• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Eric Holder grilled over Fast and Furious in Congress

Prof. Peabody said:
Who ever authorized the re-start of gun runner in DOJ, ATF and the White House must be held accountable for the deaths of 2 American Law Enforcement agents Jamie Zapata and Brian Terry.
Click to expand...

why? were they acting in any way outside their official capacity when they 'oversaw' and/or implemented the gun-walking strategy
 
Prof. Peabody said:
Does Holder have ADD or a hearing problem?
Click to expand...

Do you have a reading problem? Like I said, it's clear from the video that Holder was speaking to a woman behind him when Chaffitz is reading the email aloud. In other words, he wasn't listening to Chaffitz at that moment.
 
justabubba said:
why? were they acting in any way outside their official capacity when they 'oversaw' and/or implemented the gun-walking strategy
Click to expand...

Criminally negligent manslaughter

Criminally negligent manslaughter is variously referred to as criminally negligent homicide in the United States, gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales. In Scotland and some Commonwealth of Nations jurisdictions the offence of culpable homicide might apply.

It occurs where death results from serious negligence, or, in some jurisdictions, serious recklessness. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability. A related concept is that of willful blindness, which is where a defendant intentionally puts himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which would render him liable.

Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death. The existence of the duty is essential because the law does not impose criminal liability for a failure to act unless a specific duty is owed to the victim.

Criminal negligence becomes "gross" when the failure to foresee involves a "wanton disregard for human life"

Manslaughter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

As Law Enforcement officials, they had a "duty to act" as soon as they started losing track of the Assault Rifles in question. Common sense and duty to law enforcement dictates once they lost track of guns, shut the program down. They didn't do that. They failed to foresee that allowing un-tracked assault rifles in the hands of murderous drug cartels would constitute a "wanton disregard for human life". After all they were not allowing tire pressure gauges to cross the border, they were dealing with assault rifles.
 
AdamT said:
Do you have a reading problem? Like I said, it's clear from the video that Holder was speaking to a woman behind him when Chaffitz is reading the email aloud. In other words, he wasn't listening to Chaffitz at that moment.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you'd like to think that, but let's see where he said so. Post a link.

AdamT said:
Do you have a reading problem?
Click to expand...

Please drop childish remarks, it makes me think I'm debating with a 6 year old.
 
AdamT said:
Do you have a reading problem? Like I said, it's clear from the video that Holder was speaking to a woman behind him when Chaffitz is reading the email aloud. In other words, he wasn't listening to Chaffitz at that moment.
Click to expand...

Holder and Chaffitz had a conversation about "fast and furious" on the video. Did you not see it? Everyone else here apparently did.
 
Prof. Peabody said:
As Law Enforcement officials, they had a "duty to act" as soon as they started losing track of the Assault Rifles in question. Common sense and duty to law enforcement dictates once they lost track of guns, shut the program down. They didn't do that. They failed to foresee that allowing un-tracked assault rifles in the hands of murderous drug cartels would constitute a "wanton disregard for human life". After all they were not allowing tire pressure gauges to cross the border, they were dealing with assault rifles.
Click to expand...
why are you not similarly alarmed that such weapons are publicly - and openly - exchanged within our own society
why is that OK, while similar weapon transactions in mexico are so egregious
 
justabubba said:
why are you not similarly alarmed that such weapons are publicly - and openly - exchanged within our own society
why is that OK, while similar weapon transactions in mexico are so egregious
Click to expand...

Start a new thread on that. Your off topic and trying to deflect.
 
Prof. Peabody said:
Start a new thread on that. Your off topic and trying to deflect.
Click to expand...
you can run but you can't hide from the question
why is it OK for such guns to be distributed openly in the USA but not for mexico

Prof. Peabody said:
As Law Enforcement officials, they had a "duty to act" as soon as they started losing track of the Assault Rifles in question. Common sense and duty to law enforcement dictates once they lost track of guns, shut the program down. They didn't do that. They failed to foresee that allowing un-tracked assault rifles in the hands of murderous drug cartels would constitute a "wanton disregard for human life". After all they were not allowing tire pressure gauges to cross the border, they were dealing with assault rifles.
Click to expand...
[bold emphasis added by bubba to point out why my post was in direct reply to your statement]
for some reason, you believe that assault weapons sales in the USA are found acceptable while those in mexico are indicative of an administration that can't shoot straight
your posts indicate an inability to see the truth because of massive partisanship
 
Prof. Peabody said:
I'm sure you'd like to think that, but let's see where he said so. Post a link.



Please drop childish remarks, it makes me think I'm debating with a 6 year old.
Click to expand...

The remark was a reference to your childish suggestion that Holder has ADD or a hearing problem. When you act like a 6 year old people will tend to treat you like one.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060583474 said:
Holder and Chaffitz had a conversation about "fast and furious" on the video. Did you not see it? Everyone else here apparently did.
Click to expand...

Apparently "everyone else" is hell-bent on pretending they didn't comprehend what I wrote ... twice.
 
justabubba said:
why are you not similarly alarmed that such weapons are publicly - and openly - exchanged within our own society
why is that OK, while similar weapon transactions in mexico are so egregious
Click to expand...

Why are you trying to deflect here? The issue under discussion is not weapons-exchange or gun control in our American society.
 
justabubba said:
you can run but you can't hide from the question
why is it OK for such guns to be distributed openly in the USA but not for mexico


[bold emphasis added by bubba to point out why my post was in direct reply to your statement]
for some reason, you believe that assault weapons sales in the USA are found acceptable while those in mexico are indicative of an administration that can't shoot straight
your posts indicate an inability to see the truth because of massive partisanship
Click to expand...

Why certainly Bubba, the sales in the US were not legal. They were done by straw purchasers that would have tripped ATF red flags because of the sheer volume of purchase and the go arounds for the waiting period. Again, the sales werent legal in the US either.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Why certainly Bubba, the sales in the US were not legal. They were done by straw purchasers that would have tripped ATF red flags because of the sheer volume of purchase and the go arounds for the waiting period. Again, the sales werent legal in the US either.
Click to expand...
you are attempting - unsuccessfully - to divert away from the question asked
the same weapons the reich wing is so insistent needed to be monitored in mexico are the very same weapons that are successfully traded - in public - in the USA
what the fringe finds acceptable in America is found by them to be unacceptable in mexico
 
I thought the title of this thread was "Eric Holder grilled over Fast and Furious in Congress".
 
justabubba said:
you can run but you can't hide from the question why is it OK for such guns to be distributed openly in the USA but not for mexico [bold emphasis added by bubba to point out why my post was in direct reply to your statement] for some reason, you believe that assault weapons sales in the USA are found acceptable while those in mexico are indicative of an administration that can't shoot straight your posts indicate an inability to see the truth because of massive partisanship
Click to expand...
None of this has anything to do with "Fast and Furious". So what YOU think I mean doesn't matter. I never give in to thread hijackers. While I can understand your desire to steer the thread away from the topic, I'll say again start a new one. If you'd like to discuss the topic of the thread post it. Putting assault weapons, purposely in the hands of drug cartel killers is just a bad idea no matter how you spin it.
 
AdamT said:
The remark was a reference to your childish suggestion that Holder has ADD or a hearing problem. When you act like a 6 year old people will tend to treat you like one.
Click to expand...
I guess you won't be surprised when you are. I was referring to Holder.
 
Prof. Peabody said:
None of this has anything to do with "Fast and Furious". So what YOU think I mean doesn't matter. I never give in to thread hijackers. While I can understand your desire to steer the thread away from the topic, I'll say again start a new one. If you'd like to discuss the topic of the thread post it. Putting assault weapons, purposely in the hands of drug cartel killers is just a bad idea no matter how you spin it.
Click to expand...
First off, he's making an assumption that Mexican law allows for those weapons to cross the border........it doesn't, anything larger than a .22 is banned for civilian use or importation into that country. Secondly, that is up to the country of Mexico to enforce, not a dealer on American soil, and last, but not least, the government allowed a straw buy under it's authority that any private citizen would be in deep trouble for and it cost innocent life. Holder should be complicit in anything that happened under the F&F gunrunning action and contempt of congress absolutely fits, along with obstruction, I hope they nail him on EVERYTHING.
 
justabubba said:
you are attempting - unsuccessfully - to divert away from the question asked
the same weapons the reich wing is so insistent needed to be monitored in mexico are the very same weapons that are successfully traded - in public - in the USA
what the fringe finds acceptable in America is found by them to be unacceptable in mexico
Click to expand...

Starters, bolded is inflammatory and juvenile, please stop it.

You are not getting it. The buyers are the ones that would not pass background checks, so the sales wouldnt have occurred in the US either. Full auto weapons are NOT legal in most of the US either, so that dog doesnt hunt either.

I suppose your point is that gun control is stricter in Mexico. Well, thanks DOJ for making it possible for them to circumvent Mexican law? What is your point? You are meandering all over the place.
 
justabubba said:
you are attempting - unsuccessfully - to divert away from the question asked
the same weapons the reich wing is so insistent needed to be monitored in mexico are the very same weapons that are successfully traded - in public - in the USA
what the fringe finds acceptable in America is found by them to be unacceptable in mexico
Click to expand...


I think what folks are trying to ask you to do is to start a thread on your question.

This thread title is - "Eric Holder grilled over Fast and Furious in Congress". A video was provided for more info on the topic.

So what is your take on the issue? Or do we assume you agree that AG Holder is lying, not miscommunicating, misspeaking, misunderstanding, and all the other words we us now instead of lying?
 
Last edited:
justabubba said:
you are attempting - unsuccessfully - to divert away from the question asked
the same weapons the reich wing is so insistent needed to be monitored in mexico are the very same weapons that are successfully traded - in public - in the USA
what the fringe finds acceptable in America is found by them to be unacceptable in mexico
Click to expand...

Please link to murderous drug cartels in the U.S. using Fast & Furious guns or your case falls apart.
 
Last edited:
Prof. Peabody said:
Please link to murderous drug cartels in the U.S. using Fast & Furious guns or your case falls apart.
Click to expand...

again, you attempt to divert and refuse to answer a simple question
and that question asks why you are so infatuated with the weapons sold in mexico when they are the same type of weapons that are sold - publicly - in the USA
your double standard is showing
 
justabubba said:
again, you attempt to divert and refuse to answer a simple question
and that question asks why you are so infatuated with the weapons sold in mexico when they are the same type of weapons that are sold - publicly - in the USA
your double standard is showing
Click to expand...

Can you link to back up your assertion or not?
 
Prof. Peabody said:
Can you link to back up your assertion or not?
Click to expand...

What makes you think that the guns that walked were fully automatic? Do you have anything to back that up?
 
AdamT said:
What makes you think that the guns that walked were fully automatic? Do you have anything to back that up?
Click to expand...

Please post the quote where I ever said that!
 
Prof. Peabody said:
Can you link to back up your assertion or not?
Click to expand...

from your evasion of the question it appears your hypocrisy has been exposed
again, why is it so important for us to have monitored the weapons sold in mexico when they are the same kinds of weapons publicly traded within the USA
if you are opposed to the sale of those weapons in mexico then why are you not also opposed to the sale of those weapons in the states
your double standard is showing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom