The Obama/Holder drug cartel arms smuggling scandal (merged)

#26
#26
KiffinKiller said:
Why do you even quote people. It's not like those pictures were in response to my post. They would be up there regardless.
Click to expand...

I was going to use the 'vote obama, embarrassed yet'
pic but it's been deleted so I threw those in.

They do pose a couple of questions that reflect on
your expression of emotion.

ps; MG, If I were looking for companionship, you
can bet your bottom dollar it wouldn't be with
killer!! :loco:
 
#27
#27
gsvol said:
I was going to use the 'vote obama, embarrassed yet'
pic but it's been deleted so I threw those in.

They do pose a couple of questions that reflect on
your expression of emotion.

ps; MG, If I were looking for companionship, you
can bet your bottom dollar it wouldn't be with
killer!! :loco:
Click to expand...

ouch. You don't want to associate with me? Where would we have to associate? The unabomber's garage? You'll be the one in a hoodie and aviators, right?
 
#28
#28
KiffinKiller said:
LG is partisan. Are you? :hi:
Click to expand...

Would vote for Clinton over either Bush JR, Bush SR, Romney or Palin. Does that answer your question?

Would of rather had Hillary over Mccain. Does that help answer your question?
 
#29
#29
Unlike LG, I may lean in a direction but I'm not down on my knees with my mouth open taking everything the party shoves my way.
 
#30
#30
NEOCON said:
Would vote for Clinton over either Bush JR, Bush SR, Romney or Palin. Does that answer your question?

Would of rather had Hillary over Mccain. Does that help answer your question?
Click to expand...
Clinton over Bush Sr?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#31
#31
volinbham said:
Claim a) is that the administration is stonewalling the investigation - throwing the ATF Director under the bus fits this claim perfectly.

Claim b) the mainstream media is late on this - they are. Hopefully they'll dig in since this is a major goof at a minimum and a major scandal at a maximum.
Click to expand...



Claim a:

So if they do nothing, they are stonewalling. They take action, they are scapegoating.



Claim b:

So if they don't report on it, they are complicit. If they do report on it, you are unsatisfied because its late.



At least its not like you are being unreasonable or anything.
 
#32
#32
BigPapaVol said:
Clinton over Bush Sr?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Not sure why question you asking me honestly.

I was not a fan of either Bush. Bush SR rode in on reagan's coat tails and was not POTUS material in my opinion. Clinton ratified Nafta but Bush SR is the one who made it happen and physically signed it in 92. He might have been a nice guy like Carter but I am not for much of what he did.
 
#33
#33
lawgator1 said:
Claim a:

So if they do nothing, they are stonewalling. They take action, they are scapegoating.

No - they are stonewalling and have been by withholding information. Throwing this guy under the bus is just part of the pattern to slow the investigation.


Claim b:

So if they don't report on it, they are complicit. If they do report on it, you are unsatisfied because its late.

Not complicit - just not that interested. My bet is they will become more involved because the story is starting to have legs



At least its not like you are being unreasonable or anything.
Click to expand...

Amazing how someone who claims to know what others are thinking is so poor at reading comprehension.
 
#34
#34
Were you selling at this gun show, GS?
images


You do not have a leg to stand on in this discussion.
 
#36
#36
therealUT said:
Were you selling at this gun show, GS?
images


You do not have a leg to stand on in this discussion.
Click to expand...

No, buying!

image016bg.jpg


On the contrary, I have two legs to stand on in this
or any other discussion.




KiffinKiller said:
ouch. You don't want to associate with me? Where would we have to associate? The unabomber's garage? You'll be the one in a hoodie and aviators, right?
Click to expand...

Canoodle this:

You said: "I'm an embarrassed American."

Many Americans were embarrassed when Obama was elected.

Most of those who voted for Obama have been
embarrassed at some point or another.

Join the club of embarrassed Americans, welcome to
the party!

0617derosier.jpg





lawgator1 said:
CNN says ATF director Melson to resign under pressure over this.

So much for a) the claim that the administration is ignoring it; and b) the claim that the mainstream media isn't reporting on it.
Click to expand...

thespitzerweinershow.jpg


current_tv_small.jpg
 
#37
#37
NEOCON said:
Not sure why question you asking me honestly.

I was not a fan of either Bush. Bush SR rode in on reagan's coat tails and was not POTUS material in my opinion. Clinton ratified Nafta but Bush SR is the one who made it happen and physically signed it in 92. He might have been a nice guy like Carter but I am not for much of what he did.
Click to expand...

Bush Sr wasn't POTUS material? Guy is by far the most qualified of the current living presidents
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#38
#38
NEOCON said:
Would vote for Clinton over either Bush JR, Bush SR, Romney or Palin. Does that answer your question?

Would of rather had Hillary over Mccain. Does that help answer your question?
Click to expand...

I knew I liked you.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#39
#39
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Bush Sr wasn't POTUS material? Guy is by far the most qualified of the current living presidents
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Agree he had the qualifications on foreign affairs. Unfortunately that didnt equate into an effective president on domestic issues.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#42
#42
Justice Officials in 'Panic Mode' as Hearing Nears on Failed Anti-Gun Trafficking Program - FoxNews.com

Article should be read in full.

Officials at the Department of Justice are in
"panic mode," according to multiple sources, as
word spreads that congressional testimony next
week will paint a bleak and humiliating picture of
Operation Fast and Furious, the botched undercover
operation that left a trail of blood from Mexico to
Washington, D.C.

The operation was supposed to stem the flow of
weapons from the U.S. to Mexico by allowing
so-called straw buyers to purchase guns legally
in the U.S. and later sell them in Mexico, usually
to drug cartels.

Instead, ATF documents show that the Bureau of
Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms knowingly and
deliberately flooded Mexico with assault rifles.
-----------------------------

Arizona gun store owners say they were explicitly
told by the ATF to sell the guns, sometimes 20, 30,
even up to 40 in a single day to single person.

And those orders, from at least one ATF case agent,
are on audio recording.
------------------------------

The hearing is billed as "Reckless Decisions, Tragic
Outcomes," and the following are among the details
expected in testimony:

- The ATF allowed and encouraged five Arizona gun
store owners to sell some 1,800 weapons to buyers
known to them as gun smugglers.

- It installed cameras inside the gun stores to record
purchases made by those smugglers.

- It hid GPS trackers inside gun stocks and watched
the weapons go south on computer screens.

- It obtained surveillance video from parking lots
and helicopters showing straw buyers transferring
their guns from one car to another.

- It learned guns sold in Phoenix were recovered
only when Mexico police requested "trace data,"
which is obtained from their serial number.

The first witness in Wednesday's hearing is Sen.
Charles Grassley, who will describe what his
investigative team learned from four months of
interviews and thousands of documents.

He will be followed by three members of Brian Terry's
family, three ATF agents and Assistant Attorney
General Ronald Weich, who only months ago insisted
the agency did not let guns go south to Mexico, a
claim contradicted by field agents in Group 7, the
actual agents who ran the operation in Phoenix.
Click to expand...

Several impeachable offenses have been committed so far.

gunwalker.jpg
 
#43
#43
So let me get this straight.

You blame the administration because they allowed guns to fall into the hands of the bad guys. In fact, you specifically say that they are at fault for the death of the border patrol agent.

I assume, therefore, that you agree with me that when someone allows their hand gun to get stolen, that they ought to be held liable for any damage done by the gun?
 
#44
#44
lawgator1 said:
So let me get this straight.

You blame the administration because they allowed guns to fall into the hands of the bad guys. In fact, you specifically say that they are at fault for the death of the border patrol agent.

I assume, therefore, that you agree with me that when someone allows their hand gun to get stolen, that they ought to be held liable for any damage done by the gun?
Click to expand...

who "allows" their handgun to be stolen?

and are you really trying to make the point that you don't have a problem with Operation Fast and Furious?
 
#45
#45
Wow if true

Mexican officials estimate 150 of their people have been shot by Fast and Furious guns. Police have recovered roughly 700 guns at crime scenes, 250 in the U.S. and the rest in Mexico, including five AK-47s found at a cartel warehouse in Juarez last month.
A high-powered sniper rifle was used to shoot down a Mexican military helicopter. Two other Romanian-made AK-47s were found in a shoot-out that left 11 dead in the state of Jalisco three weeks ago.
The guns were traced to the Lone Wolf Gun Store in Glendale, Ariz., and were sold only after the store employees were told to do so by the ATF.
It is illegal to buy a gun for anyone but yourself. However, ATF's own documents show it allowed just 15 men to buy 1,725 guns, and 1,318 of those were after the purchasers officially became targets of investigation.
Arizona gun store owners say they were explicitly told by the ATF to sell the guns, sometimes 20, 30, even up to 40 in a single day to single person.


Read more: Justice Officials in 'Panic Mode' as Hearing Nears on Failed Anti-Gun Trafficking Program - FoxNews.com
Click to expand...
 
#47
#47
MG1968 said:
never fear, LG is on the scene to prosecute legal gun owners who "allowed" their guns to be stolen.
Click to expand...


Not prosecute. Sue.

And by "allow" you could do this a couple of ways.

You could say that any gun stolen from a car is by definition the fault of the negligence of the gun owner. I mean, iirc, a permit to carry a concealed firearm means on you, not in your car. If your car is in the parking lot of Wal-Mart, and you are inside Wal-Mart, then imo that is negligence per se and so you should be liable for anyone taking the gun and shooting someone with it.

Now, why do I distinguish between that and, say, someone taking your Garmin GPS and then bopping someone over the head with it?

Easy. The law on tort liability is founded on, if nothing else, foreseeability. If you take some action and it is reasonably foreseeable that the action is going to hurt someone and you do it anyway, well, then you can be held liable.

As guns have but one purpose, and as it is well known in our society that many guns are stolen and used to commit crimes, and as it should be foreseeable that leaving a gun in your car creates an unreasonable risk of that, then you should be held liable if a gun is stolen out of your car and used to hurt someone.

The solution is simple. Either don't ever carry the gun with you in your car. Or, if you do, always take it with you when you leave the car. How hard is that versus a fellow citizen having to bury their wife, son, or husband because you forgot you had a loaded Glock in the glove compartment?
 
#48
#48
It appears to me the real solution is for ATF to funnel guns to criminals then no one will steal them out of cars.
 
#49
#49
lawgator1 said:
Not prosecute. Sue.

And by "allow" you could do this a couple of ways.

You could say that any gun stolen from a car is by definition the fault of the negligence of the gun owner. I mean, iirc, a permit to carry a concealed firearm means on you, not in your car. If your car is in the parking lot of Wal-Mart, and you are inside Wal-Mart, then imo that is negligence per se and so you should be liable for anyone taking the gun and shooting someone with it.

Now, why do I distinguish between that and, say, someone taking your Garmin GPS and then bopping someone over the head with it?

Easy. The law on tort liability is founded on, if nothing else, foreseeability. If you take some action and it is reasonably foreseeable that the action is going to hurt someone and you do it anyway, well, then you can be held liable.

As guns have but one purpose, and as it is well known in our society that many guns are stolen and used to commit crimes, and as it should be foreseeable that leaving a gun in your car creates an unreasonable risk of that, then you should be held liable if a gun is stolen out of your car and used to hurt someone.

The solution is simple. Either don't ever carry the gun with you in your car. Or, if you do, always take it with you when you leave the car. How hard is that versus a fellow citizen having to bury their wife, son, or husband because you forgot you had a loaded Glock in the glove compartment?
Click to expand...

This really doesn't work. First, there are places and situations where one simply cannot, permit or otherwise, carry a firearm. Even in whatever world you live in there's no way around disarming and leaving the weapon locked in your vehicle until you return. Second, I stongly disagree with your assertion of anything being "forseeable" about having your car broken into, gun or otherwise so can give no credibility to your argument except for one possible scenario. One MIGHT be able to get at least a little traction if the weapon(s) were in plain sight at the time of the robbery. I still don't much care for that line of thought but at least the idea that you didn't bother to conceal an unattended weapon might be seen as "reasonably" negligent by some juries.

Gun is stolen from an out of sight location like the glove compartment or trunk? Forget it...that's ENTIRELY on the piece of trash that stole the weapon in the first place.
 
#50
#50
hndog609 said:
This really doesn't work. First, there are places and situations where one simply cannot, permit or otherwise, carry a firearm. Even in whatever world you live in there's no way around disarming and leaving the weapon locked in your vehicle until you return. Second, I stongly disagree with your assertion of anything being "forseeable" about having your car broken into, gun or otherwise so can give no credibility to your argument except for one possible scenario. One MIGHT be able to get at least a little traction if the weapon(s) were in plain sight at the time of the robbery. I still don't much care for that line of thought but at least the idea that you didn't bother to conceal an unattended weapon might be seen as "reasonably" negligent by some juries.

Gun is stolen from an out of sight location like the glove compartment or trunk? Forget it...that's ENTIRELY on the piece of trash that stole the weapon in the first place.
Click to expand...



The reason the car scenario should matter (gun in sight or not) is that cars are so frequently burglarized and so easily, relative to a home. They are crimes of opportunity.

Your other point is a matter of convenience. Don't take your gun with you in the morning when you get in the car if there is a chance you will got a place you cannot take it with you.

Yes, this means that if your job forbids them, then you cannot take it with you and leave it in the car.

If midday you find out you have to go somewhere you didn't expect and that you cannot take a gun with you, then you are faced with the choice of making time to run it home, or facing liability if you take it with you anyway and leave it in the car.

As a lark, I Googled the phrase "gun stolen from car."

Holy crap.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top