Customer Discussions > Politics forum

Holder: U.S. can lawfully target American citizens


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 476-497 of 497 posts in this discussion
Posted on Mar 14, 2012 7:30:03 AM PDT
B. A. Dilger says:
Err...Wiki isn't always the best way to get your facts. Recently I looked up a controversial subject to confirm something I knew to be history. Never could find it because it was buried under a slew of counter-propaganda designed to obscure the historical facts. Has to do with the issue of no editorial responsibility on Wiki. This subject was biased for the contributer's view on the subject, and denied a fair and reasonable hearing for the established truth.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2012 7:46:19 AM PDT
Dragonwolf says:
My point was that the ATF didn't need to hire anyone, the dealers were selling all on their own.
The ATF didn't the exact same thing without a problem before, the only difference is that the ATF got stupid and didn't pick up the buyers like they normally do.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2012 7:47:48 AM PDT
Dragonwolf says:
Controversial subjects are usually not the best to get information from wikipedia on.
Wikipedia isn't perfect, but they can be a good starting point for looking stuff up.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2012 7:53:07 AM PDT
2/2 Tango says:
Dragonwolf:

I can't come up with one name of any dealer/shop owner that was selling. I am not including gun shows because those aren't the dealers that were being asked to "participate."

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2012 7:53:16 AM PDT
Did you ever look up 9/11 on wikipedia to *get the story*? Each sentence had a different citation!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2012 7:55:25 AM PDT
Dragonwolf says:
The guns had to have been bought from some dealer, it's irrelevant if they were working with the ATF or just selling normally.

Posted on Mar 14, 2012 10:23:10 AM PDT
Eric-Holder-says

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/12/1072822/-Eric-Holder-says-

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2012 11:36:45 AM PDT
Ignorance. Seriously. Not because of your opinion. Because of your ignorance.

I had to go through a lot of newspaper and magazine articles at the time to find information that wasn't even quite as complete as that Wiki article. The initial information at the time was bull crap that was never retracted when better information came to light. Anyone interested in getting the actual story was initially branded as an anti-government kook. Would you want me to mail you my clippings? I went through two moves since I had those, and I gravely doubt that they exist, anymore. Are you "too good" for Wiki? Just read the citations to which the article links you, then.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2012 12:01:21 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 14, 2012 12:15:13 PM PDT
All you said was, "When police officers are arresting someone for a felony, the courts have given them a little more leeway. The police may use all the force that is necessary to overcome resistance, even if that means killing the person they are trying to arrest." You didn't even draw any distinction between 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th degree felonies. You just said, "It's a felony. The guy's really going to get away unless we shoot him! Commence fire!"

But, you're the one who suggested that he had to be trying to ride the bike away. I imagined him just pawning it, it later showing up as stolen, the police going to arrest him, and him resisting effectively enough to allow an imminent escape.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2012 12:13:28 PM PDT
Documents: ATF used "Fast and Furious" to make the case for gun regulations

By Sharyl Attkisson

Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.
PICTURES: ATF "Gunwalking" scandal timeline

In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF's Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:

"Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks."

Full story at: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2012 12:19:16 PM PDT
twasn't me! i said something about tasers and funny videos.
Regardless, i think its a *parallel universe* thing. He still would have been shot.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2012 12:43:06 PM PDT
Well, they just don't let unarmed people die over 4th degree felonies unless an officer's life is SOMEHOW in danger. Escaping the cops and outrunning them won't cut it. My stupid-bass brother would have been dead several times, already, if it could. He's been stone, cold guilty of worse than that, yet always lies or lucks his way out, somehow.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2012 1:58:20 PM PDT
ET says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2012 3:38:02 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 14, 2012 3:39:38 PM PDT
2/2 Tango says:
Dragonwolf:

Legitimate gun shops and dealers were not straw buyers - straw buyers were.

In 2006 President Calderone cracked down on narcotics dealers resulting in an increase in gun sales in TX and AZ - mainly AZ.

Legal and licensed gun dealers were reporting to local law enforcement and ATF that they were selling 10 semi-automatic weapons per visit to buyers who were visiting several times per week - they thought there might be a huge problem. Reports were made to the ATF - who told the dealers that these buyers were legit.

Some dealers quit selling multiple firearms - others quit dealing with these repeat buyers at all, thinking they (the legal dealer) would be the ones the FEDS came after when it went bad.

This was continued with the knowledge of the ATF until Brian Terry was killed - then the FEDS tried to blame locals and said that they (ATF) had no knowledge of the matter. DOJ later repeated this claim.

I believe local law enforcement and the reports in the AZ Republic, which is certainly not a conservative publication.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2012 5:48:30 PM PDT
Dragonwolf says:
I never said that the dealers were straw buyers.
All I said is that the ATF didn't need to recruit dealers to sell, the dealers were already selling.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 15, 2012 1:08:35 AM PDT
I'm not too good for Wiki; I'm too intelligent for Wiki. I'm sorry that you're not.

I watched Randy Weaver testify before Congress. I listened to the testimony and made up my own mind.

As a mother, she should have gotten her kids out of there.
_________________________________________________________________
Yeah-- you're more "intelligent" because you heard testimony from the perspective of one man, and chose what to believe and disbelieve without knowing whether or not there was physical proof or corroboration of something that you assumed was false, and insist upon being willfully ignorant of an article in which every statement is backed by a footnote. Yeah, you MUST be the smartest person in the world! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!

I actually believe that you looked at the article-- who wouldn't, just out of curiosity? You then realized that it showed your position to be imbecilic, and saw no alternative to closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears, and spouting gibberish in a ludicrously futile effort to conceal the obvious fact that you embarrassed yourself.

Hindsight is 20/20. Vicky Weaver distrusted the government. The Weavers had been sent a letter informing them of a change in the court date that had not, yet, arrived, and all of a sudden there are a lot of government gunmen sneaking around, just shooting at anything that moves without a surrender order, who already killed her son and dog. Yeah-- any "good mother" would walk her kids out into that.

Your kids are living on borrowed time. Maybe you'll set up a picnic under a shady bridge in the middle of the interstate's truck lane, or take the kiddies to collect wild honey from the nest of Africanized bees, or swim among the beautiful box jellyfish. Maybe you'll just walk them off an unfinished overpass. Whatever it is, be sure to let us know when they publish the story in "The Darwin Awards."

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 15, 2012 3:30:09 AM PDT
ET says:
I don't know why you would possibly care that I don't agree with you, but I don't , still.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 15, 2012 4:42:24 AM PDT
The rub is in who gets to decide such things?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 15, 2012 4:46:29 AM PDT
How great for us that we have politicians so wise and virtuouse that they can decide what parts of the Constitution are and are not conveniant to follow!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 15, 2012 4:47:07 AM PDT
But they are still willing to vote for the guy.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 15, 2012 4:49:28 AM PDT
Oh no, treason is made very hard to prove on purpose by the Constitution, and is very specific. Due process applies ESPECALY in the case of treason.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 15, 2012 3:29:06 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 15, 2012 3:42:34 PM PDT
Tango--"I am not a supporter of the President, however, in this instance, I agree with his decision."

>>JGC: I am a supporter of the President and I am suspending judgment in this case. I wish the administration would explain it more completely. It certainly looks like Obama has given himself powers that I do not believe he possesses constitutionally.

Tango--"So in this war on terrorism ..."

>>JGC: I do not think it is possible to have a literal "war on terrorism" or a "war on drugs" or whatever. It is a figure of speech. When we extend the term "war" beyond an armed conflict between political entities, it leads to a lot of fuzzy thinking, as we have seen repeatedly since Bush first declared "war on terror."
‹ Previous 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  39
Total posts:  497
Initial post:  Mar 6, 2012
Latest post:  Mar 15, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions