• 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

LOL! I did, it's up to you to be honest and admit that the weapon used was traced back to the operation in question. If the weapon wasn't traced back to the operation in question Holder wouldn't be getting reamed in front of Congress right now.

so you acknowledge, other giving the fringe an opportunity to whine at the Obama administration (for following dicknbush strategy) not one thing would have been changed had that agent been shoot using another weapon
much ado about nothing
i know that won't stop this ilk; because they have nothing else to whine about relative to Obama
 
and i still wait for you to tell us what would have changed had that agent been shot with another weapon instead

i do realize you have nothing, which is why all on the fringe are avoiding that question like the plague

He wasnt shot with another weapon.

What Holder, DOJ and the ATF are covering up is that they aided and abetted drug cartels in gaining weapons more easily and cheaply than they normally would have. And it was done with the aimed goal of proliferating illegal weapons near the border as an excuse to get stiffer gun control laws.

With the operation going as it was, it was a matter of time before a US border agent was killed with a F&F weapon. If it hadnt been Agent Terry it would have soon enough been another agent.
 
so you acknowledge, other giving the fringe an opportunity to whine at the Obama administration (for following dicknbush strategy) not one thing would have been changed had that agent been shoot using another weapon
much ado about nothing
i know that won't stop this ilk; because they have nothing else to whine about relative to Obama
Reading comprehension is a critical skill. I didn't mince words, they reengaged an operation that had prior failure and was ill advised, they let illegal weapons get into the hands of these really bad people, and then really good people got murdered by those ill advised actions. The weapons in question had these numbers on them, that go in a serial order, for the purposes of the conversation we'll call these serial numbers. On a federal form or business invoice these numbers get recorded, and some of the numbers were on the murder weapons, we'll call that a clue.

Now, stay with me. These numbers that were on the weapons matched the paperwork involved in the operation, which means? Anybody, anybody?
 
so you acknowledge, other giving the fringe an opportunity to whine at the Obama administration (for following dicknbush strategy) not one thing would have been changed had that agent been shoot using another weapon
much ado about nothing
i know that won't stop this ilk; because they have nothing else to whine about relative to Obama

What the hell difference does it make ????? He WAS shot with an illegal gun supplied by Holder and company, so your attempt to deflect is amusing.

What a hack.
 
The biggest thing at this point is the cover up, as it always is...Holder is just the stooge, the patsy, the shield for someone higher up that cooked this insanely stupid plan up.

j-mac

The REAL issue is NOT what they are covering up, since we know the WHAT, it is the WHY that they can not afford to divulge. I firmly believe that the PURPOSE for fast & fuzzy was to ensure that TRACEABLE weapons, proven to have come from licensed, legal, federal firearms dealers would be tied to the drug cartels. That was STEP ONE, but what was STEP TWO?

I assert that was the REAL reason for both the original f&f operation AND surely for the cover up, since I believe that step two was stricter GUN CONTROL LAWS to prevent the very crime ALLOWED (caused only?) by fast & fuzzy; using multiple straw buyers to "pool" purchases of firearms to supply criminal gangs. Any moron knows that buying large quantities of semi-automatic arms at full US retail prices (plus tax) is stupid, especially adding on the fees paid to the straw buyers and other "middle men". The cartels are not stupid, lazy yes, but stupid no.

The cartels were in on the deal too, to reduce the resistance to their own members "working" in the US; the cartels can get weapons from anywhere in the world (and fully automatic, for less money, as well), just as they get their drugs (which easily enter the US too) but, the local gangs they wish to overpower in the US, can not. The cartels are very much in favor of ending US 2nd amendment rights, just like the liberals are, just for "slightly" different reasons. ;-)
 
Last edited:
What the hell difference does it make ????? He WAS shot with an illegal gun supplied by Holder and company, so your attempt to deflect is amusing.

What a hack.
no deflection here
that's your side's forte
the agent was shot by one of those weapons allowed to gun-walk across the border
had he been shot by another weapon - and there are many to choose from - then nothing would have changed
causing your argument to be about nothing
 
What the hell difference does it make ????? He WAS shot with an illegal gun supplied by Holder and company, so your attempt to deflect is amusing.

What a hack.

Ok, we know that; but WHY? What was the purpose of tying legally sold US weapons to the drug cartels? That is what Holder is covering up, the existance of fast & fuzzy is not in doubt, only the motive or reason for it.
 
Last edited:
no deflection here
that's your side's forte
the agent was shot by one of those weapons allowed to gun-walk across the border
had he been shot by another weapon - and there are many to choose from - then nothing would have changed
causing your argument to be about nothing

Using your logic (or lack thereof), I could sell a known felon one of my handguns. If he shot someone with it, I could claim that it wasn't my fault because someone else might have sold him one.

It is funny that you insist on sticking to this absurd line.
 
Ok, we know that but WHY? What was the purpose of tying legally sold US weapons to the drug cartels? That is wht Holder is covering up, the existance of fast & fuzzy is not in doubt, only the motive or reason for it.

The general consensus is that Obama wanted to pass new gun control laws, but knew the voters would revolt, so this was a backdoor way to convince people that more useless gun control laws were needed.
 
Ok, we know that but WHY? What was the purpose of tying legally sold US weapons to the drug cartels? That is what Holder is covering up, the existance of fast & fuzzy is not in doubt, only the motive or reason for it.
Like I stated earlier, the rhetoric before the facts came out was anti-gun and blamed our rights for the violence. After the fact the rheroric started to become "a legal action gone wrong". It's pretty obvious it was a gun control ploy.
 
What the hell difference does it make ????? He WAS shot with an illegal gun supplied by Holder and company, so your attempt to deflect is amusing.

What a hack.

You have made one critcal mistake in your post, it was not an ILLEGAL gun, but a LEGAL gun, tracable directly to a licensed, legal, federal firearms dealer. That was the PURPOSE of fast & fuzzy - to tie LEGAL US weapons sales to the ILLEGAL use by cartels. IMHO, simply to cause a public outcry (even from some on the right, since they hate drug dealers) for stricter gun control laws. ;-)
 
You have made one critcal mistake in your post, it was not an ILLEGAL gun, but a LEGAL gun, tracable directly to a licensed, legal, federal firearms dealer. That was the PURPOSE of fast & fuzzy - to tie LEGAL US weapons sales to the ILLEGAL use by cartels. IMHO, simply to cause a public outcry (even from some on the right, since they hate drug dealers) for stricter gun control laws. ;-)

I was correct. It became illegal as soon as it crossed the border.
 
Using your logic (or lack thereof), I could sell a known felon one of my handguns. If he shot someone with it, I could claim that it wasn't my fault because someone else might have sold him one.

It is funny that you insist on sticking to this absurd line.

you must have left the room when your class studied analogies
here is what yours should have looked like:
a known felon bought one of my handguns. he shot and killed someone with it. it was Obama's fault
 
Like I stated earlier, the rhetoric before the facts came out was anti-gun and blamed our rights for the violence. After the fact the rheroric started to become "a legal action gone wrong". It's pretty obvious it was a gun control ploy.

Obvious to you and I, but must be PROVEN, thus the fast & fuzzy cover up. If Obama and Holder were found willing to help cause the deaths of both LEOs and US citizens, just to trick the sheeple into calling for stricter gun control laws, then they would be toast politically (or worse).

This is the same collusion (corruption?) used for enacting the state CCW permit laws; the NRA (and its membership) would object UNLESS the law included a mandate for private firearms training to even QUALIFY for a CCW permit - guess who gets ALL of those dollars?
 
Last edited:
See, I think it is actually two pronged...First is the curtailing of the 2nd Amendment, but only in a way like other European countries that allow hunting weapons (strictly documented) but ban all other weapons for legal purchase by its citizenry. Which would still be a taking of our fundamental rights. Second, was to back up the absurd claims that liberals, including Obama had been making over and over, concerning this type of thing happening outside the F/F program already, but they couldn't prove. In fact Obama and libs looked like flat out liars when they would make this claim, because the facts didn't support their rhetoric. They tried to make it so, and got burned. And I think that the OK for this thing was at least at the Homeland Security level, possibly in the National Security circle, which begs what did the President know, and when did he know it?


j-mac
 
I was correct. It became illegal as soon as it crossed the border.

Illegal in which country? The DOJ cared little WHERE the crimes occurred, only that 'drug cartels' would be tied to those US weapons.
 
Last edited:
See, I think it is actually two pronged...First is the curtailing of the 2nd Amendment, but only in a way like other European countries that allow hunting weapons (strictly documented) but ban all other weapons for legal purchase by its citizenry. Which would still be a taking of our fundamental rights. Second, was to back up the absurd claims that liberals, including Obama had been making over and over, concerning this type of thing happening outside the F/F program already, but they couldn't prove. In fact Obama and libs looked like flat out liars when they would make this claim, because the facts didn't support their rhetoric. They tried to make it so, and got burned. And I think that the OK for this thing was at least at the Homeland Security level, possibly in the National Security circle, which begs what did the President know, and when did he know it?


j-mac

This definitely goes to the top, as too many different FEDERAL agencies are involved, the local LEOs blew the whistle from nearly day one, but were told BY THE FEDS to hush up, also not a cool thing to make public.
 
Illegal in which country? The DOJ cared little WHERE the crimes occurred, only that 'drug cartels' would be tied to those US weapons.

Illegal in both. ATF agents wanted to arrest the traffickers as soon as they handed the guns off to cartel gunrunners, but there were told they couldn't.
 
Illegal in both. ATF agents wanted to arrest the traffickers as soon as they handed the guns off to cartel gunrunners, but there were told they couldn't.

ATF was told no by WHO? For Obama/Holder that would be WAY too soon, they needed many THOUSANDS of these guns in circulation, to make the plan work. If you bust the first crew or two, then its not even a two day news story (200 guns siezed in ATF sting - whoopee), and the jig is up, the "straw buyers" know they are being watched and give it up; end of "story". But, if you let THOUSANDS get out there, then EVERY DAY OR TWO you get HEADLINES like this "Cartel violence caused by easy access to US weapons" in BOTH countries, causing a nearly universal cry for the FEDERAL gov't to "do something"; like maybe gun control?
 
Last edited:
and had he been killed by another weapon, how would that have changed anything
sorry guys, you are running on empty with this one


Your kidding with this comment aren't you?

These guns were provided by our government. These guns killed American citizens. I don't know how much clearer this can be stated.

And you don't seem to care. Sad that we've come to this point about other American citizens lives.
 
It's so much fun to stick your hypocrisy back into your face, I can't help it.

I don't have a hard on for Holder, I have one for incompetent amateurs like the ones running our country now. You must be the one supporting the Mexican cartels' right to black market guns since the guy you are defending supplied them to them.

If tens of thousands of guns are walking across the border, then maybe you'll join us in demanding Holder's resignation, since you agree that he's incompetent.

The only problem is that you can't seem to identify any hypocrisy and all you've got is a pathetic, illogical appeal to emotion.

Bottom line: the mission was fubarred, though well intended. Whoever designed and supervised it should be ****canned. The insane Republican overreaction is 100% politically motivated.
 
Your kidding with this comment aren't you?

These guns were provided by our government. These guns killed American citizens. I don't know how much clearer this can be stated.

And you don't seem to care. Sad that we've come to this point about other American citizens lives.

Just out of curiosity, did you support the Iraq war?
 
Illegal in which country? The DOJ cared little WHERE the crimes occurred, only that 'drug cartels' would be tied to those US weapons.
The weapon became illegal in both countries actually. It was already illegal in Mexico due to the larger than .22 caliber and became illegal here due to the straw purchase under federal law.
 
Your kidding with this comment aren't you?

These guns were provided by our government. These guns killed American citizens. I don't know how much clearer this can be stated.

And you don't seem to care. Sad that we've come to this point about other American citizens lives.
We know the game. To some the ends justify the means, even if a son, father, etc. will never see another day with their loved ones, but hey, the ideology advances so those who adhere to it don't care.
 
The weapon became illegal in both countries actually. It was already illegal in Mexico due to the larger than .22 caliber and became illegal here due to the straw purchase under federal law.

No, the weapon is completely legal, as no title, receipt or registration is required for the legality of the weapon, only the PURCHASER broke the law, as they signed paperwork assuring that it was NOT a 'straw purchase'. The Mexican gun laws are none of our concern, just as the Ohio gun laws are of no great concern to Texans. Making things illegal, rather than the actions performed with those things is the liberals favorite ploy, separating personal responsibility (and individual rights) from gov't responsibility (and collective rights). My having a gun is of no more concern to you than my having a car, so long as I neither shoot you nor run you over. ;-)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom