October 17, 2011, 07:49 PM | #1401 | |
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
Quote:
I ain't real bright but here is what I see... All guns confiscated in mexico can have their numbers checked by The USA at least if not Mexico too. The guns they give us to check are predominately American made... But they lack what should be a vast majority of com-bloc and chi-com gear due to all of their illegal import routes. Now if F&F was intended to cement thes numbers with guns FROM dealers NEAR the border, they get to go after the 2A rights... But they want the needed time to have such a number of guns walked and then the time it takes to be used and discarded at crimes... IN MEXICO... If one is used in a crime in america, the scrutiny of tracing the gun would cause this inevitable discovery of their involvement in illicit behavior. If no Terry shooting, no discovery... yet... In another year or so, we would have a new look at guns confiscated IN mexico BY mexican authorities used in crimes there... All of a sudden it looks like a super spike in trafficking of arms from the USA (surprise surprise).. Now the reason for gun control here is presented... Brent |
|
October 17, 2011, 08:58 PM | #1402 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
I think Brent is right - Mexico provided just the right amount of haziness to the situation.
It was kind of a black hole of information. Now matter how many Mexicans were killed - the only information that would have come streaming out of Mexico is that American guns were showing up at horrific crime scenes in huge numbers. I think it would have been impossible to get further visibility into that. Tailor made for using the information as fuel to both back up the Presidents original erroneous statements - and make the case for stricter gun control. But, when agent Terry was shot and killed - the dynamics changed. That was the tipping point for BATFE agents that had been frustrated with an operation that didn't seem to make sense to them anyway. Now BATFE agents who had been sounding the alarm on the dangers of the plan were going to make sure that it wasn't swept under the carpet - they blew the whistle. And they knew that the firearms could be traced. Totally different from just a bunch of foreign drug gangs shooting each other in another country. Since it happend on our side of the border - the information could be found, exposed and reported on. |
October 18, 2011, 10:03 AM | #1403 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
|
October 18, 2011, 01:53 PM | #1404 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
When someone becomes a BATFE agent, do they have to swear to uphold the constitution?
|
October 18, 2011, 02:07 PM | #1405 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
October 18, 2011, 02:18 PM | #1406 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Sunny Southern Idaho
Posts: 1,909
|
Quote:
5 USC 3331
__________________
Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop - Gus McCrae |
|
October 18, 2011, 04:21 PM | #1407 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Sunny Southern Idaho
Posts: 1,909
|
The US Senate just unanimously passed an amendment to HR2112 prohibiting the funding of gunwalking operations. It's Amendment 775 to Amendment 738 of HR2112.
Horses are gone, barn doors are closed, but it's something. EDIT: Haven't seen a story on the amendment's passage, but here's one on what was proposed. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...est=latestnews
__________________
Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop - Gus McCrae |
October 18, 2011, 10:28 PM | #1409 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
|
|
October 19, 2011, 12:35 PM | #1410 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
A federal law to de-fund programs that transfer weapons to drug cartels.
Is there a law for the U.S. Marshalls that de-fund programs that let criminals walk right out of custody? Maybe we need another funding law to go along with this that the Secret Service can't pass out bags of counterfeit money to mobsters? The DEA then needs a law to defund programs that give cocaine to street pushers, but don’t keep track of what was given to who or when. Maybe they should just pass a law that defunds any attempt to repeat a program that was previously proven to be a failure? Maybe they should just pass a law that defunds programs that are stupid? |
October 19, 2011, 01:06 PM | #1411 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,346
|
Good point, Count! How about a new law to defund any criminal activity by a federal agency?
__________________
"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition." - James Madison
|
October 19, 2011, 01:18 PM | #1412 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
^ No government funding for criminal activity is probably a good idea.
|
October 19, 2011, 01:38 PM | #1413 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,351
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Not a lot new under the sun with Incongruous Assembled |
||||
October 19, 2011, 04:24 PM | #1414 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,526
|
The DoJ seems to be trying to use the Bush era operation Wide Receiver to try and deflect attention from their mistakes.
|
October 19, 2011, 07:56 PM | #1415 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
October 19, 2011, 10:57 PM | #1416 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
Well Bill Newell is a bald faced liar.
I don't know how you can count yourself among the "good guys" and lie before congress. That guy is in the wrong line of work. |
October 20, 2011, 06:44 AM | #1417 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Quote:
I'm seriously hoping that all the documents Rep. Issa has demanded show that Mr. Newell ain't the only one with that distinction.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy Last edited by CowTowner; October 20, 2011 at 06:58 AM. |
|
October 20, 2011, 09:09 PM | #1418 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,839
|
heard on the radio today, Obama, visiting a school, was interviewed and asked about Fast & Furious. Answered he heard about it from the press.
Press report about the interview covered Obama's preferences/knowledge of children's books.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
October 20, 2011, 09:16 PM | #1419 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
I suspect Issa already has copies of all the documents he has demanded, and the subpoena is a perjury trap.
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth |
October 21, 2011, 05:47 AM | #1420 |
Member
Join Date: December 23, 2007
Location: Central South Carolina
Posts: 89
|
^^^^^^ I believe this is correct. I think Issa is playing hardball and Holder isn't aware of it, yet.
Rick |
October 21, 2011, 08:29 AM | #1421 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
I like to go to Brady's website every so often.
I can't stay there too long, I get too agitated, but I did click around to try to find something about Fast and Furious. They're pretty freaked out about that House reciprocity bill, but there's nothing about F&F. I guess it's not surprising, but if they were really concerned about gun violence you'd think it would be in big bold letters on their site. In a way they are symbolic of whatever brain trust dreamed F&F up in the first place. What is the ideology they are supposedly adhering to? Trying to reduce gun violence in this country by reducing the amount of guns and severly restricting their use? SOooo, they flood the country with guns, giving them to criminals no less, getting a border patrol agent killed, escalating violence on the border to insane levels and endangering numerous law enforcement officers. Didn't they create exactly what they supposedly are working to prevent? Just political hacks. Whenever the ends justify the means - it's a very slippery slope into immorality. |
October 21, 2011, 04:46 PM | #1422 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Quote:
|
|
October 21, 2011, 11:10 PM | #1423 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
The question was asked by Jake Tapper of ABC as I recall.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm. "Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare "Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed" -- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey |
October 22, 2011, 12:20 AM | #1424 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Quote:
|
|
October 25, 2011, 09:58 AM | #1425 |
Junior member
Join Date: September 27, 2011
Posts: 382
|
the one thing i noticed about his oath, is the person does NOT have to swear allegiance to the POTUS. thank you Mr.Hardcase for posting that URL.
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” |
Tags |
atf , fast and furious |
|
|