me crazy, is a good thing.



Funny. You understand that the Bill of Rights was a restriction on Federal govt when it was first drafted, not state govts, right? The quote you chose to include to use as proof, is taken from his drafts of the Constitution of Virginia (a state).
No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson
I find it even funnier that you look to a serial rapist (ref Sally Hemming) to make you point about the "rights of men."

There's just no getting through to people like you. You have no understanding of the term "rights."

And I'll leave it at that lest I get myself banned from here for telling you how much I truly despise you.

 

[UncleMike]

There's just no getting through to people like you. You have no understanding of the term "rights."

And I'll leave it at that lest I get myself banned from here for telling you how much I truly despise you.

 

[Kutnupe14]

There's just no getting through to people like you. You have no understanding of the term "rights."

And I'll leave it at that lest I get myself banned from here for telling you how much I truly despise you.

I'll try not to lose sleep over your disdain.
But I couldn't help notice that after I took apart your argument point by point, you didn't address any of it. Now if you'd like to try again, and can forgo popping a blood vessel in responding, I'd be all ears at a logical rebuttal.

...but I may be giving you too much credit in the possibility of using civil discourse.

 

[jbombelli]

I'll try not to lose sleep over your disdain.
But I couldn't help notice that after I took apart your argument point by point, you didn't address any of it. Now if you'd like to try again, and can forgo popping a blood vessel in responding, I'd be all ears at a logical rebuttal.

...but I may be giving you too much credit in the possibility of using civil discourse.

You said it yourself. You don't believe in the "right." You believe in the "revocable privilege."

It is not worth any further discussion, and you are not worth another moment of my time or consideration.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You said it yourself. You don't believe in the "right." You believe in the "revocable privilege."

It is not worth any further discussion, and you are not worth another moment of my time or consideration.

Ah, then I will view that as your concession.

 

[2A_Tom]

I would say that J just dosn't want to spend time disputing thefact that the Bill of revocable rightg is a figment of the leftist mind set.

In the OP my questions were about prosecutorial procedure. And 4th and 5th ammendment protections.

There may have been more to the story than the article presented. Some have suggested that there may have been wiretap conversations that implicated the dealer. I didn't seethat in the story, but may be that is a good possibility.

As to the ATF finding he had KNOWINGLY Made false entries. That did not seem to be substanciated. And having an agent like Traver (the ome who let the female reporter fire an AK full auto on tv to show the kind of weapons you can buy in indiana gun stores) reccommended to head the ATF I worry about how just their investigations may be.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I would say that J just dosn't want to spend time disputing thefact that the Bill of revocable rightg is a figment of the leftist mind set.

In the OP my questions were about prosecutorial procedure. And 4th and 5th ammendment protections.

There may have been more to the story than the article presented. Some have suggested that there may have been wiretap conversations that implicated the dealer. I didn't seethat in the story, but may be that is a good possibility.

As to the ATF finding he had KNOWINGLY Made false entries. That did not seem to be substanciated. And having an agent like Traver (the ome who let the female reporter fire an AK full auto on tv to show the kind of weapons you can buy in indiana gun stores) reccommended to head the ATF I worry about how just their investigations may be.

We're talking about a federal investigation. Does one expect all the nuts and bolts of an operation that took months to be revealed in a press release? It's as if people are going "OMG, they didn't explain every detail surrounding his arrest, they must have made up most of the charges and violated all of his rights."

Yeah, John Rumble is a real scumbag. Can someone find the PC?

Dug this up:
http://www.ogd.com/article/20100708/OGD01/307089907/-1/ogd

In the complaint, a DEA agent wrote that Mr. Rumble had allegedly approached members of the drug trafficking organization controlled by Louis A. Tomassini Jr. to trade handguns for marijuana on multiple occasions, even live hand grenades as well as a fully automatic FN-FAL assault rifle.

guns for dope, hell, that's not that serious

 

[4x4]

You spelled 4th amendment wrong.

 

[billybob44]

The Point of the story..

You spelled 4th amendment wrong.

Please DO NOT follow ME around with your "Spell Check". I hope you are getting more out of the post then to nick pick the spelling???Bill..

 

[hoosierdoc]

If I was employing people I would want a drug test. We all think it's marijuana but you'd be surprised at the little old grandmothers we see with cocaine in their urine.

Drug use is normally hidden, and a TON of people do it who look so sweet and innocent. Drug use goes along with self-destructive behavior, potential for financial hardship, and they don't need to be around my assets.

 

[451_Detonics]

I look at it this way, did the man break the law? Yes. I was taught taught not to do the crime if you weren't willing to do the time. Example...I am willing to pay a speeding ticket (tho I have never gotten one in 35 years of driving) so I occasionally do drive faster than the posted limit. I am not willing to spend 20 years in jail for robbing a bank however so doing that never crosses my mind.

This guy was willing to break the laws he broke so he needs to man up and do the time.

btw...pot is illegal in most places...so if you aren't willing to do the time don't smoke weed. I think it is a silly law like most of them but if obeying a few silly laws is the price of living in the US I will follow them or work to change them.

 

[2A_Tom]

Thanks Bill.

Thanks for your further research Kut up.

my question is answered.

not to defend BG's just wondered .

 

[RoyalTenenbaum]

Just a question. If you smoke dope should you even be on this forum? It is my understanding that it is illegal to own a gun and be an illegal drug user. Anyone care to enlighten me?