assault weapon ban again

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Yup, going to destroy over a BILLION dollars worth of ammo. Kind of kills the whole "buying in bulk to save money" argument.


I was joking. I don't think the government is destroying the ammo it just bought.

[vintagetoppsguy]

I was joking. I don't think the government is destroying the ammo it just bought.

I don't know if it's the ammo they just bought but, either way, they're destroying over a BILLION dollars worth of good ammo...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/27/pentagon-ammunition-sen-tom-carper-gao-waste/8145729/

"There is a huge opportunity to save millions, if not billions of dollars if the (Pentagon) can make some common-sense improvements to how it manages ammunition,"

[teetwoohsix]

I think when Clayton asks, "why doesn't "Homeland Security" guard our borders?" he means why aren't they doing their job. In other words, why are their so many illegal border crossings?

Exactly. If the reason DHS was created was "truly" about "terrorists" one would think the first thing they would do is saturate ALL borders of the United States with themselves. But, last night I watched a show about them catching low level drug smugglers at JFK airport :rolleyes: How many agencies do we need nowadays? I thought our local police, sheriffs, and FBI were doing a good job.

Since DHS isn't truly about protecting us from "terrorists", and aren't worried about illegal border crossings, what is the purpose in having a DHS? We already had agencies doing the same jobs that they are doing now. Here's an interesting article:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/18194-homeland-security-does-everything-except-thwart-terrorists

Sincerely, Clayton

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Exactly. If the reason DHS was created was "truly" about "terrorists" one would think the first thing they would do is saturate ALL borders of the United States with themselves. But, last night I watched a show about them catching low level drug smugglers at JFK airport :rolleyes: How many agencies do we need nowadays? I thought our local police, sheriffs, and FBI were doing a good job.



Since DHS isn't truly about protecting us from "terrorists", and aren't worried about illegal border crossings, what is the purpose in having a DHS? We already had agencies doing the same jobs that they are doing now. Here's an interesting article:



http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/18194-homeland-security-does-everything-except-thwart-terrorists



Sincerely, Clayton


DHS was created as a way to reorganize those agencies and provide a more functional framework for national security. Keep in mind that DHS is not focused solely on terrorism.

[jhs5120]

.

[teetwoohsix]

DHS was created as a way to reorganize those agencies and provide a more functional framework for national security. Keep in mind that DHS is not focused solely on terrorism.

I understand that. But, going back to the main event that brought us all of this wonderful stuff (9/11/2001), the concept was "supposedly" specifically to better focus on catching terrorists. Now, it was clear to me quite a long time ago that something about this was bogus because there was no saturation at the borders (presumably where foreign terrorists were most likely to enter the country). So, now, the mission has changed-and at the same time they aren't doing anything about our borders, they are coming up with all kinds accusations of normal Americans as "domestic terrorists"- to me, there is something wrong with this picture. Apparently, some take offense to what I'm saying-that's ok, I respect everyone's opinion.

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

Those incompetent jerks.

C'mon Jason, just get it out of your system and call me a "racist" already!

Sincerely, Clayton

[jhs5120]

.

[teetwoohsix]

What? That thought honestly never crossed my mind. I don't think you have posted anything racist here (at least not in our few posts worth of conversation).

I will call you a bit paranoid though. Skepticism is a great thing when it comes to our government, but I don't think the government, DHS and local law enforcement officials are conspiring to do harm to American citizens. Just my opinion.

Ok, I will apologize for that comment, that was out of line.

I will stop being paranoid when the this country is no longer run by corporations, lobbyists, and corrupt "representatives". The Supreme Court found it was important enough to make a ruling (very recently) on campaign contributions-but refused to even hear the case regarding NDAA section 1021 and 1022 (indefinite detention of American citizens, by the military, with no due process, with vague language like "a belligerent act" being one of the "justifications" in this section). THIS is outrageous. THIS is a threat to EVERY AMERICAN. But I'm not surprised- because if every one is willing to turn a blind eye to this vvvvvvvvvvv then nothing is shocking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgrunnLcG9Q

God Bless America.

Sincerely, Clayton

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

I understand that. But, going back to the main event that brought us all of this wonderful stuff (9/11/2001), the concept was "supposedly" specifically to better focus on catching terrorists. Now, it was clear to me quite a long time ago that something about this was bogus because there was no saturation at the borders (presumably where foreign terrorists were most likely to enter the country). So, now, the mission has changed-and at the same time they aren't doing anything about our borders, they are coming up with all kinds accusations of normal Americans as "domestic terrorists"- to me, there is something wrong with this picture. Apparently, some take offense to what I'm saying-that's ok, I respect everyone's opinion.

Sincerely, Clayton

Clayton,

I appreciate your passion and knowledge of the political process. However, the situation is much more complex than your post indicates.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Some would say they're doing their job just fine. "CNN Fact Check: Illegal border crossings at lowest levels in 40 years":

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/13/politics/fact-check-immigration/

But, of the ones we do catch, we plan on releasing 500 of them a week into the US...

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/06/04/BREAKING-Border-Patrol-Sector-To-Release-500-Illegal-Aliens-Per-Week-Into-US

As was Clayton's original point, the Border Patrol is a freaking joke! But, hey, that's an extra 500 votes a week, right?

[nolemmings]

While I cannot comment too much on the California situation, I assume it is the same as what exists here in Arizona, where we have been receiving busloads of immigrants, in all likelihood here illegally, from Texas, where they are essentially released with the papers commanding them to appear for their deportation or related hearings when appropriate. Our dim-witted governor of course wasted no time to whine to President Obama for relief; happily, however, the transported aliens have been treated well by volunteers who have taken them in and provided them with at least the bare essentials.

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/25697040/2014/06/04/immigrants-dropped-off-in-phoenix-local-families-open-their-homes

These people do not represent a new surge of an invading Mexican horde–they are Central American citizens from countries other than Mexico who have been around and were rounded up as part of an overall increase in immigration enforcement–IOW, the government is doing the very thing the right wingers claim they ignore. This of course is not apparent from the Breitbart blurb, as that “source” is hardly renown for its objectivity and thoroughness.

Anyway, the problem arises because the Mexican government is not obliged to accept foreigners; i.e., non-Mexicans, into their country, and in fact has declined to accept these folks, who again come from other countries. At least that is what has been reported here--they cannot simply be pushed back into Mexico. This is a matter of international law and sovereignty, not a fault of the US Border Patrol. At most it is an issue of immigration law and reform. As for that issue, I leave it to anyone capable of reading to determine who it is that has obstructed and foot-dragged on getting something meaningful done. I would point out that here in Arizona, there is a bi-partisan push to move forward:

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2014/05/15/salmon-sinema-immigration-reform-way/2140538/


I also see that the LA Time reports “President Obama will not make changes to the nation's deportation system for at least two months in order to give House Republican leaders more time to search for votes for an overhaul of immigration laws, administration officials said Wednesday....An immigration bill, a top domestic priority for the president, has been stuck in the Republican-led House since last year. The Senate passed a bipartisan bill last summer that Obama said met his requirements for reform.”

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-obama-delays-deportation-review-20140528-story.html

[jhs5120]

.

[nolemmings]

No immigration reform for awhile.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/2014-virginia-primary-eric-cantor-loss-immigration-reform-107697.html

Of course and without question, it's all Obama's fault.

[jhs5120]

.

[vintagetoppsguy]

It's interesting to consider that Tea Party voters prevented immigration reform in America..

Interesting why? Most Tea Party members don't want amnesty for the millions of illegal immigrants.

[nolemmings]

Interesting maybe, surprising, not at all. Cantor was one of the more conservative House members, and Obama pretty much hates him. Yet he was one of the few with marshalling skills to help get something through on immigration, even if it was a long shot. So what happens?-- Republicans continue to eat their own, and redefine RINO once again, as Cantor not only loses, but to someone whose main message was that Cantor was too weak on immigration. You see, Jason, immigration reform means build the damn fence and step up the pace on shipping people out. Seriously, look at the tea party position on the subject. Anything less is anti-american, unconstitutional, illegal and violates every principle of the rugged individuals who made this country great (insert pic of Marlboro man here).

[vintagetoppsguy]

You see, Jason, immigration reform means build the damn fence and step up the pace on shipping people out.

Amen, brother! :D

Edited to add the lefts position on immigration: A pathway to amnetsy so they can get more votes.

Or, hey Todd, maybe Obama could trade 5 Mexican drug lords for every 1 illegal immigrant? How about that?

[jhs5120]

.

[vintagetoppsguy]

I realize Tea Party members don't want a "democratic reform" but wouldn't they be interested in a reform that Cantor would be able to sell to the GOP? Isn't that better than what we currently have?

Where's the compromise?

Don't both people/parties usually give-up something in a compromise? Ok, the right gives in and gives them a path to citizenship? What does the left give up?

How do we keep more from coming into the US illegally?

[nolemmings]

Compromise is weakness Jason. C'mon man, get with the program.

Here is an op-ed by George Will from a few months ago. For those who may not know, George Will is one the most conservative traditional republicans in the country, whose opinions I respect but seldom find lined up well with my own. I don't even agree with all of this, but find it at least an interesting attempt at dialogue. Alas, the people to whom it is best directed are also the least capable of and willing to understand it.

Here is the link, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-why-immigration-reform-matters/2014/02/13/04e7dfac-94db-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html
with much of the substance quoted as follows:

"Many Republicans say immigration policy divides their party. If, however, the party becomes a gaggle of veto groups enforcing unanimities, it will become what completely harmonious parties are: small.

Many Republicans see in immigrants only future Democratic votes. This descent into Democratic-style identity politics is unworthy of Republicans, and unrealistic. U.S. history tells a consistent story — the party identified with prosperity, and hence opportunity, prospers.

Many Republicans have understandable cultural concerns, worrying that immigrants from this hemisphere do not experience the “psychological guillotine” that severed trans-Atlantic immigrants from prior allegiances. But are there data proving that U.S. culture has lost its assimilative power? Thirty-five percent of illegal adult immigrants have been here at least 15 years, 28 percent for 10 to 14 years and only 15 percent for less than five years. Thirty-five percent own their homes. Are we sure they are resisting assimilation?

Many Republicans rightly say that control of borders is an essential ingredient of national sovereignty. But net immigration from Mexico has recently been approximately zero. Border Patrol spending, which quadrupled in the 1990s, tripled in the 2000s. With illegal entries near a 40-year low, and a 2012 Government Accountability Office assessment that border security was then 84 percent effective, will a “border surge” of $30 billion more for the further militarization (actually, the East Germanization) of the 1,969 miles assuage remaining worries?

Many Republicans say Barack Obama cannot be trusted to enforce reforms. This is, however, no reason for not improving immigration laws that subsequent presidents will respect. Besides, the Obama administration’s deportations are, if anything, excessive, made possible by post-9/11 technological and manpower resources. As the Economist tartly noted, “a mass murder committed by mostly Saudi terrorists resulted in an almost limitless amount of money being made available for the deportation of Mexican house-painters.”

Many Republicans say immigration runs counter to U.S. social policies aiming to reduce the number of people with low levels of skill and education, and must further depress the wages of Americans at the bottom of the economic ladder, who are already paying the price for today’s economic anemia. This is true. But so is this: The Congressional Budget Office says an initial slight reduction of low wages (0.1 percent in a decade) will be followed by increased economic growth partly attributable to immigrants. Immigration is the entrepreneurial act of taking the risk of uprooting oneself and plunging into uncertainty. Small wonder, then, that immigrants are about 20 percent of owners of small businesses, and that more than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children."

[jhs5120]

.

[vintagetoppsguy]

They're not going to stop crossing our borders. Ever. We could put up a wall, hire an additional 10,000 troops and construct some sort of super laser that incinerates anyone with illegal thoughts, but they will continue to find a way across.

The only way to prevent them from crossing our border illegally is to provide a legal way to cross that is a more attractive option than just sneaking through the desert.

Stop wasting money on a fruitless effort and put them to work. Grant them work visas and allow their children to go to our schools for a fee. Don't grant them citizenship, don't allow them to vote, just let them work.

Children of illegal aliens shouldn't be granted citizenship, they should be of the same status of their parents.

You know what, Jason, I would have no problem with that if it actually worked. Some come over on work visas for a specified period of time, work hard, go back after their work visas expire, allow others to come over, repeat process. Sounds good in theory, but what happens when their work visas expire and they don't leave?

[jhs5120]

.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Why should we let the work visas expire? Just let them stay in the country and work. We'll collect taxes, we force them to buy into Obamacare (if they do it at a young age we'll actually MAKE money on them) and we won't collect or give them social security (because they're not citizens).

They'll come into our country and work until there little Mexican bodies can't handle it anymore.

It'll never happen though because Republicans will call it too soft (since we're letting Mexicans into 'MERICA!) and Democrats will think it's too harsh (since we're not letting them vote).

Come on, Jason. Of course a work visa would expire. They would go home after expiration, new workers would come over. Otherwise, if the work visas don't expire, then do we just give one to everybody that wants one and let everybody come on in? If not, how do you determine who get one and who doesn't? Brings me back to my question: What happens when they don't go home?

[jhs5120]

.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Jason, you're missing my point. Maybe I'm not explaining it well enough. How many visas do we give out? One to anybody that wants one? If so, then why do we need borders? If not, how do we determine who gets one and who doesn't?

[jhs5120]

.

[tiger8mush]

Grant them to whomever wishes to come to America and work at a minimum wage job with no hopes of ever becoming a citizen. Open it up in one month windows maybe 3 or 4 times a year and bus them to states that could use some minimum wage union-free labor.

If they don't get a job within an allotted time, send 'em packing! If they flee then so what? It's nothing we aren't used to.

Sounds like a good idea, but some of David's concerns are legit. If they don't "pay their way", and we send them packing, where do we send them back to? We already have issues w/illegal immigrants and not knowing where to send them. What if they commit crimes? Do we use taxpayers money to put them in jail when (arguably) they shouldn't even be here in the first place? Do we run background checks on every single one, which we also have to use taxpayer money to pay for? I'm all for allowing them in as long as they are a productive part of society, but I think there are many questions unanswered or tough to answer. I certainly don't have an answer so I like the communication between you, David, and others. Better to discuss options than to point fingers and get nothing done.

Rob
:)

[vintagetoppsguy]

I don't believe Jason sees the full picture because he is not exposed to the problem as much as we are in the south along the border states. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are illegal immigrants in New Jersey, but I can guarantee you the illegal immigrants to citizens ratio is a lot lower there than it is here in Texas. Jason, do you know if you go to an emergency room here in Houston, you'll wait a minimum of two hours unless it's a life threatening emergency? Why? Because the ERs are full of illegal immigrants. They know that the ERs can't legally turn them away and they have to treat them. Since they don't have health insurance, and most can't afford a doctor, they go to the ER when they're kid has the sniffles. Do you think they ever pay that ER bill? No and that's one of the (many) reasons why our health care costs so much. I could go on and on about other problems as well, but I'll leave it at that.

If I had my way, we would round them all up and send them back home to start with. I know that will never happen due to logistics and cost. At that point we could issue temporary work visas to allow some to come over. Nobody (well, nobody reasonable) is arguing that we don't need their cheap, unskilled labor. Heck, I don't want to pay $3 for an apple or an orange. Once their work visas expire, they go home and let other workers come over. Keep repeating the process. That would make it fair to all of them to get a fair chance. Anyway, that would be my idea but, realistically, I know it will never happen.

[nolemmings]

Rob, there has been a proposed bill that passed the US Senate last year, and that the President would sign. It was sponsored by a bi-partisan group that includes several Republicans who are widely recognized for being very conservative, including Lindsay Graham, John McCain, Jeff Flake and Marco Rubio. A summary of the bill can be found here:

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/guide-s744-understanding-2013-senate-immigration-bill

Now here is something in the bill that should assuage those who claim our borders are not secure:

"For example, although undocumented immigrants will be allowed to register for the new Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) program almost immediately, before those in RPI status can apply to become lawful permanent residents the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must certify that the Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy is deployed and operational, 700 miles of fencing is complete, 38,405 border patrol agents are deployed, and the E-Verify employment verification system is in place, among other requirements" (emphasis added)

So there has been careful consideration of all aspects of the problem, yet this Senate version has languished and will never pass because of these nutjobs in the House who claim it is not tough enough on border security. I was not kidding in an earlier post when I said these tools insist on an entire border fence and the deportation of literally 10 million people who have been here a decade or more. They think they're getting the great wall of China-- considered a wonder of the world in large part because of the immense cost in both financial and human resources; instead they will get the Berlin Wall, an emblem of shame, and will pay more than $100 Billion to build and maintain it. They ignore that their own side- Gingrich, Pres. Bush and others, acknowledge that there is no way we will ever deport the millions who have been here for decades. And then they spin it through faux news that it is the President who is uncompromising, when there has never been a more uncompromising political group in US history than the teabaggers--look at the number of fillibusters and delayed presidential appointments during Obama's term in office vis-a-vis any other President--it isn't even close.

So you can continue to hope for an exchange of dialogue as somehow refreshing as opposed to people who sit and do nothing--- but please have the good sense to see who it is that is doing nothing.

[vintagetoppsguy]

"For example, although undocumented immigrants will be allowed to register for the new Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) program almost immediately, before those in RPI status can apply to become lawful permanent residents the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must certify that the Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy is deployed and operational, 700 miles of fencing is complete, 38,405 border patrol agents are deployed, and the E-Verify employment verification system is in place, among other requirements"

Ok, so has the DHS certifed all that? If so, where can I find it?

[vintagetoppsguy]

The truth is that the immigration bill that Todd posted is contingent upon several conditions being met AFTER THE BILL IS SIGNED - one of them is to secure the borders. If they can't secure the borders now, what makes you think they can secure them after the bill is signed, Todd?

Republicans want the borders secured FIRST and then compromise on a bill. Is that asking too much? Put down your Huffington Post and get a clue.

We have an influx of illegal children coming over here in record numbers. Fortunately, Texas is shipping a lot of them to that crap hole state Todd lives in. You're so in favor of illegal immigrants being over here Todd, well we're shipping them your way. Enjoy them and the diseases they're bringing over!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/07/officials-overwhelmed-by-influx-of-children-crossing-mexican-border-into-u-s-on-their-own/#

http://www.abc15.com/news/national/immigrants-bringing-diseases-across-border

[vintagetoppsguy]

Todd? Hello???

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to let facts get into the way of your propaganda...

Here is the VP of the National Border Patrol Council (and current border patrol agent) speaking about the current influx of illegal immigrants.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3620210951001/vp-of-national-border-patrol-council-speaks-out-about-surge/?playlist_id=2694949842001#sp=show-clips&v=3620210951001

But, Todd, didn't you infer in post #244 of this thread that illegal border crossings were no longer a problem? I'm confused. Is it a problem or not?

[jhs5120]

.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Jason, I agree with most of what you're saying. Here's the problem. Most people I know and talk to don't want any part of an immigration bill until AFTER the border is secured, not BEFORE. It makes no sense to pass an immigration bill for the illegals that are already here, but then leave the borders unsecure for more to come over.

If you wanted to buy a dog, would you buy the dog and then repair all the holes in your fence, or would you repair all the holes in your fence and then buy the dog? This is common sense.

[nolemmings]

Mr. James, I do not exchange dialogue with you because you are a prick. I will make a brief exception here to point out that my sources, had you chosen to read them, were often from Fox News and were of Republicans, not the “liberal media”. I have “a clue”, and my views as expressed herein are embraced by more Americans than not, although that too is irrelevant to their validity.

You will recall that you went on ad nauseum with attacks against my honesty as a collector, my professional and personal integrity, and you clamored how collectors would put me on their blocked list. For those who have forgotten, the thread I called Carterscards2006–it’s a long read:
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=133471

You seemed to take delight in having notified an ebay dealer with whom I had a dispute so that he would take to the forum and show me what’s what. Of course, it turns out he was a convicted felon who had only rather recently been released from prison for embezzlement of over a million dollars. In addition, when he came on the board and laid out his defense– an outlandish fabrication that was pounced on by the rest of the forum and decried as rubbish–your decision to intermeddle made you look even more foolish. Oh and by the way, I did in fact receive my full refund, so you were wrong on that too.

Now more recently you once again decided to be the vanguard for the hobby, intermeddling when a board member pointed out how a Cy Symour Lenox went for cheap. You of course had to get involved and contact the seller, who ultimately refused to ship the card and claimed to have made a pricing error–although his pricing history of other cards suggested he simply did not know what he had. Many here would consider that to be poor form at best.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=188109&highlight=lenox

Now today you insult the entire State of Arizona, calling it a crap hole state.

This is a watercooler forum in which I like anyone can express my views and I like anyone can choose with whom I wish to have dialogue. I have no problem if others choose to agree with you, whatever their reasoning. I may even chime in on topics where you have posted, but I will not engage you directly, because again, you are a prick. I have had nothing but good business dealings with the folks on this forum, and am pleased to have made a great number of friends here. I am equally pleased to know that you are not one of them.

[jhs5120]

.

[vintagetoppsguy]

You will recall that you went on ad nauseum with attacks against my honesty as a collector, my professional and personal integrity, and you clamored how collectors would put me on their blocked list. For those who have forgotten, the thread I called Carterscards2006–it’s a long read:
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=133471

You seemed to take delight in having notified an ebay dealer with whom I had a dispute so that he would take to the forum and show me what’s what. Of course, it turns out he was a convicted felon who had only rather recently been released from prison for embezzlement of over a million dollars. In addition, when he came on the board and laid out his defense– an outlandish fabrication that was pounced on by the rest of the forum and decried as rubbish–your decision to intermeddle made you look even more foolish. Oh and by the way, I did in fact receive my full refund, so you were wrong on that too.

Wow, I don't even know where to start with this one. For anybody that doesn't want to read 53 pages of back and forth nonsense, here’s the synopsis: Todd bought a GAI graded card and decided to send it to SGC for cross over. It wouldn’t cross, so Todd wanted his money back. Some agreed that he should have been refunded, an equal number disagreed. I don’t want to re-hash the issue, but I do want to address Todd’s typical lies he posted. First, Todd, show me where I notified the seller. Second, you did not win the case, nor receive a refund – see page 46, post #452. Todd has a history of lying and backing out of deals. Below is a screenshot of 3 negatives Todd received for doing such. That was when sellers could leave negatives. From what I’ve heard Todd continues to back out of deals, only now the sellers can’t leave negative feedback to warn others. Joey, is that really you???

Now more recently you once again decided to be the vanguard for the hobby, intermeddling when a board member pointed out how a Cy Symour Lenox went for cheap. You of course had to get involved and contact the seller, who ultimately refused to ship the card and claimed to have made a pricing error–although his pricing history of other cards suggested he simply did not know what he had. Many here would consider that to be poor form at best.

Yes, I did warn the seller of his pricing mistake because he was also a personal friend. You failed to mention that part, Todd. You wouldn’t do the same for a friend?

People can form their own conclusions.

[barrysloate]

This is why we should not have political discussions on the board, as they always end badly....although I have been reading it.

[Leon]

This is why we should not have political discussions on the board, as they always end badly....although I have been reading it.

I have written a post 3 different times, seriously 3, and not hit the "submit" button. I have been reading it too and was letting it go to try to be nice. As long as it doesn't get totally vile this thread will stay open. The rules against talking politics remains. Please don't do it on this board......this one thread...well, it's one thread.

[nolemmings]

Indeed people can draw their own conclusions. For example, please read post 275 in the Carter's thread, in which Mr. James tells P.Spaeth "Oh, I promise you it will get a lot better tomorrow. A little birdie told me so." Several hours later Pup6913 posts he was contacted by the felon who said he was alerted to the site by another board member; hmmm, I wonder who, and then two or so hours after that the con himself posts.

As for a refund,

http://photos.imageevent.com/imoverhere/mym101s/dupesothers/large/Friday_%20June%2013_%202014.jpg

So by all means, please judge for yourselves. BTW, that so-called history of lies and backing out of deals is explained in the thread, and of course went back 7 (now 10) years-- I also will explain them again to anyone who PMs me other than the prick. I would also invite anyone here who has had a bad or even discourteous transaction or pm exchange with me on net54 to alert the board to such event.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Your credit card company may have refunded you, in which case PayPal would have withdrawn the funds from the seller's account but, either way, YOU LOST YOUR EBAY DISPUTE. Period. Ebay sided with Carter's Cards on that one.

Continue with your name calling, Todd. When you can't prove your case with facts, demonize the other person. That's your MO.

[nolemmings]

Wrong again-- I won at the e-bay level. Keep posting as your credibility swirls down the toilet.

http://photos.imageevent.com/imoverhere/mym101s/dupesothers/huge/Friday_%20June%2013_%202014%20_3_.jpg

[vintagetoppsguy]

Someone is lying. On 3/1/11 Carter's Cards posted they won the eBay dispute and you would not be given a refund (see my screen shot below). However, your screen shot above shows you won the case a few days earlier on 2/28/11. This raises two questions:

1.) Why would Carter's Cards post that they won the dispute (supposedly after you already won) knowing you could easily refute it with the same screen shots you posted above?

2.) Why didn't you post the screen shots at the time to discredit them?

It just makes no sense.

So, I'm left believing either you or Carter's Cards. Tough choice. Do I believe the seller who has no reason to lie, or do I believe the buyer who is known for backing out on eBay deals?

Whatever, it's really not that important. If you got refunded then great for you, just another eBay transaction that Todd Shultz weaseled out on.

[nolemmings]

You shot off your mouth as you repeatedly do, and once again it comes home to roost. And now you continue to call me a liar. Is there any wonder why I think you’re a prick?

I invite everyone to read the post from Carter’s cards, Post 282, which I will paste momentarily, so that you can see the inherent ridiculousness and flat out falsity of the man to whom Mr. James hitched his wagon.

This is our first and last post on this site. We are not going to get ourselves involved in this circus that this thread has apparently become. The only reason we are even posting is to make everyone aware of what actually is going on here. For those customers of ours that have had nothing but positive experiences with us, thank you for your continued business and support.

In terms of the original post here from Todd, this is our position. We have been on ebay for over 10 years and have successfully completed 4,200+ transactions without a single incident. Each and every time we have an unsatisfied customer, we make it right immediately (as can clearly be seen in our feedback and our 5.0 star communication). For those that question our communication and customer service, our 5.0 perfect star rating should quickly end that discussion. Having said that, there is a point where an honest, customer service based business can get taken advantage of, and this is one of those instances. So ... here is the situation in a nutshell.

Within 2 days after Todd won this card, we were contacted by 2 other very reputable sellers (who WILL remain anonymous) and warned us that Todd may want to return the card down the road if things "don't work out" with either SGC or PSA. To make this more clear, Todd purchases GAI graded cards for 20% of their value (since we ALL know the risks associated with GAI) and if the cards cross to SGC or PSA he 5X his money. If they do not, he asks for a refund. In other words in this transaction, Todd either turns his $1,000 into $5,000 or gets his original investment back. Call us crazy, but this is clearly a scam. Because Todd pulls this act with ONLY very reputable sellers, he figures they will not want the hassle he may create (as he did here) and therefore they will return the money and he can't lose.

Well, we have decided to be the ones to stand up for the sellers out there and make a statement. See, we delivered the EXACT CARD that was described in the auction to Todd. He knew EXACTLY what he would be receiving and he knew EXACTLY what the risks were of purchasing a GAI graded card. Todd is a very smart person and has been a collector for a long time. He knows this exact same card in an SGC or PSA holder is worth many times what he paid. He also knows that he got this card at a huge discount because it was in a GAI holder and that there are implied risks of purchasing GAI graded cards. However, as he has done in the past, he figured if he sent the card off to SGC or PSA and they concluded there may be an issue, we would quickly refund his money. This time, Todd, you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

We want to point that many times buyers are unhappy for a myriad of reasons. In fact, 3 weeks ago a gentleman purchased $4,000+ worth of cards from us and emailed us 1 week later stating that his wife became ill and he really needed his money back for the cards to help with the doctor bills that were coming. He overnighted the cards back and we paypalled him his money back within 5 minutes of the receipt of the cards. If customers are honest and straight forward with us, we will always be with them. However, if customers are looking to "take advantage of us because we are honest sellers" we will not stand for this. As many of you have pointed out, we could have clearly refunded Todd his money and relisted the card. However, in doing so, we would be enabling Todd to take advantage of other sellers in the future and ultimately this behavior affects everyone in the hobby as prices have to be raised and sellers become less willing to work with their buyers.

To wrap things up, we just want to address the communication thing. When buyers out there are in the business of taking advantage of good sellers (like us), they DO NOT deserve the courtesy of our time to communicate back with them. As we have pointed out and another poster has pointed out, Todd knew exactly what he was doing here and clearly did not deserve any return communication from us. We quickly sent the claim to ebay and will let them deal with this. We just hope that this whole circus comes to an end and other buyers out there stay honest with us good sellers and we promise to return the favor.

Carterscards2006 will continue to ALWAYS provide each and every customer with top notch customer service and we will ALWAYS put the customer first as long as they do not try to deceive us. Our feedback proves that we have never had a dissatisfied customer in 10 years and 4,200+ transactions and you have our word we will continue to do provide the same first class service in the future.

Thank you, once again, to all of our great customers out there and we look forward to dealing with all of you for many years to come!!!


I would also point you to the last page or so of posts, where Mr. James continued to claim how the seller’s conviction for embezzlement and tax evasion with $1.6 million dollars in restitution has nothing to do with my transaction and apparently should have no bearing on whether he was lying in the thread. Now there’s a reason why criminal convictions of felonies involving dishonesty in the prior ten years are admissible in court cases to impeach a witnesses’ honesty, which I should not have to tell Mr. James– after all, he knows all about retainers and such. Yet it’s even more strange how acts of that magnitude are completely irrelevant to him on matters of seller’s truth-telling yet it is OK to essentially call me a liar because I “weasled out on” some screenshot of transactions that date back to 2002 (which again, I will be happy to explain by p.m.) Yeah, I’m the one who demonizes here.

Lastly, I would point out that I appealed the ebay decision and won a few days after the first complaint was denied. I did tell at least one moderator and several other friends here by pm that I had prevailed, and I apologize to the many who had my back and did not know until now that I won. I felt no obligation to share it with the many self-righteous turds who attacked my credibility throughout that carterscards fiasco (why didn't he amend his post to tell everyone he actually lost, I wonder?). This would include the pompous Mr. James, who in post 493 crowed “Well, my logic also said Todd would lose his case and I was right.” No prick, you were wrong.

[vintagetoppsguy]

You keep resorting to name calling and just keep proving my point about the real Todd Schultz. That's 3 out of the last 4 posts in which you've called me a prick. You can go back and edit the post in which you didn't call me a prick to include it if it makes you feel better about yourself.

I'm done with you Todd. You're a little man that likes to set behind a keyboard and call names so that you feel better about your own life. At this point, I have better things to do and I'm sure you have another eBay seller to screw over.

[nolemmings]

I call 'em as I see 'em, and you earned every bit of it. You made no "point about the real Todd Schultz", as you are clueless as to anything meaningful about me. Had you asked anyone here about me, at least anyone who knows me, either then or since, you would have known that the crap you were at least implying if not stating about me had no basis. But you didn't. C'est la vie.

Leon, I appreciate your concern, shared by Barry and others, about political threads, but that really wasn't much of an issue here. I thought the dialogue on those topics here was and is mostly civil. I have no problem with debating the issues or, if you wish, letting others do so, and while I find some positions asserted by others to be unsupported, myopic or simplistic (IMHO), there was nothing personal or overly heated that I saw or posted. As for my exchanges with this "gentleman", they would have occurred whether the topic was the 1987 World Series or tough to find high-numbered 1961 Topps. I have no desire to discuss anything with him. Been there, done that. I agree that this one went afield and I sure had a hand in that, but I hope you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. I know you'll keep on doing a bang-up job on not letting things explode too much-- I swear I'll try my best to get along with everybody--well, almost everybody :)

[vintagetoppsguy]

are clueless as to anything meaningful about me. Had you asked anyone here about me, blah, blah, blah

I said I was done, but I had to reply to this post. You really, really want to know what people think about you, Todd. Well, here you go. This is a PM I received about you. I edited most of it as to not give up the member's name, but the important part is all there. I guess I do have a clue about you, huh? Todd, I don't have to ask members about you. They PM me.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Based on my dealings with him, I would not believe Carter's Cards if he said today was Friday.

[Peter_Spaeth]

As long as we're throwing anonymous character witnesses around, I very much like Todd, even when he tries to humiliate me with prior inconsistent statements. :D

[teetwoohsix]

First, thank you Leon for allowing political talk in this one thread.

Thankfully, there's nothing to be alarmed about.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html?_r=1


Sincerely, Clayton

[jhs5120]

.

[jandr272]

Unfortunately it's easier to get an assault rifle than cough syrup in some states and police are the ones suffering the consequences.

Do you have any sources to back this up? The majority of police deaths are actually vehicular, followed by handguns.

No-knock warrants are Gestapo tactics, and cops in military gear with fully automatic weapons, flashbangs and armored vehicles are the sign of an overbearing government, not advances in technology. A quick search of google will come up with more incidents of cops screwing up no-knock raids than getting hurt in them. Things like throwing a flashbang in a toddler's playpen and burning 70% of his body, killing beloved family pets, etc. The justification for most no-knock warrants? The subject they are trying to serve is "known to carry weapons" or it is a drug charge.

[jhs5120]

.

[vintagetoppsguy]

There are more than 30 states that DO NOT require any form of photo ID to obtain an assault rifle.

If anyone buys a gun from a licensed dealer (no matter which state they reside in), you have to fill out Form 4473 from the federal government and present a government issued id.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_4473

That article is talking about private sales from one person to another (although it conveniently fails to mention that).

The cough syrup argument has been worn out now.

[jhs5120]

.

[vintagetoppsguy]

It still stands, I can go to any gun show in Texas and purchase an assault rifle without showing ID.

And it's still wrong, but at least you're consistent. :D

You can purchase an assault rifle from an individual, not a dealer, at a gun show in Texas without an id. If you're going to say that, you need to be clear on the matter. You make it sound as if nobody is requiring paperwork or checking ids. Besides, good luck finding an assault rifle for sale from an individual at a gun show. Most people are holding onto them.

[vintagetoppsguy]

And for that matter, can't you pretty much buy a gun in any state from an individual without an id? Are all those shootings in Chicago committed with guns purchased with an id, or do you think most are committed with guns purchased without an id? But, wait, isn't Illinois one of the states that requires an id to purchase a gun? So doesn't that mean that people disregarding the law?

[jhs5120]

.

[jhs5120]

.

[vintagetoppsguy]

If you're trying to argue that a criminal has never purchased a gun through a private sale, you'll most likely lose that argument.

I'm trying to argue just the opposite. Illinois is one of the states that requires an id for private party gun sales. It was more of a question for you. Do you think that the bad guys of Chicago are complying with that law, or do you think they purchase their guns off the street without an id? You would probably say that most of the bad guys purchase their guns off the street without and id, right? Therefore my whole point was what does it matter if there are laws on the books or not requiring an id for private part sales if the bad guys aren't going to comply?

Chicago has some of the strictist gun laws in the country, yet their gun violence is among the highest in the country. Why aren't the laws working? Are there not enough laws in Chicago or do they need more?

[jhs5120]

.

[vintagetoppsguy]

I am a second amendment supporter, but I think a few common sense laws would help the problem.

I'm all in favor of common sense laws, but I don't think they would help the problem. Purchasing a gun should require paperwork and an id. Period. It doesn't matter if it's through a dealer or a private sale. I think that is common sense. However, I don't think it would help with the problem as the bad guys aren't going to comply with the law.

I work for a company with nearly 5 thousand employees. We have an active bulletin board at work where we are able to buy, sell and trade things - anything, just as long as it's legal. I recently traded a lever action rifle for a .40 caliber handgun. Although Texas law doesn't require any paperwork, we still completed our own transfer paperwork with each other's names, addresses, gun serial numbers, etc. Heck, I don't want a gun out there that was originally registered in my name to somebody I barely know. He probably felt the same way. If something ever happens, I can show the paperwork that I am lo longer owner of the gun that I swapped him.

[jhs5120]

.

[vintagetoppsguy]

I also support strict penalties to the registered owner of a gun used in a crime.

That can be a real slippery slope though. What if the gun owner had the gun secured, someone broke into their home, stole it and then used it in a crime? Should the gun owner be penalized even though they were a responsible citizen? That would be like penalizing someone that had their car stolen from their garage and the car was used in a crime.

On the other hand, sure, there are people that don't secure their guns. Should they be penalized if their gun is stolen and used in a crime, or if some kid finds it and accidentally shoots themself or somebody else? You betcha! But, at the same time, so should that guy that leaves his car running while he runs into the convenience store and somebody hops in and takes off. It's all about personal responsibility.

[jhs5120]

.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Still a real slippery slope. What if you don't realize your gun was missing? It's not like most people set there and pull them out all the time and look at them. It's secured and you really don't think much about it - you know it's there if and when you need it. You've never had something stolen and didn't realize it until much later?

And it wasn't really a gun/car comparison. It could have been anything. It was meant to show that, when being responsible, people shouldn't be penalized. Forget the car, let's say somebody breaks into your house and steals your autographed Derek Jeter baseball bat and uses it to bash in somebody's head? Your fault? Certainly not.

[teetwoohsix]

Do you have any sources to back this up? The majority of police deaths are actually vehicular, followed by handguns.

No-knock warrants are Gestapo tactics, and cops in military gear with fully automatic weapons, flashbangs and armored vehicles are the sign of an overbearing government, not advances in technology. A quick search of google will come up with more incidents of cops screwing up no-knock raids than getting hurt in them. Things like throwing a flashbang in a toddler's playpen and burning 70% of his body, killing beloved family pets, etc. The justification for most no-knock warrants? The subject they are trying to serve is "known to carry weapons" or it is a drug charge.

+1 agreed here. What used to be something that they did on a rare occasion years ago, has now become the norm. What you cited about the flashbang in the toddler's playpen was horrific, and I saw the pictures. I think the baby was something like 19 months old, and the burns were so bad they had to put the baby in a medically induced coma. The poor baby's face was burnt almost completely. Why did this happen? Because a confidential informant bought some meth from a family member OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE. No knock raids should be outlawed. But, the arrest is the number one priority and screw everything else. Time to high five each other for another "bust".......wow! What a rush, huh?

What's wrong with waiting for the subject to walk out of the home and arrest him? If they have proof he sold to an informant, and that was enough to get a warrant, why not kick back and wait for him to come outside, rather than terrorize a whole family?

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees this, thanks for your post.

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

Personally, I liked your original unedited post much better :)

I guess I'm a little bias because I have friends in the force. I have no problem with police forces using recycled military gear (it's better than Bush selling them to Sadam Hussein). I think the best quote of the article is this:



Unfortunately it's easier to get an assault rifle than cough syrup in some states and police are the ones suffering the consequences. If I were to put my life on the line each day I'd probably push towards better gear. Wouldn't you? That's a serious question Clayton. If you were a police officer and you had the opportunity to better protect yourself, would you? I know I would. I would grab as many assault rifles, MRAPs, tanks, grenade launchers and whatever I can get my hands on.

Thanks Jason, I edited it out because after reading it over again in the morning I felt like "what's the use". I could fill up pages of what I feel is wrong with this Country, but unless people are aware of the things I'm talking about-it doesn't resonate.

To answer your question though- it is a much deeper situation than police wanting better gear. But, we are going beyond just "better gear", we are bringing the military structure to the police force-from the dress, to the vehicles, to the weapons, to the tactics.......I'm sorry, but I don't want to live in the "new war zone". I look at it this way. These police voluntarily signed up to do this job. They chose it as a career path. They are choosing to put their lives on the line for a paycheck. The same way I drove public transportation for years. Guess what? I drove through the worst areas in this city every night I worked-putting my life on the line- with NO WEAPON AT ALL. You don't think I had to deal with hostile drunks, people tweaked out on who knows what, fights, child abuse, elder abuse, gang bangers in droves? But- it's called "communication skills". I treated people with respect, and for the most part, got it in return. Sure, I had situations that I had to quell (quite often).....but it's called "reasoning" instead of "force".

I know driving a bus is not the same as being a cop, but I dealt with the public just the same. We were trained to handle situations without needing weapons.

You think a militarized police force is a ridiculous issue, but I don't think you see the whole picture here. Look up NDAA 2012 Section 1021 & 1022. Look how they are killing people who are unarmed left and right-and always getting away with it by saying " the officer was in fear of his/her life" and being put on PAID LEAVE-just to be cleared. If these cops want to be the leaders of the community, then hold them accountable when they murder an innocent victim. They should be held to a higher standard-you kill an unarmed innocent civilian, 25 to life. I bet the abuse would end quick. Independent review of the case by a body of the public they are serving. Same goes for politicians. They should be held to a higher standard, and if they abuse their power they go to prison, end of story.

Because the public sees what they get away with, police and politicians, they lose faith in the system and there's no trust. Social decay. People who don't even break the law are afraid of police. This is why militarizing them does nothing more create an atmosphere of hostility and fear-just the way the politicians want it.

End the war on drugs,,,,,,,,,that is (in my opinion) a way to start healing this nation. Let adults be adults and make their own decisions on what they want to put in their bodies. If they aren't harming anyone else, give them the freedom to choose.Prohibition does not work-proven fact. If they commit crimes because of their drug use(like burglary, robbery, car jacking, etc.), lock them up. Simple. Because, regardless, people are still and always will use drugs. And, I am NOT promoting drug use, just trying to use common sense. Locking people in cages and giving them felonies over a $20.00 bag of cocaine is absurd. That felony means that 75% of his/her job opportunities are gone. Addicts do recover and become productive- why limit their ambitions if they clean up their lives?

Lastly, I want every police officer to make it home safely every night. Just like I want every human to make it home safely every night.After all, we are all Americans, right?

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

Oh yeah,and welcome to the U.S.of A. MS-13! Bring your machetes?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/14/border-agents-lament-mexican-gang-members-entering/

Sincerely, Clayton

P.S. Who is allowing THIS B/S to continue? What about "National Security"?

[teetwoohsix]

And, finally, one quick search and it was not hard to find this story from your neck of the woods Jason:

http://jonathanturley.org/2014/02/25/police-clear-officers-of-beating-and-falsely-charging-new-jersey-man-reporter-then-finds-dashcam-video-proving-all-of-the-allegations/

So, you don't see a problem militarizing the police? I found this story in a second, and it wasn't even the one I was thinking about- which was a kid who was pulled over, and beaten when he tried to grab his paycheck from blowing out of the car.

These stories are all over the country like an epidemic. I think it has to do with the way police are being trained, and how they are treating the public. I want our society to have faith and trust in the police-not fear. Stories like this should be a rare incident. The whole nation should have learned from the Rodney King beating, but I guess not.

Sincerely, Clayton

[vintagetoppsguy]

Oh yeah,and welcome to the U.S.of A. MS-13! Bring your machetes?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/14/border-agents-lament-mexican-gang-members-entering/

Sincerely, Clayton

P.S. Who is allowing THIS B/S to continue? What about "National Security"?

From the article...

I’ve heard people come in and say, ‘You’re going to let me go, just like you let my mother go, just like you let my sister go. You’re going to let me go as well, and the government’s going to take care of us,’”

Sadly, it's true.

[jandr272]

There are more than 30 states that DO NOT require any form of photo ID to obtain an assault rifle. I went to my local Shop Rite yesterday and I need to provide my driver's license to pick up cough syrup AND I was limited to only one.


I was asking you to source where officers have been injured or killed by firearms defined as assault rifles.


The Military Transfer Program was originally enacted during George HW Bush's administration. The program isn't so much the government sending police military weapons, but police officers and local officials requesting them. This is the doing of local government/local police forces. If anyone is overbearing, it is them.


It only matters that they have them, and the feds aren't exactly charging them retail. I doubt the Podunk county sheriff has a spare couple of million dollars for a MRAP lying around.


I'm not going to risk my life because the "beloved family dog" of a meth head might get an ear ache.

I was talking about "mishaps" a bit more serious:

http://cloudfront-assets.reason.com/assets/mc/ekrayewski/2014_05/250babyburn_wsbtv.jpg

That is the result of an overzealous cop with a flashbang. Guess what, nothing has been done to the officer either "it was a tragic mistake" says the department.


Okay, the whole "Militarized Police Force" scare is ridiculous. Gun rights activists argue that Assault Rifles are a necessary tool for protection for every day citizens, but if a police officer (who might actually need such weapons) want to protect themselves the second amendment goes right out the door!

I'm arguing against military tactics and equipment such as flashbangs and light machine guns (as opposed to assault rifles). Allowing cops to carry weapons normal citizens can't creates a citizenry that has more rights than the rest. And the scare isn't ridiculous, because historically when governments stop fearing their own citizens, liberty doesn't last long.

Also, why would a cop need say, a fully automatic M4? Who are they going to be engaging at 300m where they need the capability to fire 600 rounds per minute? I understand deploying flashbangs when clearing an actively hostile room, but for the standard no-knock felony warrant, when the occupants of the room aren't even known? I'm saying the cops here are using tactics we used in Iraq to clear buildings and the vast majority of the time they are swatting flies with a shotgun!

I couldn't care less if the process to purchase handguns and rifles becomes even more stringent or requires basic safety training... but allowing citizens such as cops to have more rights than the rest of citizenry is unconstitutional, plain and simple.

[jhs5120]

.

[jhs5120]

.

[jhs5120]

.

[teetwoohsix]

I disagree with you on "police militarization." Again, I'm a little bias because I have friends in the force and I'm a second amendment supporter. Unfortunately, police are charged with defending us against a militarized nation. On US soil, people are getting blown up in the streets, shot down in movie theatres by men armed with grenades, bullet proof vests and assault rifles. Americans are getting shot down at school, at grocery stores and in their own homes. America has become a militarized nation and the people defending us against ourselves need to be prepared for a new wave of domestic terrorists. That's just a fact.



Well, I can understand the bias seeing that you have friends in the force. I think we would probably all agree that there are good people in law enforcement, good judges, etc.. But, I think you may be way off in thinking that 99% are good. That is a bit fantasy sounding to me, I can search the internet and find TONS of video's showing various instances of police corruption,brutality, and downright murder.And these are instances of where they were recorded. It would be nice if every department across the nation was 99% Serpico and 1% corrupt, but unfortunately that doesn't appear to be the case.

I think you are way off to think America(as in American citizens) has become a militarized nation-this screams of cable media brainwashing to me. New wave of domestic terrorists? Yeah, I think you've been falling for the propaganda (no offense). How many people live here? 330,000,000 or so? They feed you no stop with the Santa Barbara kid- but not a peep about Chicago. Right now, if you haven't noticed, they are trying to convince us (Americans) that we need to "intervene in Iraq". No, we need to intervene at our own border! We need to fix our problems HERE. It's propaganda, and it's sick.

Here's the cold hard truth:

http://www.activistpost.com/2014/06/has-dept-of-homeland-security-become.html

All I can say is I hope people wake up to this evil. And quick.

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

It was a tragic mistake and unavoidable mistake. If I'm raiding the house of a known meth dealer with a history of gun violence and drug related charges, I'm bringing everything I got. They didn't know there was a kid inside and more steps should have been taken to ensure they knew the entire situation, but I'm not going to ban no-knock warrants because one crack baby (not to sound cruel).



I'm sorry, but this was completely avoidable. If you are going to "no knock" raid someone's house, you should know who lives in that house. Due diligence is required. No amount of drugs is worth this type of "mistake". It's a baby-why you would call this infant a "crack baby" is repugnant. No knock warrants , in my opinion, should only be for people wanted for the most serious felonies, like murder, robbery, rape, etc. Not because their "confidential informant" bought a small amount of drugs from a guy OUTSIDE of the home.

Accidents in this line of work are bound to happen.....but if you haven't noticed-everything is "a mistake", and they promise "a thorough investigation". But-they end up cleared, as usual.

It's not popular to point out police abuse, but enough is enough! Kelly Thomas-that's what did it for me- it's time for a major discussion on this type of behavior. The good police need to start speaking up-and if they see a fellow officer who can't handle the stress of the job and is a potential danger to the public, they need to let their supervisor know and remove him or her.

The war on drugs brought us all of this gestapo style crap.....it needs to be fixed. I have a lot of respect for these LEO's- L.E.A.P.- Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. Veteran police, judges, correction officers, detectives, etc......who are speaking out about the damage and absurdity that the war on drugs has brought us as a country. I would highly recommend watching this-startling statistics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsk8R_j5zzg

Want to know how controlled our media is? Did you realize Mexico decriminalized ALL street drugs a few years back? I honestly didn't know until I watched this video.....then I researched it, and I couldn't believe it. WTF?

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

From the article...

I’ve heard people come in and say, ‘You’re going to let me go, just like you let my mother go, just like you let my sister go. You’re going to let me go as well, and the government’s going to take care of us,’”

Sadly, it's true.

We need to call it what it is- a foreign invasion. And, our corrupt politicians are sitting back and letting it happen. It's way worse than that article, they are allowing it on purpose. And, again, where is DHS? What about "National Security"? How many terrorists have came across? Is this not treason?

Sincerely, Clayton

[jhs5120]

.

[vintagetoppsguy]

There are an estimated 300,000,000 guns in America; or more than one for every able bodied citizen.

I guess I am way over my limit then :D

[jhs5120]

.

[vintagetoppsguy]

7 firearms per house on average!

That's exactly how many I currently own at the moment. That number can increase or decrese depending on what I buy, sell or trade for, but it's usually pretty consistent.

[teetwoohsix]

I'm not going to risk my life because the "beloved family dog" of a meth head might get an ear ache. Think.



Today, reported by AP:

http://news.yahoo.com/2nd-officer-suspended-slitting-dogs-throat-204342108.html

What a guy. :confused:

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

It was a tragic mistake and unavoidable mistake. If I'm raiding the house of a known meth dealer with a history of gun violence and drug related charges, I'm bringing everything I got. They didn't know there was a kid inside and more steps should have been taken to ensure they knew the entire situation, but I'm not going to ban no-knock warrants because one crack baby (not to sound cruel).



I'm not sure where you are getting your information about the story^^ but it almost sounds like you are talking about something different. This was not a "crack baby" (as if that even makes a difference-a baby is a baby)- but I didn't read anything about a history of gun violence. Maybe I missed that. But, if you read the end of this report, you will see they located their subject, and without hesitation or confrontation, he WILLINGLY went with police. So, all of this militarized B/S was UNNECESSARY.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jun/24/military-us-police-swat-teams-raids-aclu

As far as the original topic- the reason they want "gun control" has NOTHING to do with any of the killings in the past 6 years. If your eyes were wide open, you would understand what I'm saying. With all due respect.

Sincerely, Clayton

[jhs5120]

.

[teetwoohsix]

You just always go on weird tangents about the police and the DHS and government conspiracies, but I realize what your impression is of the federal government and "why" you believe they want to control firearm purchases. I just think you're wrong. With all due respect.

I'll sum myself up for you: Anti-corruption, freedom loving American. :) Oh, and I can't stand abuse of power and trust. CNN..........ah, never mind.

http://benswann.com/faith-in-police-congress-tv-news-polling-at-or-near-historic-lows/

Here I go on another weird tangent-only because after I logged out, and went to my homepage, this was right there in front of me:

http://news.yahoo.com/as-wars-wind-down--small-town-cops-inherit-armored-vehicles-233505138.html

The fact of the matter is......I'm not making ANY of this stuff up. How can you say any of this stuff I link to is "government conspiracies"? I'm not writing these articles. Is it all a figment of my imagination? Is there no cause for alarm?

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

CNN:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTWY14eyMFg

:confused:

Sincerely, Clayton

[jhs5120]

.

[jhs5120]

.

[teetwoohsix]

Did you just link a CNN video from 1990????

:confused:

Sure did. Oh, my bad........fake then, but not now.

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

From post # 235



Sounds like a conspiracy to me, but what do I know.

The second to last link I provided (a couple of posts back) SAYS exactly what you just quoted me writing in post #235. So, where is the conspiracy Jason? Did you even read the article? Is the DHS not part of the Federal Government? Nice try though.

Sincerely, Clayton

[jhs5120]

.

[jhs5120]

.

[teetwoohsix]

You're posting articles written by conspiracy theorists on websites frequented by conspiracy theorists about conspiracy theories, and then you use these conspiracy theorist's conspiracy theory articles to provide support for the conspiracy theories that you are writing about on this forum.

Just because someone writes an article about a subject doesn't make it not a conspiracy theory.

So the last article I posted from Yahoo! is now considered a conspiracy theory? I see. I've came to the conclusion that I am wasting my time with you because it really doesn't matter to me if you believe me or not. You do your best to discredit me and attack my character-like you know me that well. This is usually what certain people do when you are destroying the credibility of a lie.

Think about it Jason- if we (the public) were given the truth all of the time, would conspiracies even exist? No, they would not. But, we are lied to, manipulated, and deceived on a regular basis. For example- the North Hollywood bank robbery shootout. Why was there no "conspiracy theory" there? Because it really was what it was.

If this conversation were making progress, I'd love to continue-but it's not and it won't. You believe what you want to believe, justify everything and enjoy CNN and whatever else you consider to be the truth.

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

So are you saying the part written about Wanis Thonetheva is fake, or are you just going off on another tangent. I'm genuinely curious about the purpose of this random link........

" Going off on another tangent".......... if you don't get it you never will. Enjoy your brainwashing, you seem to enjoy it. By the way- you are obvious.

Sincerely, Clayton

[vintagetoppsguy]

I've came to the conclusion that I am wasting my time with you because it really doesn't matter to me if you believe me or not.

Yes, you are wasting your time. You may as well be talking to a brick wall.


But, we are lied to, manipulated, and deceived on a regular basis.

Bingo! Just like the Benghazi incident was over a YouTube video. Just like Fast and Furious. Just like 'losing' all of Lois Lerner's emails.

But, Clayton, when you point out these lies, these people are so quick to say, "Bush lied about this. Bush lied about that. Blah, blah, blah..." They want to defend their political party, and by doing so try to deiscredit the other side. They're too blind and ignorant to see that we're being lied to not just by one party, but by both parties.

[steve B]

Looks aside, the MRAPs are some very good multi purpose trucks. Ones that cost around 5-600,00 bought new.

Even one of the articles linked says they would be useful after a disaster like a flood or hurricane.

So what should the feds do? Scrap the surplus ones? Pay a load of money to essentially rebody them as less "scary" trucks? or simply give them as-is to police departments? (And probably eventually fire depts. and maybe some other emergency services)


Historical precedents?

A lot of early airmail was flown in Curtis JN-4 aircraft. Nearly all WWI surplus, sold for as little as $50. It became the basis for some following civilian aircraft, and since it was mainly a trainer, it was the first plane flown by many new pilots including some guy named Lindbergh who became a pretty good pilot from what I read.

The postal service also used combat aircraft, mostly bombers like the Martin MB-1

WWII surplus 5 ton trucks and Jeeps were put to a host of civilian and government uses. Park service, fire departments, Town public works, and much more.

Bostons Duckboat tours originally operated with restored WWII era vehicles, but has switched to modern replicas for ease of maintainance.

I'm not sure it's still policy, but at one time if you set up a non-profit museum focused on some aspect of the military the proper branch would let you apply for a piece of surplus equipment. That's how the tank Museum in Danbury CT started. It's an excellent museum by the way.

Steve B

[teetwoohsix]

Yes, you are wasting your time. You may as well be talking to a brick wall.




Bingo! Just like the Benghazi incident was over a YouTube video. Just like Fast and Furious. Just like 'losing' all of Lois Lerner's emails.

But, Clayton, when you point out these lies, these people are so quick to say, "Bush lied about this. Bush lied about that. Blah, blah, blah..." They want to defend their political party, and by doing so try to deiscredit the other side. They're too blind and ignorant to see that we're being lied to not just by one party, but by both parties.

Thanks David, I appreciate that. I'm glad to see that you get what I'm saying. You can produce all of the information to people like this and they resort to childish remarks and character assassination- but won't objectively give your points the time of day.

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/united-nations-seeks-us-based-disarmament-demobilization-and-reintegration-specialists_06242014

It's funny how everything I've posted is verifiable-all one has to do is a little bit of research.

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

Looks aside, the MRAPs are some very good multi purpose trucks. Ones that cost around 5-600,00 bought new.

Even one of the articles linked says they would be useful after a disaster like a flood or hurricane.

So what should the feds do? Scrap the surplus ones? Pay a load of money to essentially rebody them as less "scary" trucks? or simply give them as-is to police departments? (And probably eventually fire depts. and maybe some other emergency services)


Historical precedents?

A lot of early airmail was flown in Curtis JN-4 aircraft. Nearly all WWI surplus, sold for as little as $50. It became the basis for some following civilian aircraft, and since it was mainly a trainer, it was the first plane flown by many new pilots including some guy named Lindbergh who became a pretty good pilot from what I read.

The postal service also used combat aircraft, mostly bombers like the Martin MB-1

WWII surplus 5 ton trucks and Jeeps were put to a host of civilian and government uses. Park service, fire departments, Town public works, and much more.

Bostons Duckboat tours originally operated with restored WWII era vehicles, but has switched to modern replicas for ease of maintainance.

I'm not sure it's still policy, but at one time if you set up a non-profit museum focused on some aspect of the military the proper branch would let you apply for a piece of surplus equipment. That's how the tank Museum in Danbury CT started. It's an excellent museum by the way.

Steve B

You make some good points Steve, as always- but it's really a larger issue than just the MRAP's. It, to me, is the militarization of the police forces that scares me. They are calling returning veterans, people who are suspicious of centralized government, people who store food and water, etc. "potential domestic terrorists"! Read the 2012 NDAA sections 1021 and 1022. If you look at everything as a whole, it's a bit alarming to me. This amongst a lot of other things. Militarizing the police does nothing but instill fear in the public. In essence, they are bringing the war home and they consider the U.S. of A. a "battlefield" now. It's in the 2012 NDAA. And then you have all of the executive orders that have been signed that get no news coverage........all about controlling everything from food, water, travel, etc. These are not conspiracies, but verifiable facts.

I guess time will tell. I hope it's as innocent as you say- but I just don't see it.

Sincerely, Clayton

[jhs5120]

.

[teetwoohsix]

A true American taking a stand for what is right:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4y9aNpjkLs

Sincerely, Clayton