Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

ATF: Give Your Ex a ‘Valentine’s Day to Remember’ By Reporting Their ‘Illegal Gun Activity’

ATF: Give Your Ex a ‘Valentine’s Day to Remember’ By Reporting Their ‘Illegal Gun Activity’

If the ATF is serious then start with Eric Holder. He has not been held responsible for Operation Fast & Furious and other gun-running schemes to Mexican drug cartels.

The ATF suggested you use Valentine’s Day as an excuse to report your ex-partner’s “illegal gun activity.”

Yeah, this would not get abused at all. No one in government ever thinks. Let’s take advantage of all the holidays!

However, I can think of one person we can report: ERIC HOLDER.

Do you remember Eric Holder? His ATF ran a few gun-running operations to Mexican drug cartels. Those criminals used the guns to murder Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and ICE Agent Jaime Zapata.

How about the ATF?

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

This is Obama/Soros’ third term, no doubt.

The Gentle Grizzly | February 14, 2022 at 7:59 pm

This gives the false-rape accuser types a new toy to play with.

And get a free crack pipe from uncle Joe!

Big Brother

Lots of good replies on the twitter feed of atf.
Hunter Biden admitted to lying on the 4473 form.

[email protected]·13h
A date to remember just like Waco Texas

BobD
“We’ll give them a Ruby for Valentines! Ridge that is…”

CJ Seales
Yes I do. This govt organization shot a mother holding her child and a dog without provocation. And what’s weirder is that like a few months later that same organization burned a bunch of school children alive.

“However, I can think of one person we can report: ERIC HOLDER.”

I can think of one even more evil and wrong. HUNTER BIDEN!

This bastard lied on the purchase form, since he is a drug addict in possesion of crack cocaine, on video, and his family dumped the piece in a trash can near a school.

But nothing will happen to him, so you can imagine how faithful the ATF is to the law.

Dozens of hate-filled, rejected women will be lying to “get back” at people who have ended relationships. And feds will be attacking chosen folks who they decide should be the chosen ones with a dozen brown shirts smashing the front doors and back doors, seizing computers and telephones to destroy their lives. It will be months before innocent accused citizens will begin to start their lives back again and there will be no consequences for the broken lives.
ATF have long and criminal lives against sometimes innocent lives without consequences.

    henrybowman in reply to WISteve. | February 15, 2022 at 12:22 am

    But the beauty of this is that citizens fighting red-flag laws in their state can flash an image of this up on the presentation screen and ask the assembled legislators how confident they are that they have no one in their lives whom they’ve pissed off enough to swat them with it.

    The BATF is famously oblivious to the optics of their pet exercises in tyranny. If you ever come across a pocket knife once given to agents as convention swag and engraved with “Always Think Forfeiture” at a neighborhood yard sale, be sure to pick it up — it’s quite a collectible.

      Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | February 15, 2022 at 9:06 am

      The ATF won’t raid everyone on whom someone drops a dime. They’ll only raid the people they want to raid; the information they get will be the justification. The information they get about those they don’t want to raid, such as the legislators you’re talking about, will be dropped in the circular file — provided, that is, that they play ball.

      In other words this will have the opposite effect from the one you want. Rather than think, “Oh, no, I’d better vote to limit the ATF’s powers so they can’t do this to me”, they’ll think, “Oh no, I’d better vote to give the ATF all the power they want, so they won’t do this to me”.

    Free State Paul in reply to WISteve. | February 15, 2022 at 6:28 pm

    I personally know two men who had their gun collections confiscated during messy divorces. One didn’t have the money to fight to get them back. The other got his guns returned years later, after spending a lot of money on legal fees. His collection was scratched and rusted from sitting in garbage bags in a police warehouse. While I can’t know for sure what transpired between them and their exes, neither seemed like the kind of person to make threats. IMHO, their wives knew the collections were important too them, and wanted to make them suffer.

How ’bout Slow Joe? Letting terrorists have billions of dollars of weapons with zero restrictions.

    Milhouse in reply to Romey. | February 15, 2022 at 9:10 am

    1. He’s the president so when he does it it isn’t illegal.
    2. Even if it were, they’re not going to raid him. Any information you give them on him will be discarded. But it will put you in the hot spot, and any information they can get on you will be acted on.

      Agree except for one thing

      “He’s the president so when he does it it isn’t illegal.”

      While what Romney said isn’t a crime in any circumstance (assuming he is talking about withdrawing from Afghanistan incompetently) illegal actions of the president are still illegal there is just a different avenue for dealing with it (impeachment). In practice that means legal if you have 41 or more senators on your side but legally every crime a president does is still a crime.

      Fully agree with point two however.

        Milhouse in reply to Danny. | February 15, 2022 at 3:15 pm

        I did not suggest that nothing the president does can be illegal. Nobody would suggest that. But I was quoting Richard Nixon for the completely correct point that there are certain crimes the president cannot commit, because when he does them they are not crimes. One obvious example is leaking classified material; if the president authorizes someone to release something it’s automatically declassified, so by definition he cannot leak. Another example is the one we’re discussing. Leaving all that materiel behind for the enemy to take would be a crime if anyone else did it, but because he’s the president it wasn’t.

          Danny in reply to Milhouse. | February 16, 2022 at 8:41 am

          Glad I misinterpreted you but leaving that material behind wouldn’t have been a crime from someone else, it would have been incompetent and would have been grounds for removal from the military but retreats leave behind gear for the enemy all the time. Plenty of German and Japanese units used captured American equipment, incompetence isn’t a crime.

          It is grounds for removing a general or admiral but not a crime.

          Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | February 16, 2022 at 7:35 pm

          When I was sworn in and signed those NDAs I took an oath that I wouldn’t give up anything on pain of death. It burns me that any President feels free to allow when it’s politically convenient to have an ally give drip drop that info. Sometimes I think I’m the only one in government service who didn’;t swear a false oath to the Constitution.

          I’m still not free to give you the whole truth.

Lying by omission is still lying.