National Letters to Trump and Others Regarding BATF.

[arakboss]

If Trump pulls off a win, I would like to see him inundated with letters recommending that he fire the current BATF leadership team and replace them with outsiders that respect the 2A. There needs to be a heavy housecleaning over at the BATF.


These two should be first to go:

Executive Staff | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Steven Dettelbach Director Marvin Richardson Deputy Director Joseph Allen Senior Counsel to the Director Daniel Board Chief of Staff/Special Advisor to the Director James E. McDermond Executive Assistant to the Director Robert Cekada Executive Assistant Director, Operations Alphonso...

www.atf.gov

Read More

 

[Nosferatu]

That agency needs to go away entirely.

 

[teflon6string]

ATF should be a convenience store.

 

[SUPER X]

They need to put people in charge that know guns

 

[sobo]

They need to put people in charge that know guns

They need to disband it. And overturn/rescind every "law" and ruling they ever made.

 

[2Wheels4Ever]

While Trump is not vehemently anti gun, nor is he truly on our side. He did nothing for us in his first two years when we had the opportunity; I don't see him throwing us a bone.

 

[SUPER X]

They need to disband it. And overturn/rescind every "law" and ruling they ever made.

Like oregon did the hard drug laws ?

 

[sobo]

Like oregon did the hard drug laws ?

I am unfamiliar with that of which you speak.

 

[2Wheels4Ever]

I am unfamiliar with that of which you speak.

Oregon just decriminalized small amounts of cocaine, crack, meth and other hard drugs. Also, they allowed the prescription of shrooms.

 

[CamoDeafie]

 

[sobo]

Oregon just decriminalized small amounts of cocaine, crack, meth and other hard drugs. Also, they allowed the prescription of shrooms.

Wow! Just... wow... Unbelievable...

 

[CountryGent]

He did nothing for us in his first two years when we had the opportunity; I don't see him throwing us a bone.

Neither do I. If he didn't do squat when facing reelection, why would he now? I hope I'm wrong, but I'm skeptical about much pro-2A traction at the Federal level.

Wow! Just... wow... Unbelievable...

If this part of the state is any indication, I'm not even remotely surprised.

 

[2Wheels4Ever]

Wow! Just... wow... Unbelievable...

I'm a bit torn on it. On one hand, I feel this will pave the way for Or to become the drug capitol USA, and on the other hand, the libertarian in me thinks you should be able to do what you want in the privacy of your own home as long as it doesn't affect others.

The realist in me also knows that the hard drugs ruin peoples lives, as they can't cope with the overwhelming addiction. I voted no on the measure, but now that it's passed, my morbid curiosity wants to see what will become of it. Less people in jails for non-violent drug related crime is not always a bad thing. Time will tell.

 

[Runs With Elk]

You libertarian statement of "you should be able to do what you want in the privacy of your own home as long as it doesn't affect others" is something I can't argue to much with, however, since most of the theft and homelessness starts with drug use, then I guess it ultimately does affect someone else.

 

[sobo]

I'm a bit torn on it. On one hand, I feel this will pave the way for Or to become the drug capitol USA, and on the other hand, the libertarian in me thinks you should be able to do what you want in the privacy of your own home as long as it doesn't affect others.

The realist in me also knows that the hard drugs ruin peoples lives, as they can't cope with the overwhelming addiction. I voted no on the measure, but now that it's passed, my morbid curiosity wants to see what will become of it. Less people in jails for non-violent drug related crime is not always a bad thing. Time will tell.

You libertarian statement of "you should be able to do what you want in the privacy of your own home as long as it doesn't affect others" is something I can't argue to much with, however, since most of the theft and homelessness starts with drug use, then I guess it ultimately does affect someone else.

As a libertarian-minded person myself, I can see both of your points. As each of you has said, time will tell, but ultimately this new law absolutely will affect others.

 

[2Wheels4Ever]

As a libertarian-minded person myself, I can see both of your points. As each of you has said, time will tell, but ultimately this new law absolutely will affect others.

Which is exactly why I voted "no."

I don't think such a dramatic shift from previous laws was the right way to do it.

 

[bbbass]

the libertarian in me thinks you should be able to do what you want in the privacy of your own home as long as it doesn't affect others.

As a libertarian, I believe in the principle behind this ^^^... some time ago I started saying the drug use should be decriminalized, provided that they let the dumbazz "unfortunates" fall into disgrace, their lives fail, their families fail, and if they die they die. This new law puts it back on the taxpayer... "financed by a tax on MJ sales" my azz!! Clean the dumbazzes out of the gene pool. I would feel bad for the families, but once again, if we take care of dumbazzes families for them, what incentive is there for not getting started on that road?

Yes, one of the side effects is theft/burglary/crime. We need to make those penalties stronger rather than less. Justice at the end of a rope sounds good.

 

[sobo]

My position on all of this mimics yours. I'm a libertarian who believes one is responsible for one's own life, whether that life is total sux0r or whether it's awesome.
What one does in the privacy of one's own home is no one's business but their own. However, once their business becomes my business (as in, a drunk/stoner/tweeker crashes his car into mine, steals something of mine, injures/maims/kills one of mine, etc.), then all bets are off and they must pay dearly for the infringement upon my life and rights.

So-called "social safety nets" need to be much more discriminating in their taxpayer-funded hand-outs, because taxpayers should not be subsidizing the ill acts of those that have no conscience for their actions. As you said, let them fail. The gene pool needs a much bigger dose of chlorine...

 

[CRBMoA]

I would be happy to let people tweak in their homes if they would rob themselves to support their habit.

 

[nk02442]

While Trump is not vehemently anti gun, nor is he truly on our side. He did nothing for us in his first two years when we had the opportunity; I don't see him throwing us a bone.

Stop spreading Lies.

Trump has nothing to do with it. The president does not write bills, thats is what congress is for. The Cucks and RINOS such as Paul Ryan did nothing those years. The blame is 110% on them. Trump Can't sign bills that don't come across his desk.