21 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
21 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Fast and Furious: Beanbags versus Bullets

by kindsvater
18 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
Almost 2 years after agent Brian Terry was killed by US weapons given to Mexican gangsters so a bloody trail could be tracked (genius!), a million dollar reward has been posted and details released about what happened:

"Agent Terry and his Border Patrol team were trying to intercept five men who had crossed into the U.S. from Mexico... The federal agents confronted the men, opening fire with beanbags.... The bandits returned fire, and in the firefight, Agent Terry was killed."
Freakin' unbelievable.

.

.
  • Profile picture of the author MoneyMagnetMagnate
    Those beanbags can leave quite a bruise...you might not be able to go to the beach for a week without some embarrassment...

    Those dummies :confused: - they got the whole sting backwards...they were supposed to give the drug dealers the beanbag guns...*




    (and yes, I do realize this agent has a family, but the only way to combat reality this ridiculous, is to say something ridiculous about it - otherwise the reality becomes too absurd...)

    and I do not know if this goes all the way to the WH, (I don't think it goes that high) but to suggest this is a conspiracy to usurp the 2nd amendment, or squash the NRA, is creative pundit paranoia to say the least - but whomever at the ATF called the shots on this has got to answer for it, and like ol' J.Edgar, he might just know where too many of the bones are buried.

    But when you read a paragraph like this...where do you draw the line?

    Voth's mandate was to stop gun traffickers in Arizona, the state ranked by the gun-control advocacy group Legal Community Against Violence as having the nation's "weakest gun violence prevention laws." Just 200 miles from Mexico, which prohibits gun sales, the Phoenix area is home to 853 federally licensed firearms dealers. Billboards advertise volume discounts for multiple purchases.

    Customers can legally buy as many weapons as they want in Arizona as long as they're 18 or older and pass a criminal background check. There are no waiting periods and no need for permits, and buyers are allowed to resell the guns. "In Arizona," says Voth, "someone buying three guns is like someone buying a sandwich."
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6578162].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Holder has been held in contempt of congress for this. At the last minute Obama tried to save his butt (and maybe his own) by hiding the documents that congress has been asking for for months now but refused to hand over - too late for it. Those documents were not classified until the court was ready to rule against Holder. Now that his butt is on the line he might sing all sorts of other names involved in this scandal.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6578428].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Here's the best article I have read about the Fast and Furious story. Turns out the government never intended to allow guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels as everyone has been lead to believe.

      The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features
      Signature
      Over 50 Dating
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6578493].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Here's the best article I have read about the Fast and Furious story. Turns out the government never intended to allow guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels as everyone has been lead to believe.

        The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features
        The FACT about the way ownership of guns is tracked, and how they have conflicting statements(Like must pass a background check and NO wait), and how the WH and Holder have said that there is something to hide and they would rather do all the garbage they have, says that article is a fabrication!

        If it were NOT a fabrication, the whole thing could have been stopped MONTHS ago!

        HECK, congress should call in Eban and say....

        1. OK, HOW did you find what WE could not and what the supposed leaders couldn't tell us under threat of contempt?
        2. OK, WHY didn't you present this info to US?

        If she is telling the truth, it is obstruction at best. Even if it were fake, intentionally falsifying this should ALSO win her a contempt charge. I believe that DOES come with FREE room and board!

        There are ALSO little tidbits like:

        They insist they never purposefully allowed guns to be illegally trafficked. Just the opposite: They say they seized weapons whenever they could but were hamstrung by prosecutors and weak laws, which stymied them at every turn.
        WRONG!!!!!!! HOW could they seize a weapon that doesn't exist? The ONLY way the above statement makes sense is if they got the guns to let the criminals have so they could later catch them with the gun. That defeats their argument. PART of that arguement is the "weak laws" that they had. ******WHAT******? They recently WENT TO COURT to make the laws WEAKER! You can't argue that your opponent was disabled because he couldn't get a good grasp after you have coated them with OIL!

        I could say how I read this, and it makes TOTAL SENSE and has history around it from decades back to as recently as a couple weeks, but I don't want to get too political.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6578958].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Who knows, she may be called to testify, but perhaps what she did different from congress was actually investigate the story instead of doing a witch hunt. See, one side is interested in the facts and the other is interested in finding something, anything really, to use against this admin. Anyone who has followed Issa could see this coming since the 2010 elections.

          I don't see how it is obstruction if she is telling the truth. Can you elaborate on that thought Steve?

          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          HECK, congress should call in Eban and say....

          1. OK, HOW did you find what WE could not and what the supposed leaders couldn't tell us under threat of contempt?
          2. OK, WHY didn't you present this info to US?

          If she is telling the truth, it is obstruction at best. Even if it were fake, intentionally falsifying this should ALSO win her a contempt charge. I believe that DOES come with FREE room and board!
          Signature
          Over 50 Dating
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6579083].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            Who knows, she may be called to testify, but perhaps what she did different from congress was actually investigate the story instead of doing a witch hunt. See, one side is interested in the facts and the other is interested in finding something, anything really, to use against this admin. Anyone who has followed Issa could see this coming since the 2010 elections.

            I don't see how it is obstruction if she is telling the truth. Can you elaborate on that thought Steve?
            Talk about BIASED!!!!!!!

            If she is saying the truth, then it is the truth. Truth she kept secret from congress but decided to use to make them look bad. EITHER could be considered contempt. and hiding it is certainly obstruction.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6579166].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Nobody is biased here. We are all just expressing our thoughts and opinions.

              How is she keeping something secret by writing an article about it? Also, you must remember there is the 1st amendment of the US constitution to consider.

              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

              Talk about BIASED!!!!!!!

              If she is saying the truth, then it is the truth. Truth she kept secret from congress but decided to use to make them look bad. EITHER could be considered contempt. and hiding it is certainly obstruction.

              Steve
              Signature
              Over 50 Dating
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6579246].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                Nobody is biased here. We are all just expressing our thoughts and opinions.

                How is she keeping something secret by writing an article about it? Also, you must remember there is the 1st amendment of the US constitution to consider.
                The first amendment does NOT cover obstruction. People get thrown in jail, or sued, EVERY DAY for saying something. It has been that way since LONG before this country was even DREAMED of and every moment to TODAY! While I was writing this people ALL OVER THE PLANET, including the US, probably got thrown in jail for saying something. And people ALSO get thrown in jail for NOT saying something.

                NO, her article is protected speech, if reasonable. It is only reasonable if true or there is substantial reason to believe that she believes it is true. BUT, it is PROOF that she was holding on to info she knew was material.

                If that were about a murder, she would probably be thrown in jail before many heard about it.

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6581093].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            Who knows, she may be called to testify, but perhaps what she did different from congress was actually investigate the story instead of doing a witch hunt.


            See, one side is interested in the facts and the other is interested in finding something, anything really, to use against this admin.

            Anyone who has followed Issa could see this coming since the 2010 elections.

            I don't see how it is obstruction if she is telling the truth. Can you elaborate on that thought Steve?

            One thing this whole episode proves is...


            ...if you control one of the houses of congress you can launch a B.S. witch hunt on anyone for anything.


            I'm glad some members of congress walked out on the contempt vote, because it was nothing but a contemptible, naked, partisan, irresponsible and all too typical abuse of power.



            TL
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6580734].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              One thing this whole episode proves is...


              ...if you control one of the houses of congress you can launch a B.S. witch hunt on anyone for anything.


              I'm glad some members of congress walked out on the contempt vote, because it was nothing but a contemptible, naked, partisan, irresponsible, typical abuse of power.



              TL
              Actually, it was and is a perfect example of congressional oversight responsibilities. Would you have said the same thing in the Nixon or Iran-Contra days? I doubt it.
              Signature

              The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

              Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6582764].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

                Actually, it was and is a perfect example of congressional oversight responsibilities. Would you have said the same thing in the Nixon or Iran-Contra days? I doubt it.

                It's a perfect example of congressional partisan overreach cause there's nothing there.


                When the dems took over the house and senate in 2006 they could have went after the Bush2 admin on a kaleidoscope of charges and many of them 10X more valid than this fast and furious BS., but they didn't.

                Why?


                There are a few reasons but one of them is that some folks are not as petty as some people I know.


                All The Best!!

                TL
                Signature

                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6582958].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                  It's a perfect example of congressional partisan overreach cause there's nothing there.


                  When the dems took over the house and senate in 2006 they could have went after the Bush2 admin on a kaleidoscope of charges and many of them 10X more valid than this fast and furious BS., but they didn't.

                  Why?


                  There are a few reasons but one of them is that some folks are not as petty as some people I know.


                  All The Best!!

                  TL
                  Yeah, some are far less so. I'm surprised to hear you mention that year in this context!

                  Steve
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6583282].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
    Voth's mandate was to stop gun traffickers in Arizona, the state ranked by the gun-control advocacy group Legal Community Against Violence as having the nation's "weakest gun violence prevention laws." Just 200 miles from Mexico, which prohibits gun sales, the Phoenix area is home to 853 federally licensed firearms dealers. Billboards advertise volume discounts for multiple purchases.

    Customers can legally buy as many weapons as they want in Arizona as long as they're 18 or older and pass a criminal background check. There are no waiting periods and no need for permits, and buyers are allowed to resell the guns. "In Arizona," says Voth, "someone buying three guns is like someone buying a sandwich."
    That quote illustrates how intentionally biased the story is. First, not all people holding an FFL actually sell firearms. A good percentage hold the license so they can legally ship and receive firearms, and even more hold an FFL so they can practice gunsmithing.

    Next, how can Arizona have the "weakest gun violence protection laws"? I don't know of anywhere that using a gun in a violent act against another person is NOT against the law...

    The second paragraph wants to you believe that Arizona is different than than any other state in the US. A US citizen can purchase a long gun (rifle or shotgun) with no waiting period and no 'permit' anywhere in the US, and they can resell them whenever they want.

    Tim, if this is the best article you've read, you may want to broaden your horizons a little if you want the whole story.
    Signature

    The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

    Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6579071].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post


      Next, how can Arizona have the "weakest gun violence protection laws"? I don't know of anywhere that using a gun in a violent act against another person is NOT against the law...
      So the only measure of having a weak or strong gun violence protection law is when someone uses a gun in a violent act?

      The second paragraph wants to you believe that Arizona is different than than any other state in the US. A US citizen can purchase a long gun (rifle or shotgun) with no waiting period and no 'permit' anywhere in the US, and they can resell them whenever they want.
      Not true.
      Signature
      Over 50 Dating
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6579353].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        So the only measure of having a weak or strong gun violence protection law is when someone uses a gun in a violent act?
        What other measure is there? Isn't that what 'gun violence' is? Using a gun in a violent act?

        Not true.
        Ok, so I'll rephrase it - the only restrictions that federal law has on the purchase of long guns is that you are 18 and pass a background check.
        Signature

        The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

        Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6579443].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Well, there are laws that can make it more difficult for certain people to purchase guns. Some states are more strict than others and do have waiting periods and do require permits to buy long guns.

          Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

          What other measure is there? Isn't that what 'gun violence' is? Using a gun in a violent act?

          Ok, so I'll rephrase it - the only restrictions that federal law has on the purchase of long guns is that you are 18 and pass a background check.
          Signature
          Over 50 Dating
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6582509].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thehazard
    The thing to remember as well is that these programs, under various titles, have been ion place since 06, in G.W.'s stint in the Oval Office. Holder was simply going along with the program. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."-Hanlon
    An ATF agent, or any other agent of the law willingly puts his life in danger every day. Not to say the death was not tragic, not at all, but every time a cop is killed, is the chief of police, or the mayor responsible?The governor? Was there the adequate Was there malice of forethought? required for conviction? I think not. I'm not defending the policy of F&F , Holder or Obama mind you, I'm just looking at it objectively. I dont think we have all the information required to adequately make assumptions on any level. That my 2¢
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6579296].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    TL,

    You DO realize that walk outs happen ALL THE TIME! HECK, a lot of people believe the reps vote yes or no. They DON'T! I believe cspan even shows that! They vote yes, no, or present.

    I LOVE pelosis argument. She has a theory that many legal minorities have NO id and thus can't vote, and say the attack is against holder when he MIGHT fight something that could MAYBE have limited voting by SOME minorities. And she said that was a conspiracy. MEANWHILE, he did NOT prosecute a case that was investigated and PROVEN that DID happen that DID limit voting by a particular group.

    She never mentioned THAT! BESIDES, it is hard to believe that they have NO ID and are legal. You ARE required to have a social security card. You ARE required to have a drivers license to drive. You are SUPPOSED to have an ID to get a loan, buy a car, cash a check, fly, etc.... They are cheap and easy to get. States generally have ID that cost like half as much. And some states now offer them for as little as FREE! If you have purple polka dots, tatoos, piercings, and are from mars, they will STILL give you the ID, if you can prove you are you.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6581147].message }}

Trending Topics