Posted on 10/07/2014 6:26:01 PM PDT by PatriotWriter
Firearms Expert / Air Force Veteran convicted of embezzlement / manufacturing and dealing firearms speaks out days before his Oct. 9 sentencing.
A Congressional inquiry has been opened into the Air Force Office of Special Investigation’s mishandling of the case.
The existence of a separate Air Force Inspector General investigation into the lead investigator’s tactics was withheld from both judge and jury during the trial, a direct violation of the law.
The Sig Sauer Academy director was slated to be the star witness for the defense but was prevented from testifying by a slick prosecutorial trick.
EXCLUSIVE STORY: http://benswann.com/exclusive-air-force-veteran-and-firearms-expert-convicted-of-manufacturing-weapons-speaks-out/
Send it to Tom Gresham, David Codrea, Mark Walters, and other second amendment warriors.
Welcome to FR, BTW.
Welcome to Free Republic.
Pimp that blog.
It wouldn’t hurt to mention what he did.
“The investigators were not able to find a trail of money from me profiting from my supposed firearms business,” Tim Arnold says, “Because I never made any money off of it. I never claimed to be a business or advertise. I did it for fun and as a favor to people in my life.”
However, a jury in a civilian court found Arnold guilty of illegally manufacturing and dealing firearms. Of note, the legal definition of manufacturing implies objects are created from raw material. What Arnold did, and what many other gun enthusiasts in this country do, is actually firearms assembly, a legal endeavor.
So he gave it away? "Dealing" is gaining something financially or something tangible in value. A pretty cheesy conviction if no real transactions took place.
Now he’s aware that they’ll eat their own. Walk lightly when in the presence of the G-men.
Priscilla, I’m glad to see you on FR.
“Dealing” (in Uncle’s language) means transferring from one party to another.
Uncle doesn’t care if you sell it for $1 million or a penny, it’s the transfer from one person or entity to another that they’re interested in.
Can’t tell much about this case unless I have the particulars. The guy could have a good case on appeal.
Appears the guy was naive. He should have understood on a few levels...it only takes one.
This is actually very helpful for me. I never understood the anger toward bloggers. Some blogs are better than the MSM.
As Jim said in the post you cited, “I have no complaint if a good conservative blogger posts his own material to FR, not as an excerpt to drive hits and discussion back to his blog, but rather to impart useful information to OUR readers and to promote and join in on the discussion and conservative activism HERE on FR.”
So, I’m going to assume that even a *looooong* article on a blog would be welcomed on the ‘bloggers’ section, as long as it was published in full.
(I prefer to post experts whenever I do post anything because I think that it’s polite to give credit where credit is due. And many times, I can’t tell what’s a blog and what’s considered a legit source.)
I guess that where I’ve always been confused is that I don’t know what the hell a blog really is anymore.
The definition of a ‘blog’ is “a regularly updated website or web page, typically one run by an individual or small group, that is written in an informal or conversational style.”
That’s not the same thing as someone who’s done the research and written an article. That’s more journalism than an informal conversation.
I think that we’re in a transitional phase and, right now, lines are blurring. Even Jim said, “But, of course, as some blogs are definitely better than most others and some are much better than your typical mainstream news sources, we soon allowed certain blogs to be posted regularly to the news section.”
So who's angry?
"So, I’m going to assume that even a *looooong* article on a blog would be welcomed on the ‘bloggers’ section, as long as it was published in full."
Check out this "looooong" blog post.
Then notice the number of "angry" complaints that follow in the comments.
"(I prefer to post experts (sic) whenever I do post anything because I think that it’s polite to give credit where credit is due. And many times, I can’t tell what’s a blog and what’s considered a legit source.) I guess that where I’ve always been confused is that I don’t know what the hell a blog really is anymore."
OK, it's my turn to be confused.
In what way is excerpting a matter of "giving credit where credit is due?"
Posting in full is giving credit to the FReepers who support this forum.
A needless excerpt for hits is a slap in their collective face.
"That’s not the same thing as someone who’s done the research and written an article. That’s more journalism than an informal conversation."
By your definition most blogs being pimped on the net these days don't qualify as "journalism." They tend to be "The News" rehashed, reworded and pimped for profit. (Clarification - I have no idea whether the article that is the subject of this thread falls into that category. I won't know until it's posted here in full. I have had enough of viruses, adware, tracking software and doing sysrestore to get myself back online after visiting excerpted "blogs.")
"Even Jim said, “But, of course, as some blogs are definitely better than most others ..."
That is absolutely true. It is also true that the portion of the blogosphere that falls into this category is quite small.
Hypothetical situation:
A friend throws a party. A lot of people you don't know are there. Many of them have freely brought food and drinks to share. A stranger arrives, bringing a couple gallons of Kool-Aid. He refuses to tell you anything but his first name and wants you to try his Kool-Aid and come with him to the parking lot.
What are the chances?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.