• 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!

NYC Mayor Conducts Gun-Sale Sting in Arizona

I stopped reading after you called me an idiot. Your loss of composure, demonstrates your loss in this discussion. You have a nice day. :lamo

Well, if that's how you read the metaphor ... I understand. :2rofll:
 
Well, if that's how you read the metaphor ... I understand. :2rofll:

what exactly is your purpose on this thread AdamT? you don't know anything about guns and you don't appear to have any knowledge about federal gun laws. I get the fact that you look down upon those of us who value gun rights-its a common disease of the Yuppie left. But the purpose of this thread was to note that a scum bag asswipe politician who constantly whines that we need more gun laws is a violator of gun laws himself
 
what exactly is your purpose on this thread AdamT? you don't know anything about guns and you don't appear to have any knowledge about federal gun laws. I get the fact that you look down upon those of us who value gun rights-its a common disease of the Yuppie left. But the purpose of this thread was to note that a scum bag asswipe politician who constantly whines that we need more gun laws is a violator of gun laws himself

My purpose in this thread is simply to explain what the REALITY of the situation is, just in case anyone might be listening and be buffaloed by pro-gun hacks who constantly repeat false and unsupported statements like yours. I mean, here we are on page 83 of this thread and you are still claiming that Bloomberg violated the law, when every attempt to establish that has gone down in screaming flames. It's shameful.

From a policy standpoint, I think that there should either be no law against selling guns to felons, or there should be no exceptions to the background check law. The half-assed law we have now is neither fish nor fowl.
 
My purpose in this thread is simply to explain what the REALITY of the situation is, just in case anyone might be listening and be buffaloed by pro-gun hacks who constantly repeat false and unsupported statements like yours. I mean, here we are on page 83 of this thread and you are still claiming that Bloomberg violated the law, when every attempt to establish that has gone down in screaming flames. It's shameful.

From a policy standpoint, I think that there should either be no law against selling guns to felons, or there should be no exceptions to the background check law. The half-assed law we have now is neither fish nor fowl.

the only hack on this thread is you and your inability to understand the fact that it is illegal for someone who lives or resides in NY to buy any kind of gun from a private seller in another state and if that individual is doing that on the behest of someone who has no legal authority to do so they both have engaged in a conspiracy
 
the only hack on this thread is you and your inability to understand the fact that it is illegal for someone who lives or resides in NY to buy any kind of gun from a private seller in another state and if that individual is doing that on the behest of someone who has no legal authority to do so they both have engaged in a conspiracy

The fact is that no one has produced a shred of evidence that the investigators lived or resided in NY. It's really not rocket science.
 
The fact is that no one has produced a shred of evidence that the investigators lived or resided in NY. It's really not rocket science.

I guess the comments from the paper saying them came from NY wasn't good enough for you

OK

lets play a little game

lets assume they did

answer now
 
I guess the comments from the paper saying them came from NY wasn't good enough for you

OK

lets play a little game

lets assume they did

answer now

Sadly for you, the paper didn't even say they came from NY. What they said was that they were "New York investigators", which could mean that they were from NY, or it could mean that they were Arizona-based investigators paid for by the city of New York. On the other hand, the investigation's report says that the investigators came 17 states and, AFAIK, no state has attempted to prosecute the investigators.

So the MOST you can say is that, IF the buyers were from out of state, THEN state laws were broken.
 
Sadly for you, the paper didn't even say they came from NY. What they said was that they were "New York investigators", which could mean that they were from NY, or it could mean that they were Arizona-based investigators paid for by the city of New York. On the other hand, the investigation's report says that the investigators came 17 states and, AFAIK, no state has attempted to prosecute the investigators.

So the MOST you can say is that, IF the buyers were from out of state, THEN state laws were broken.
more idiocy on your part

the federal laws prevent a resident in state A from buying ANY GUN FROM A private citizen in ANY STATE BUT A

and the sellers did nothing wrong then

so why is Bloomturd having a cow
 
more idiocy on your part

the federal laws prevent a resident in state A from buying ANY GUN FROM A private citizen in ANY STATE BUT A

and the sellers did nothing wrong then

so why is Bloomturd having a cow

WTF does you statement have to do with anything? The fact is, if you even bothered to watch the hidden camera videos, that the buyers showed proof of Arizona citizenship. If they were fake IDs then they broke the law. If not, then they didn't. Unless you have some evidence I haven't seen, there is no way to know where they came from.

The sellers violated federal law when they sold to a buyer whom they had reason to believe could not pass a background check. In that respect the buyer's state of residence was immaterial.
 
WTF does you statement have to do with anything? The fact is, if you even bothered to watch the hidden camera videos, that the buyers showed proof of Arizona citizenship. If they were fake IDs then they broke the law. If not, then they didn't. Unless you have some evidence I haven't seen, there is no way to know where they came from.

The sellers violated federal law when they sold to a buyer whom they had reason to believe could not pass a background check. In that respect the buyer's state of residence was immaterial.

As to the ohio stuff-well I best not comment other than knowing at least one of the buyers had an OHIO ID but he wasn't from Ohio

and your claim is not correct. If the guy said

1) I am a felon
2) I am a fugitive
3) I am a dishonorably discharged veteran or a drug addict
4) I live in Texas
5) I have a DV misdemeanor convictions
6) I am under indictment

then yes (if that were true)

saying he might not pass a check has not been ruled sufficient to meet the requirements of knowledge

try again
 
As to the ohio stuff-well I best not comment other than knowing at least one of the buyers had an OHIO ID but he wasn't from Ohio

and your claim is not correct. If the guy said

1) I am a felon
2) I am a fugitive
3) I am a dishonorably discharged veteran or a drug addict
4) I live in Texas
5) I have a DV misdemeanor convictions
6) I am under indictment

then yes (if that were true)

saying he might not pass a check has not been ruled sufficient to meet the requirements of knowledge

try again

Again, "I knew a guy" and "has not been ruled sufficient" doesn't mean jack. What is the cite for the case where it wasn't ruled sufficient? :popcorn2:
 
Again, "I knew a guy" and "has not been ruled sufficient" doesn't mean jack. What is the cite for the case where it wasn't ruled sufficient? :popcorn2:

well tell me "counselor"

if those sellers violated the law how come not ONE OF THEM has been convicted let alone charged?

because in several cases the buyer is babbling and makes comments about I might not pass a check and there is no response from the seller.
 
well tell me "counselor"

if those sellers violated the law how come not ONE OF THEM has been convicted let alone charged?

because in several cases the buyer is babbling and makes comments about I might not pass a check and there is no response from the seller.

Unfortunately these violations are rarely prosecuted. Now, if the buyers broke the law, why weren't they prosecuted?

And the cite, please?
 
My purpose in this thread is simply to explain what the REALITY of the situation is, just in case anyone might be listening and be buffaloed by pro-gun hacks who constantly repeat false and unsupported statements like yours. I mean, here we are on page 83 of this thread and you are still claiming that Bloomberg violated the law, when every attempt to establish that has gone down in screaming flames. It's shameful.

From a policy standpoint, I think that there should either be no law against selling guns to felons, or there should be no exceptions to the background check law. The half-assed law we have now is neither fish nor fowl.



I bet your of the ilk that sees no individual right to a gun in the constitution but do see one for abortion, yes?
 
WTF! Who in the hell does Bloomberg think he is? He, nor his police force has ANY jurisdiction in AZ what so ever, and these people he sent in to this gun show under false pretense should have been arrested.

When I first heard this reported it was reported that these were NYC police, and in fact the story states "task force", but they also say that they are private investigators....If these are NYC police, then AZ state troopers should be outraged at this.

I can't tell you how this boils my blood.

j-mac

Bloomberg is worried about salt in food, the Middle Peace Process, guns in Arizona but can't even do the job a mayor is expected to do. He's a funny guy.

Mayor Mike Admits City Response Fell Short | NBC New York
 
I bet your of the ilk that sees no individual right to a gun in the constitution but do see one for abortion, yes?

Yeah, don't you recall that the 2nd amendment was replaced with the new 2nd amendment which says: "Unborn Babies are useless fetuses." :mrgreen:
 
It's typical of the tyrant king, prepare yourself for an eventual presidential run. Hope he gets hit by a bus before hand.

Mayor Doomberg... He claims that the government's role is to control food. :roll:
 
wishing for the death of another human being, is very sad.

Sucks for you.


its not like he is a murderer, or a rapist, or a pedophile.


When the tyrant king comes to your towns killing your neighbors in order to confiscate guns.... will you still feel the same?

He is just like a murderer, rapist, pedophile, when he helps criminals by disarming the law abiding public, he is an asseccory to the crime.
 
you let me know when that happens, and I'll let you know what I think.



Yes, you would wait until your neighbors were in the gas chambers before complaining about the lack of vibrancy at your local starbucks.....
 
Back
Top Bottom