PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Okay then, show me the warrants that were issued to open/destroy gun safes w/o probable cause.

The system is working as designed and yet here you are crying about it while claiming I'm ignorant. The real fool is he who asserts that which is not so.

---

https://googlethatforyou.com/?q=warrants%20obtained%20under%20false%20pretenses

Thanks. What materially false statement was made by police to obtain the warrant that was then used deceptively against the safe maker?

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

will25u said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Cynic said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

YOU HAVE THE COMBINATION. pic.twitter.com/9S0xLlmwta

— Walleyes, Whitetails & Whiskeys are all around us (@weirbeard1) September 6, 2023

---

So the government could just hire a locksmith as well.

Meaning they can get in these even if they didn't get the code

---

I am sure there are folks on this board that know this, but apparently not all.

Liberty will only give the "back door" instructions to a licensed locksmith. The locksmith has a responsibility to keep that information confidential. The consumer has no obligation. That is why the consumer has to call a locksmith.

The FBI has licensed locksmiths on their payroll. That is why they don't have to call one, they already have one. Even with that, they had to provide a legitimate warrant to get the information.

If you think the lack of "back door" instructions would have kept the FBI out, you aren't thinking clearly. If they want in, they will get in.

If there was no "back door" Liberty Safes would sell very few units, since if a consumer forgot the combination, it would become a very large and expensive paperweight.

What some people decide to get riled up about is fascinating.

---

Wait, so they will only give the access code - a code that is keyed in by any human with a finger - to a locksmith, but won't give it to an FBI agent with a warrant unless the FBI agent is a locksmith?

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read.

LOL.

---

You really believe the "back door" is a simple access code - a code that is keyed in by any human with a finger?

Talk about dumb things to read.

---

Hey there Mr Watermelon Man.

So Liberty now says they will expunge your "access codes" if you contact them. If what you say is true, and the backdoor is more than simple access codes that are entered into the pad in the safe, explain how this solves anything.

I'll hang up and listen to your wisdom.

---

Now, they were totally in the wrong for just volunteering the info on without an actual legal reason. And I don't think they should keep the original code either.

---

People lose their codes all the time. I do not agree at all. A safe has to be destroyed every time an owner forgets under your ideal.

---

Good security works like this. If you care about security, you won't ever forget your code or you will find ways to write it down and secure that.

In a secure system if you forget your code you should not be able to have access.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I think Liberty is being dog piled on by an activist wing of the right thats looking for todays cause. Everyone involved acted reasonably until some weird people started screaming on X.

---

After one guy called me daddy and several more lobbied memes, my suspicion is officially confirmed.

Thanks all.

Beast of Burden said:

---

Touchless said:

---

Beast of Burden said:

---

Touchless said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Touchless said:

---

You've continued posting this morning so I know you saw my response. Still waiting for you to quote what specifically I said that was wrong, especially as it relates to Liberty's response and new policy.

TIA

---

You don't realize that you were arguing a giant strawman that it was necessary for Liberty to give these codes away or you were ok with kids getting sexually abused, and Liberty just showed that it actually was completely up to their discretion?

---

Except that I never argued they should give them away. I never took a position I asked a question genius. There's a distinct difference between asking a question to have a conversation about it vs taking a position and saying the company was justified.

So again, please quote me where I was wrong. You didn't quote me. You can't even quote me as saying I supported what they did.

You just didn't like my responses and are trying to call me out for something I didn't say.

---

Reading this thread all you've done is make yourself look foolish while calling other people names. It's like watching a 10 year old argue with adults.

---

If you're going to say I'm wrong about something I said, prove it. I have no problem admitting if I was wrong on something.

If you're going to call someone out, you should be able to back it up. I don't really feel like that's that controversial of an opinion.

---

Read the thread, bro. You came into this thread and created a strawman where if you believe in constitutional rights then you must be for child endangerment. From that post on, you repeatedly begged for someone to aNsWeR yOuR qUeStIoN while calling others names for laughing at your dumb strawman argument. It's really silly to watch.

One thing everyone can see though is you are Mr. I Need The Last Word so I'll let you have it

V
V
V

---

You can call it a strawman if you want. I've said multiple times to not focus on the one scenario I randomly picked. It's been a hot topic this year. You can't get over that aspect though obviously as it's the only thing you and others go back to.

And like I said, if someone is going to call me out and I disagree with it, I'm going to call them out to show me the proof. They should be able to do that, but they can't.

I appreciate the last word though.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I think Liberty is being dog piled on by an activist wing of the right thats looking for todays cause. Everyone involved acted reasonably until some weird people started screaming on X.

---

After one guy called me daddy and several more lobbied memes, my suspicion is officially confirmed.

Thanks all.

---

This is honestly bizarre (and sad) to watch.

Goodness…

I'm sorry my posts on a message board made you sad but I genuinely hope your Friday gets better.

Beast of Burden said:

---

Touchless said:

---

Beast of Burden said:

---

Touchless said:

---

Beast of Burden said:

---

Touchless said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Touchless said:

---

You've continued posting this morning so I know you saw my response. Still waiting for you to quote what specifically I said that was wrong, especially as it relates to Liberty's response and new policy.

TIA

---

You don't realize that you were arguing a giant strawman that it was necessary for Liberty to give these codes away or you were ok with kids getting sexually abused, and Liberty just showed that it actually was completely up to their discretion?

---

Except that I never argued they should give them away. I never took a position I asked a question genius. There's a distinct difference between asking a question to have a conversation about it vs taking a position and saying the company was justified.

So again, please quote me where I was wrong. You didn't quote me. You can't even quote me as saying I supported what they did.

You just didn't like my responses and are trying to call me out for something I didn't say.

---

Reading this thread all you've done is make yourself look foolish while calling other people names. It's like watching a 10 year old argue with adults.

---

If you're going to say I'm wrong about something I said, prove it. I have no problem admitting if I was wrong on something.

If you're going to call someone out, you should be able to back it up. I don't really feel like that's that controversial of an opinion.

---

Read the thread, bro. You came into this thread and created a strawman where if you believe in constitutional rights then you must be for child endangerment. From that post on, you repeatedly begged for someone to aNsWeR yOuR qUeStIoN while calling others names for laughing at your dumb strawman argument. It's really silly to watch.

One thing everyone can see though is you are Mr. I Need The Last Word so I'll let you have it

V
V
V

---

You can call it a strawman if you want. I've said multiple times to not focus on the one scenario I randomly picked. It's been a hot topic this year. You can't get over that aspect though obviously as it's the only thing you and others go back to.

And like I said, if someone is going to call me out and I disagree with it, I'm going to call them out to show me the proof. They should be able to do that, but they can't.

I appreciate the last word though.

---

Does this make sense to anyone besides Touchless who keeps begging to be validated by someone…anyone?

---

Please, random people on the internet, please accept me. I want to be part of this cool internet group and have cool internet friends.

By the way, I thought you were giving me the last word? Why are you still responding to me? Hmmmmm.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

You're not saying anything I didn't already know.

What you haven't figured out is that rational people (who aren't doing the internet tough guy thing) support law enforcement.

---

there's a lot of 'internet tough guys' that dont support law enforcement. lest we forget about defunding the police movement.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

You're not saying anything I didn't already know.

What you haven't figured out is that rational people (who aren't doing the internet tough guy thing) support law enforcement.

---

More and more rational people do not support nor trust the FBI, and for good reason.

Touchless said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

new policy effective this evening.

this is what you call emergency panic reaction mode.

you would be an idiot to trust them.

pic.twitter.com/EOvUXdOTkm

— Liberty Safe (@libertysafeinc) September 7, 2023

---

To be fair, I think you have to at least give them some credit. They ****ed up, they know they ****ed up and pissed off customers, they're essentially admitting they ****ed to try and satisfy customers. That's basically what the majority of people wanted from Bud Light. Come out and say you ****ed up and you're far more likely to get a better response from your core customers than if you just continue to pander to everyone.

Trust them or not after the fact is up to the individual, but at least their response to the reaction appears to be with good intent. Keyword is appears and never know for sure really.

---

They contributed to Fetterman's campaign.

Nanomachines son said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

will25u said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Cynic said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

YOU HAVE THE COMBINATION. pic.twitter.com/9S0xLlmwta

— Walleyes, Whitetails & Whiskeys are all around us (@weirbeard1) September 6, 2023

---

So the government could just hire a locksmith as well.

Meaning they can get in these even if they didn't get the code

---

I am sure there are folks on this board that know this, but apparently not all.

Liberty will only give the "back door" instructions to a licensed locksmith. The locksmith has a responsibility to keep that information confidential. The consumer has no obligation. That is why the consumer has to call a locksmith.

The FBI has licensed locksmiths on their payroll. That is why they don't have to call one, they already have one. Even with that, they had to provide a legitimate warrant to get the information.

If you think the lack of "back door" instructions would have kept the FBI out, you aren't thinking clearly. If they want in, they will get in.

If there was no "back door" Liberty Safes would sell very few units, since if a consumer forgot the combination, it would become a very large and expensive paperweight.

What some people decide to get riled up about is fascinating.

---

Wait, so they will only give the access code - a code that is keyed in by any human with a finger - to a locksmith, but won't give it to an FBI agent with a warrant unless the FBI agent is a locksmith?

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read.

LOL.

---

You really believe the "back door" is a simple access code - a code that is keyed in by any human with a finger?

Talk about dumb things to read.

---

Hey there Mr Watermelon Man.

So Liberty now says they will expunge your "access codes" if you contact them. If what you say is true, and the backdoor is more than simple access codes that are entered into the pad in the safe, explain how this solves anything.

I'll hang up and listen to your wisdom.

---

Now, they were totally in the wrong for just volunteering the info on without an actual legal reason. And I don't think they should keep the original code either.

---

People lose their codes all the time. I do not agree at all. A safe has to be destroyed every time an owner forgets under your ideal.

---

Good security works like this. If you care about security, you won't ever forget your code or you will find ways to write it down and secure that.

In a secure system if you forget your code you should not be able to have access.

---

Or you could write the number down then lock it in the safe.

aggielostinETX said:

---

TAMU1990 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

This trumps Bud Light as worst business decision ever.

These guys just killed their business.

---

Liberty Safe was sold in 2021 to liberals who donate to democrats.

---

Liberty Safe was sold to Monomoy Capital Partners in 2021, a liberal East Coast investment firm. I pulled the FEC reports on the company and found approximately $400,000 over the last 10 cycles of max donations to Democrats like:

Raphael Warnock in GA
John Fetterman in PA… pic.twitter.com/WqnlQpPnrA

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) September 7, 2023

---

Didn't Liberty Safe start out as Sequoia?

Slicer97 said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Thanks. What materially false statement was made by police to obtain the warrant that was then used deceptively against the safe maker?

---

Again, what the hell are you babbling about?

No one is claiming the FBI made a materially false statement to obtain the warrant (although I wouldn't put it past them) or that they tried to deceive Liberty into giving them access to the codes. The FBI simply asked and Liberty acquiesced.

Are you a troll or are you really that obtuse?

If you don't understand why everyone is pissed at Liberty, you need to enroll in a civics class.

I've never seen someone double down so hard on a bad position that wasn't deliberately trolling.

---

I did say it could happen and thats why warrants should not be trusted on face value.

richardag said:

---

Touchless said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

new policy effective this evening.

this is what you call emergency panic reaction mode.

you would be an idiot to trust them.

pic.twitter.com/EOvUXdOTkm

— Liberty Safe (@libertysafeinc) September 7, 2023

---

To be fair, I think you have to at least give them some credit. They ****ed up, they know they ****ed up and pissed off customers, they're essentially admitting they ****ed to try and satisfy customers. That's basically what the majority of people wanted from Bud Light. Come out and say you ****ed up and you're far more likely to get a better response from your core customers than if you just continue to pander to everyone.

Trust them or not after the fact is up to the individual, but at least their response to the reaction appears to be with good intent. Keyword is appears and never know for sure really.

---

They contributed to Fetterman's campaign.

---

Well that's not a good look and pretty embarrassing really. Not sure how any company could donate towards that.

Touchless said:

---

richardag said:

---

Touchless said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

new policy effective this evening.

this is what you call emergency panic reaction mode.

you would be an idiot to trust them.

pic.twitter.com/EOvUXdOTkm

— Liberty Safe (@libertysafeinc) September 7, 2023

---

To be fair, I think you have to at least give them some credit. They ****ed up, they know they ****ed up and pissed off customers, they're essentially admitting they ****ed to try and satisfy customers. That's basically what the majority of people wanted from Bud Light. Come out and say you ****ed up and you're far more likely to get a better response from your core customers than if you just continue to pander to everyone.

Trust them or not after the fact is up to the individual, but at least their response to the reaction appears to be with good intent. Keyword is appears and never know for sure really.

---

They contributed to Fetterman's campaign.

---

Well that's not a good look and pretty embarrassing really. Not sure how any company could donate towards that.

---

Really, what more proof does anyone need to avoid buying one of their safes.

Slicer97 said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Thanks. What materially false statement was made by police to obtain the warrant that was then used deceptively against the safe maker?

---

Again, what the hell are you babbling about?

No one is claiming the FBI made a materially false statement to obtain the warrant (although I wouldn't put it past them) or that they tried to deceive Liberty into giving them access to the codes. The FBI simply asked and Liberty acquiesced.

Are you a troll or are you really that obtuse?

If you don't understand why everyone is pissed at Liberty, you need to enroll in a civics class.

I've never seen someone double down so hard on a bad position that wasn't deliberately trolling.

---

you can take your foot off his throat now.

Slicer97 said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Thanks. What materially false statement was made by police to obtain the warrant that was then used deceptively against the safe maker?

---

Again, what the hell are you babbling about?

No one is claiming the FBI made a materially false statement to obtain the warrant (although I wouldn't put it past them) or that they tried to deceive Liberty into giving them access to the codes. The FBI simply asked and Liberty acquiesced.

Are you a troll or are you really that obtuse?

If you don't understand why everyone is pissed at Liberty, you need to enroll in a civics class.

I've never seen someone double down so hard on a bad position that wasn't deliberately trolling.

---

If you clicked the other posters link you'd know. He baselessly claimed they lied to be able to get into the safe.

Now you're misrepresenting what happened.

I get it. Today's ring wing virtue signal is against liberty safes. I'm not a leftist just because I called out some goobers on the internet. I'll say it again:

Everyone involved was acting reasonably until people started screaming about it on X.

How was Liberty acting reasonably?

I mean, if the owner of the safe had said, "Sure, give them the codes because I don't my safe and it's contents damaged." that would be one thing. But that's not what happened.

The FBI had the right to open the safe because of the warrant.

Liberty was under no obligation to provide the codes to the FBI unless directed to do so by court order. Liberty is no longer the owner of the safe. They should have refused when the request was made. Then the FBI could have procured a court order directing Liberty to provide the code.

Liberty Safe should have just said, "although we are not named in the warrant or have been issued a subpoena, we were blindsided by the FBI, so we decided to give them the safe code. Had we not complied, the FBI would've more than likely tried coming after us for some baseless claims against the company, which could've put every Liberty Safe customer in jeopardy of the FBI having their codes. So, in a haste we allowed this one sacrificial lamb to save the rest of the herd and have now updated our policies to protect the rest of our customers. I hope you can one day forgive us for this unpreparedness. God Bless the USA."

I think that Liberty was acting reasonable because the safe was either going to be opened by Liberty or destroyed.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Thanks. What materially false statement was made by police to obtain the warrant that was then used deceptively against the safe maker?

---

Again, what the hell are you babbling about?

No one is claiming the FBI made a materially false statement to obtain the warrant (although I wouldn't put it past them) or that they tried to deceive Liberty into giving them access to the codes. The FBI simply asked and Liberty acquiesced.

Are you a troll or are you really that obtuse?

If you don't understand why everyone is pissed at Liberty, you need to enroll in a civics class.

I've never seen someone double down so hard on a bad position that wasn't deliberately trolling.

---

If you clicked the other posters link you'd know. He baselessly claimed they lied to be able to get into the safe.

Now you're misrepresenting what happened.

I get it. Today's ring wing virtue signal is against liberty safes. I'm not a leftist just because I called out some goobers on the internet. I'll say it again:

Everyone involved was acting reasonably until people started screaming about it on X.

---

I said no such thing.

Now you're straight up lying.

Mr. Ethical seems to be anything but…

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I think that Liberty was acting reasonable because the safe was either going to be opened by Liberty or destroyed.

---

That's not their decision…

aggielostinETX said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I think that Liberty was acting reasonable because the safe was either going to be opened by Liberty or destroyed.

---

That's not their decision…

---

Actually it is. Source: it happened.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I think that Liberty was acting reasonable because the safe was either going to be opened by Liberty or destroyed.

---

lol, what a take. The choice of opening the safe or having it destroyed should have been left up to the owner of the safe. Liberty potentially benefits from the FBI destroying it, since they might sell another safe.

one safe place said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I think that Liberty was acting reasonable because the safe was either going to be opened by Liberty or destroyed.

---

lol, what a take. The choice of opening the safe or having it destroyed should have been left up to the owner of the safe. Liberty potentially benefits from the FBI destroying it, since they might sell another safe.

---

The owner lost the right to make that choice when lawn enforcement was able to present probable cause he committed a crime.

Again, the system is working as designed.

aggielostinETX said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I think that Liberty was acting reasonable because the safe was either going to be opened by Liberty or destroyed.

---

That's not their decision…

---

Nor is the subpoena even valid as to them, since it is not directed at them.

How many times can one plane crash???

Picard said:

---

How many times can one plane crash???

---

He does it multiple times a day on multiple threads.

Amazing resilience in that plane...