that always bugs me when people say clip instead of magazine.
Advertisement

by North Calaveras » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:22 pm

by Neu California » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:23 pm
Neu California wrote:do women deserve equal rights in your opinion?

by Big Jim P » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:23 pm
Gauthier wrote:North Calaveras wrote:
guns are perfect example, they scream for more regulations that directly affect gun owners yet do not scream for direct regulations on muslims. I would thinka liberal would go " You know, I'm a liberal so I can't judge the majority of gun owners based on these few crazy people, i don't think they represent the vast majority of law abiding gun owners so these calls for regulations are really uncessary and go against the idea of personal freedom"
And how exactly does tightening the background checks and regulations to prevent mentally unstable individuals from legally obtaining firearms impair law-abiding people? Unless you're implying there's a correlation between owning guns and mental stability.


by Luminesa » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:28 pm
North Calaveras wrote:Luminesa wrote:I hardly care THAT much about gun control, even. That's not the part that bothered me. The part that bothered me was that he had those parents of the Sandy Hook kids there, to make it look like every Republican or gun-owner who is against him is a criminal and is the reason those kids died.
This infuriates me because I cried when I saw the Sandy Hook tragedy on TV. That event hit me hard, since I want to be a teacher and teach little kids just like them. 20 innocent babies...
If he wants to tighten background checks, fine. We'll see how that goes, and I'm only saying that because...I don't know. But that's not right, demonizing an entire group of people who don't agree with him. That won't make a reasonable compromise come any quicker, and it will only make the politics around gun-control even more heated than they already are.
Hilary clinton said that gun owners were a minority of people with the mindest of terrorizing the majority how is that?
I also liked Obamas fake tears.


by Gauthier » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:30 pm
Big Jim P wrote:Gauthier wrote:
And how exactly does tightening the background checks and regulations to prevent mentally unstable individuals from legally obtaining firearms impair law-abiding people? Unless you're implying there's a correlation between owning guns and mental stability.
Yep, those BGCs stopped thee Sandy Hook shooter etc so well.

by Verdiga » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:32 pm

by Conserative Morality » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:32 pm
Luminesa wrote:Again, the gun-control thing? We'll see how that plays out, I have no clue. But using those families as part of his rhetoric...that's low.

by North Calaveras » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:33 pm


by North Calaveras » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:33 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:Luminesa wrote:Again, the gun-control thing? We'll see how that plays out, I have no clue. But using those families as part of his rhetoric...that's low.
How dare he.

by Big Jim P » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:34 pm
Luminesa wrote:North Calaveras wrote:
Hilary clinton said that gun owners were a minority of people with the mindest of terrorizing the majority how is that?
I also liked Obamas fake tears.
She likes throwing that term around quite a bit. Like how she said pro-lifers are just like ISIS.
Gosh, just...oh my gosh...I don't even...
Again, the gun-control thing? We'll see how that plays out, I have no clue. But using those families as part of his rhetoric...that's low.

by Luminesa » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:35 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:Luminesa wrote:Again, the gun-control thing? We'll see how that plays out, I have no clue. But using those families as part of his rhetoric...that's low.
How dare he.

by Conserative Morality » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:37 pm
North Calaveras wrote:it's inexcusable from either side.

by The Black Forrest » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:38 pm
Big Jim P wrote:Gauthier wrote:
And how exactly does tightening the background checks and regulations to prevent mentally unstable individuals from legally obtaining firearms impair law-abiding people? Unless you're implying there's a correlation between owning guns and mental stability.
Yep, those BGCs stopped thee Sandy Hook shooter etc so well.

by Conserative Morality » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:39 pm
Luminesa wrote:It wasn't that he used them, but in the WAY he used them. It was a way of saying, "If you don't agree with me, you're with that boy who shot 20 innocent kindergartners in a school." You know what I mean?

by The Black Forrest » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:41 pm
Luminesa wrote:Conserative Morality wrote:How dare he.
It wasn't that he used them, but in the WAY he used them. It was a way of saying, "If you don't agree with me, you're with that boy who shot 20 innocent kindergartners in a school." You know what I mean?

by Gauthier » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:41 pm
None of the ATF agents doubted that the Fast and Furious guns were being purchased to commit crimes in Mexico. But that was nearly impossible to prove to prosecutors’ satisfaction. And agents could not seize guns or arrest suspects after being directed not to do so by a prosecutor. (Agents can be sued if they seize a weapon against prosecutors’ advice. In this case, the agents had a particularly strong obligation to follow the prosecutors’ direction given that Fast and Furious had received a special designation under the Justice Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. That designation meant more resources for the case, but it also provided that prosecutors take the lead role.)

by Gauthier » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:42 pm

by Gauthier » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:43 pm

by The Black Forrest » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:44 pm

by North Calaveras » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:44 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:North Calaveras wrote:it's inexcusable from either side.
Don't give me that false equivalence bullshit. When a terror attack happens, it's cited as an example for the need for action. When a natural disaster happens, it's cited as a need for action. When an economic crisis happens, it's cited as a need for action. What, do you think it was crass for the civil rights movement to use Rosa Parks' case as a platform for the combating of precisely that kind of travesty?

by Gauthier » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:44 pm

by North Calaveras » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:45 pm
Gauthier wrote:
Because prosecutors didn't want to go for the straw purchases, lulz.
The truth about the Fast and Furious scandalNone of the ATF agents doubted that the Fast and Furious guns were being purchased to commit crimes in Mexico. But that was nearly impossible to prove to prosecutors’ satisfaction. And agents could not seize guns or arrest suspects after being directed not to do so by a prosecutor. (Agents can be sued if they seize a weapon against prosecutors’ advice. In this case, the agents had a particularly strong obligation to follow the prosecutors’ direction given that Fast and Furious had received a special designation under the Justice Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. That designation meant more resources for the case, but it also provided that prosecutors take the lead role.)
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Democratic Martian States, Fractalnavel, Free Papua Republic, Google [Bot], Hwiteard, Immoren, Necroghastia, Neu California, Ostroeuropa, Picairn, The Pirateariat
Advertisement