Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: atf.gov

Stories and comments across the archive that link to atf.gov.

Comments · 113

  1. Re:Greenhouse Denial Industry by deacon · · Score: 2, Insightful · on Global Warming Dissenters Suppressed?
    Bzzzt!

    Logical Fallacy # 1: Poisoning the Well

    linky:

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning -the-well.html

    Logical Fallacy # 2: Guilt By Association

    linky:

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by- association.html

    Both are particularly amusing due to your choice of link to "prove" your point.

    ...



    Make the requirements to vote the same as to own a gun.

    Simply go to the polling place, fill out a Form 4473, show your ID, and the poll worker will check with the FBI database to make sure that you're not prohibited from voting. If everything is working correctly, you will be allowed to vote in a few minutes.

    If the GCA/Brady system doesn't violate the rights of gun owners, then what possible objection could there be to implementing the same system for voting?

    Robert Racansky

  2. Re:Clipper Chip??? by deacon · · Score: 1 · on IBM Hardwires Encryption Into Chips
    We're talking about the current administration, the one we've got, the one we can do something about. Not just partisan politics. But actual politics that go way beyond elections, to actually governing the country.

    You are not going to "do" something about the current administration, so get over it. If Democrats come up with some ideas about running the country and present them to the people before the next ELECTION, then Democrats might actually get elected.

    Note: "Bush is a Moron" is not a platform idea the Democrats can run on, because BUSH IS NOT A CANDITATE IN THE NEXT ELECTION.

    While on some level it is amusing to see people in the thrall of Bush Derangement Syndrome, the country needs the Democrats to get a grip, get a message, and Move On, so that the voters have two viable parties to choose from.

    The rest of your rant about /. being like Free Republic is to risible to deserve a response.

    Furthermore, if we follow the suggestion in the supersig below, we can eliminate one of the components of voting fraud, and get an honest election result. ...



    Make the requirements to vote the same as to own a gun.

    Simply go to the polling place, fill out a Form 4473, show your ID, and the poll worker will check with the FBI database to make sure that you're not prohibited from voting. If everything is working correctly, you will be allowed to vote in a few minutes.

    If the GCA/Brady system doesn't violate the rights of gun owners, then what possible objection could there be to implementing the same system for voting?

    Robert Racansky

  3. Creating perception, not reporting reality by deacon · · Score: 2, Insightful · on Interest in Embedded Linux Remains Low
    Other possibility is that this publication is doing what mainstream media has been doing for years:

    Trying to create a trend or perception where there is none. Witness all those smarmy "the suit is back" articles.

    In addition to accepting paid and free propaganda, trying to create public hysteria to influence political outcomes, the MSM survives on renting reader's eyeballs to advertisers. Whatever it takes to do that, they will do. Slashdot itself has fallen into that same cycle, with regular articles about "political" subjects sure to get 800 replies (and corresponding ad impressions) but with no valid technical content.

    New SuperSig:



    ....


    Make the requirements to vote the same as to own a gun.

    Simply go to the polling place, fill out a Form 4473, show your ID, and the poll worker will check with the FBI database to make sure that you're not prohibited from voting. If everything is working correctly, you will be allowed to vote in a few minutes.

    If the GCA/Brady system doesn't violate the rights of gun owners, then what possible objection could there be to implementing the same system for voting?

    Robert Racansky

  4. Re:What was interesting by MC68000 · · Score: 1 · on Supreme Court Rules against Grokster

    It is legal to have armor peircing bullets but you must jump through hoops to get it. In other words, any criminal with AP rounds did not get his ammo legally in the first place.

    The ATF says that to get it, your name must be put on a list. It also mentions an additional fee that must be paid (which I assume is hefty). If you commit any crime, you also have 5 years tacked on to your sentence (ineligable for parole).

    http://www.atf.gov/firearms/legal/armor.htm

  5. Way to be marginally technically correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on The Baby Bootstrap?
    You are correct in saying that the "ATF" exists no longer. It's now the ATFE (alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives).

    They are quite alive and well.

    Where you are incorrect is that their sphere of responsibility has grown, not diminished. Just try to buy a firearm from an FFL and see which form you fill out (hint: ATF 4473).

  6. Re:This has been a problem with pyrotechnicians to by smurd · · Score: 1 · on Rocket Hobbyists Get Blown Away by Regulations

    The only thing new in regulations since the bombing and 9/11 is an "Employee Possesser" questionare that needs to be on file with the display company.

    You seem to be referencing a "user limited permit" The timelimit you reference is 24 hours WITHOUT an approved explosives magazine to store it. They also require a CDL with hazmat since any quanity of class B (professional display shells) have to be placarded.

    There have always been "a lot of permits to be filled out" (That's why there is usually a firetruck and ambulance there). Most of the issues revolve around insurance, 1e6 is generally the minimum that most municipalities want, and it is slowly increasing. I somehow doubt that is a result of terrorism or any other political issue, probably just the result of judjements.

    You can see the actual forms for yourself at the ATF website

  7. Hobby rocket != Terrorist weapon by prgrmr · · Score: 3, Insightful · on Rocket Hobbyists Get Blown Away by Regulations

    The chances of an unguided, sub-sonic rocket taking out an airplane is very small

    While I can agree that some regulation of large quantities of solid propellant is a prudent thing, the thresholds in the current regs are too extreme, I think. Also, the $25 fee for a limited use permit is an unnecessary and excessive tax for an activity that has miminal impact on public assets.

  8. Re:I actually don't know much about the guy... by bloodrose · · Score: 5, Informative · on Head Of ATF To Direct RIAA Anti-Piracy

    Well, the guy has had long standing tenure at the ATF:

    his ATF Bio

    But in all honesty, his presence should neither make someone worry more or less. More notably at this moment it would seem to just be a change in strategy (as what happens when different controlers take the wheel). We will see more Lawsuits, but perhaps in directions we haven't seen yet. I don't know a great deal about this guy, but it seems at though he is just like any other in that position, the only thing different will be his game plan.

  9. More ACLU Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Symantec Says No To Pro-Gun Sites
    was Re:ACLU: NRA vs. NAMBLA

    If the ACLU supported the Second Amendment in the same fashion that they do abortion, then they woudl be demanding taxpayer subsidies for poor children to buy guns, without having to notify their parents, so they can shoot the child molestors who prey on them.

    That is brilliant. Can I use that?

    Go ahead. Although technically I think I should have written "Roe v. Wade" or "abortion rights" instead of "abortion."

    In any case, please correct my misspelling of would.


    Here's another:

    If the ACLU supported the Second Amendment in the same fashion that they do voting rights, then they would have have to admit that "Requiring the use of photographic identification and/or other documents as a pre-condition for [purchasing a gun] would have a disparate impact on [law-abiding citizens] with disabilities, African-Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans and Native Americans. Further, such a provision would disproportionately impact out-of-state students, many of whom are new residents in the area where they attend school, and homeless men and women who have neither the means to acquire photo ID nor a local address."

    Then again, maybe they don't want the African-Americans, Latinos, et al. owning guns.

    For some reason, the Left -- which includes the ACLU -- is against the idea of voters having to prove who they are when they vote. If the Brady Bill, which requires me to show ID, fill out a form, and wait for the government's permission to buy a gun, is not an infringement of my Second Amendment right to keep arms (as proponents claim), then I'm not sure what the big deal about IDs to vote is. Unless somebody wants voter fraud to happen.

    Surely the same database used for the gun background "instant check" (in states that don't require a waiting period) can be used (or modified) to prevent felons and other non-eligible people from voting. Except that the ACLU wants felons to vote.
  10. More ACLU Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Symantec Says No To Pro-Gun Sites
    was Re:ACLU: NRA vs. NAMBLA

    If the ACLU supported the Second Amendment in the same fashion that they do abortion, then they woudl be demanding taxpayer subsidies for poor children to buy guns, without having to notify their parents, so they can shoot the child molestors who prey on them.

    That is brilliant. Can I use that?

    Go ahead. Although technically I think I should have written "Roe v. Wade" or "abortion rights" instead of "abortion."

    In any case, please correct my misspelling of would.


    Here's another:

    If the ACLU supported the Second Amendment in the same fashion that they do voting rights, then they would have have to admit that "Requiring the use of photographic identification and/or other documents as a pre-condition for [purchasing a gun] would have a disparate impact on [law-abiding citizens] with disabilities, African-Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans and Native Americans. Further, such a provision would disproportionately impact out-of-state students, many of whom are new residents in the area where they attend school, and homeless men and women who have neither the means to acquire photo ID nor a local address."

    Then again, maybe they don't want the African-Americans, Latinos, et al. owning guns.

    For some reason, the Left -- which includes the ACLU -- is against the idea of voters having to prove who they are when they vote. If the Brady Bill, which requires me to show ID, fill out a form, and wait for the government's permission to buy a gun, is not an infringement of my Second Amendment right to keep arms (as proponents claim), then I'm not sure what the big deal about IDs to vote is. Unless somebody wants voter fraud to happen.

    Surely the same database used for the gun background "instant check" (in states that don't require a waiting period) can be used (or modified) to prevent felons and other non-eligible people from voting. Except that the ACLU wants felons to vote.
  11. Re:Just like DARE by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1 · on MPAA School Propaganda Program Examined

    DARE has been replaced by GREAT, which so far has a pretty good success rate.

  12. Don't Try This At Home by Detritus · · Score: 3, Informative · on Build Your Own Mortar

    The BATF has no sense of humor. They have a long history of harassing, arresting and prosecuting people for "minor" violations of the law. You could end up the subject of a search warrant, your house torn apart, and facing felony charges in a federal court.

  13. Re:death and taxes by automandc · · Score: 1 · on DOS Attack Via US Postal Service
    Sorry, the BATF was recently moved to the Dept. of Justice as part of the "Homeland security" reorganization.

    Don't you feel more comfortable knowing John Ashcroft is in charge of firearms now?