31 Dec 12
I note with no small amount of irony:
1. The breadth and width of the outrage felt by American liberals directed toward legal gun owners;
2. The corresponding lack of outrage felt by American liberals at the Obama administration for introducing over 2,000 weapons, many of them assault rifles, into border towns in Mexico.
What I think is that you chuckleheads have politicized an unspeakable tragedy in Newtown because you see Republicans and law-abiding gun owners as the enemy within. And anything your Golden Child does is ok. You people are unprincipled in the extreme.
Or are you? Convince us law-abiding citizens otherwise.
31 Dec 12
Originally posted by sasquatch672This isn't the first time they have played fast and loose, in an effort to make news on guns, and have it backfire on them.
I note with no small amount of irony:
1. The breadth and width of the outrage felt by American liberals directed toward legal gun owners;
2. The corresponding lack of outrage felt by American liberals at the Obama administration for introducing over 2,000 weapons, many of them assault rifles, into border towns in Mexico.
What I think is that ...[text shortened]... ple are unprincipled in the extreme.
Or are you? Convince us law-abiding citizens otherwise.
They screwed around prior to the Waco disaster, and at Ruby Ridge did the same.
31 Dec 12
Originally posted by sasquatch672How bout you take your Obama-hate-filled rantings and ravings and your guns you love so much, and the mouthy, lippy git attitude of yours, shove it all where the sun don't shine, KISS OFF or just STFU! or carry on and keep on looking like a the FOOL you already are. If you don't like Obama, leave the damn country!
I note with no small amount of irony:
1. The breadth and width of the outrage felt by American liberals directed toward legal gun owners;
2. The corresponding lack of outrage felt by American liberals at the Obama administration for introducing over 2,000 weapons, many of them assault rifles, into border towns in Mexico.
What I think is that ...[text shortened]... ple are unprincipled in the extreme.
Or are you? Convince us law-abiding citizens otherwise.
31 Dec 12
4 edits
Originally posted by Elamef37Ha! No chance. But - you can do better than that, can't you?
How bout you take your Obama-hate-filled rantings and ravings and your guns you love so much, and the mouthy, lippy git attitude of yours, shove it all where the sun don't shine, KISS OFF or just STFU! or carry on and keep on looking like a the FOOL you already are. If you don't like Obama, leave the damn country!
Tell me you can do better than "STFU or leave the damn country". Or are we condemned to that? I demand that insults directed at me be, at a minimum, artfully constructed. Otherwise, they're boring. It would be nice if they were original too. But there's nothing worse than a boring insult.
EDIT: You're so CUTE when you're mad!
31 Dec 12
Originally posted by sasquatch672I always laugh at this. Right wingers constantly insist that any type of gun control is utterly useless because criminals can always get guns, but then they want us to believe that the Mexican drug cartels would have been without guns except for "fast and Furious".
I note with no small amount of irony:
1. The breadth and width of the outrage felt by American liberals directed toward legal gun owners;
2. The corresponding lack of outrage felt by American liberals at the Obama administration for introducing over 2,000 weapons, many of them assault rifles, into border towns in Mexico.
What I think is that ...[text shortened]... ple are unprincipled in the extreme.
Or are you? Convince us law-abiding citizens otherwise.
31 Dec 12
Originally posted by no1marauder"then they want us to believe that the Mexican drug cartels would have been without guns except for "fast and Furious"."
I always laugh at this. Right wingers constantly insist that any type of gun control is utterly useless because criminals can always get guns, but then they want us to believe that the Mexican drug cartels would have been without guns except for "fast and Furious".
Sorry but that dog won't hunt. The point is not that Mexican cartels can't get guns. Clearly, they can, and you don't deny it. The point is that our government, the Justice Department, with the knowledge of the President cooperated in helping them get guns, guns that killed people including a border patrol agent.
When you misrepresent, you could at least try to lie convincingly. This is nearly as bad as "STFU and leave the country".
The point, well made is that you and yours are pure hypocrites.
31 Dec 12
Originally posted by vivifyYou're either for guns or against them. You can't be against law-abiding citizens owning guns, and simultaneously be for criminals owning guns. You don't get it both ways.
Squatch, you were already corrected on this. Those guns weren't given to cartels because Obama felt they had the right to own guns. It was a trap to capture mob bosses that failed. So there's no "irony".
31 Dec 12
Originally posted by no1marauderAs norm said - the cartels would have had guns with or without Fast and Furious. My simple question is this: do you believe that "We need to get guns off the streets" or "We need more guns on the streets"? Because Obama is holding both positions simultaneously.
I always laugh at this. Right wingers constantly insist that any type of gun control is utterly useless because criminals can always get guns, but then they want us to believe that the Mexican drug cartels would have been without guns except for "fast and Furious".
Mexican drug cartels are notoriously violent. And Obama's assault weapons were deployed on the border. We know that, because a Border Agent was killed with one of them. He knew, at the time, that murders would be committed with them.
Why is it ok to put guns into the hands of known criminals, and also ok to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding American citizens?
31 Dec 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sasquatch672You know perfectly well they the purpose of the program (which existed prior to Obama) was to arrest members of the cartel for illegally obtaining weapons not to provide them with guns for the hell of it. That the program was badly handled is clear but there is no hypocrisy involved. Nor is there the slightest evidence Obama himself had any knowledge of it.
As norm said - the cartels would have had guns with or without Fast and Furious. My simple question is this: do you believe that "We need to get guns off the streets" or "We need more guns on the streets"? Because Obama is holding both positions simultaneously.
Mexican drug cartels are notoriously violent. And Obama's assault weapons were deplo ...[text shortened]... nown criminals, and also ok to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding American citizens?
Personally, I am opposed to such "sting" operations on principle.
31 Dec 12
Originally posted by no1marauderYou well know that Democrats are famous for that type of "gotcha" operation. The disaster at Waco was the result of BATF wanting to put on a spectacular, high impact raid allegedly to get machine guns and hand grenades. They could have picked up David Koresh without violence, but instead got a bunch of federal cops killed and wounded, and then killed needlessly 80 Americans, mostly women and children. No grenades or machine guns or even parts were ever found.
You know perfectly well they the purpose of the program (which existed prior to Obama) was to arrest members of the cartel for illegally obtaining weapons not to provide them with guns for the hell of it. That the program was badly handled is clear but there is no hypocrisy involved. Nor is there the slightest evidence Obama himself had any knowledge of it.
Personally, I am opposed to such "sting" operations on principle.
They did the same thing at Ruby Ridge, with a sting getting Randy Weaver to shorten a shot gun, and then attacking his family home with military force, killing his wife from 200 yards by sniper Lon Horiuchi, who was also present at Waco picking off people fleeing the flames.