01 Jan 13
Originally posted by sasquatch672Weren't the 2,000 high-powered assault rifles released as part of a sting operation that failed and not with the purpose of creating gun violence?
If you object so much to guns, on principle, then why are you not outraged at the release of 2,000 high-powered assault rifles to violent gangs on your southern border?
01 Jan 13
Originally posted by FMFGoing to give you a taste of your own medicine here.
Weren't the 2,000 high-powered assault rifles released as part of a sting operation that failed and not with the purpose of creating gun violence?
Answer my freaking question, you Kiwi nutcase.
Yes. It was. Nothing more. Some ultra-right-wing websites have said that Obama was trying to cause gun violence in Mexico to demonstrate the need for more stringent gun laws here. I think the premise is absurd.
American liberals are avoiding the point here. If you object so much to guns, on principle, then why are you not outraged at the release of 2,000 high-powered assault rifles to violent gangs on your southern border? Americans buy guns legally. An extremely small percentage of those guns are used in crimes. A still smaller percentage of those crimes are heinous and unspeakable.
But you know, with a high degree of certainty, that if you put a gun into the hands of a violent criminal, he will commit a violent crime with the weapon you gave him. Murder. Multiple murders. You don't see the moral turpitude in that? The operation wasn't flawed, it wasn't botched. The operation itself, given the interpretation most favorable to Obama, was immoral, heinous, and reprehensible.
So why the double standard?
01 Jan 13
Originally posted by sasquatch672I think you are being generous in not attributing political motives to the release. When the Clinton administration went in with guns blazing at Mt. Carmel, it was absolutely because BATF needed a big news story to shore up their budget request. These things follow a pattern.
Going to give you a taste of your own medicine here.
Answer my freaking question, you Kiwi nutcase.
Yes. It was. Nothing more. Some ultra-right-wing websites have said that Obama was trying to cause gun violence in Mexico to demonstrate the need for more stringent gun laws here. I think the premise is absurd.
American liberals are avoiding t ...[text shortened]... favorable to Obama, was immoral, heinous, and reprehensible.
So why the double standard?
01 Jan 13
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignI just want to take that off the table, because the moral issues and the - let's be kind - "dichotomy" - of the Obama administration's position on guns are themselves ample fodder. To me, the political motives are a distraction from the breathtaking nihilism of the operation.
I think you are being generous in not attributing political motives to the release. When the Clinton administration went in with guns blazing at Mt. Carmel, it was absolutely because BATF needed a big news story to shore up their budget request. These things follow a pattern.
01 Jan 13
Originally posted by sasquatch672You have been suggesting that the purpose of releasing the assault rifles was to create gun violence. And yet you also appear to be conceding that it was part of a sting operation that failed.
Going to give you a taste of your own medicine here.
Answer my freaking question, you Kiwi nutcase.
Yes. It was. Nothing more. Some ultra-right-wing websites have said that Obama was trying to cause gun violence in Mexico to demonstrate the need for more stringent gun laws here. I think the premise is absurd.
American liberals are avoiding t ...[text shortened]... favorable to Obama, was immoral, heinous, and reprehensible.
So why the double standard?
01 Jan 13
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFWhat do you think the Justice Department thought was going to happen with those weapons? They were going to hang in a museum? Maybe make up a really cool hood ornament?
No you didn't. Why are you suggesting that the purpose of releasing the assault rifles was to create gun violence when you know that it was part of a sting operation that failed?
You are a dense, dense individual. I have to say in 24 hours you've transmogrified yourself from a quirky but entertaining sideshow into someone I would happily punch in the face. I'm giving you the opportunity to fix that, now.
01 Jan 13
Originally posted by sasquatch672You would happily punch me in the face?
You are a dense, dense individual. I have to say in 24 hours you've transmogrified yourself from a quirky but entertaining sideshow into someone I would happily punch in the face. I'm giving you the opportunity to fix that, now.
