Ziggy Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 And your selective quotes and rebuttals are great when you take them out of context. Maybe if you submited a real response it would create a better conversation/ debate. And lastly how many warrants have you requested? Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 28, 2012 Author Share Posted June 28, 2012 1. The Brady act makes it illegal for Illegal Immigrants and non citizens to own firearms in the US, also it is illegal to own firearms in Mexico so if the owner attempts to cross the border or sell/trade/give firearms to a non citizen/illegal immigrant he/she has broken the Federal law. Who said that they were illegal immigrants? Would you support a law requiring proving citizenship prior to firearm purchases? Also . . . are you suggesting that we enforce Mexican laws? 3. Warrents was a generalization and was intended to cover a wire tap application, which in the article was said to talk 24 hours at Voht's last stop in MN. The article then went on to say wiretaps took weeks to get the ok on from DOJ agents. The DOJ agents don't get to "OK" warrants (but you probably know that.) Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 28, 2012 Author Share Posted June 28, 2012 And your selective quotes and rebuttals are great when you take them out of context. Maybe if you submited a real response it would create a better conversation/ debate. What selective quotes? I try to break the points that I have questions about to manageable length to address them individually. It seems to be easier to follow a discussion that way. If you disagree feel free to respond with large blocks of text. And lastly how many warrants have you requested? I request about a dozen warrants in a normal week. 1 Link to comment
Yossarian Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 And your selective quotes and rebuttals are great when you take them out of context. Maybe if you submited a real response it would create a better conversation/ debate. What selective quotes? I try to break the points that I have questions about to manageable length to address them individually. It seems to be easier to follow a discussion that way. If you disagree feel free to respond with large blocks of text. And lastly how many warrants have you requested? I request about a dozen warrants in a normal week. Hmmmm...are you a public employee? Link to comment
Yossarian Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 **Y*A*W*N** Got awfully quiet in here for some reason... Link to comment
'SkersRule Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 People don't kill people...guns do. Guns regardless of size or caliber of bullets fired magically float up in the air, point at unsuspecting people, and then fire all by themselves with deadly accuracy. /sarcasm. Seriously though, this is just another example of gross government bureacracy and stupidity. And to think there are some people who think that government should also run our healthcare? Back to the point of the thread: Who has more to gain by lying, Eric Holder, Obama, and other bureacrats or the ATF agents directly involved with the case? I am not a fan of the ATF but I clearly believe them over Eric Holder based on the evidence thus far. Link to comment
carlfense Posted July 9, 2012 Author Share Posted July 9, 2012 Got awfully quiet in here for some reason... Sounds like you missed me. I had a good week. 1 Link to comment
carlfense Posted July 9, 2012 Author Share Posted July 9, 2012 Back to the point of the thread: Who has more to gain by lying, Eric Holder, Obama, and other bureacrats or the ATF agents directly involved with the case? I am not a fan of the ATF but I clearly believe them over Eric Holder based on the evidence thus far. So you believe those ATF agents who were directly involved when they say that Holder and Obama had nothing to do with Fast and Furious? We are in agreement! Praise be! 1 Link to comment
Abdullah the Butcher Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/25/contempt-congress-case-will-proceed-without-holder/ The contempt of Congress case against Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. the first sitting Cabinet member ever to face such a congressional rebuke will continue even after his resignation takes effect, but its unlikely he will ever face personal punishment, legal analysts said Thursday. Mr. Holder, is expected to announce his resignation later Thursday, and Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said the timing is not accidental: A federal judge earlier this week ruled that the Justice Department will have to begin submitting documents next month related to the botched Fast and Furious gun operation in a case brought by Judicial Watch. Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/25/contempt-congress-case-will-proceed-without-holder/#ixzz3ELhgqrXy Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter Link to comment
carlfense Posted September 25, 2014 Author Share Posted September 25, 2014 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/25/contempt-congress-case-will-proceed-without-holder/ Mr. Holder, is expected to announce his resignation later Thursday, and Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said the timing is not accidental: A federal judge earlier this week ruled that the Justice Department will have to begin submitting documents next month related to the botched Fast and Furious gun operation in a case brought by Judicial Watch. lol. Link to comment
Recommended Posts