Response to denverbill (Reply #20)
Thu Jul 19, 2012, 06:00 PM
beevul (10,826 posts)
27. So can I assume you think ALL attempts at gun regulation and/or bans should be legal?
Last edited Thu Jul 19, 2012, 10:05 PM - Edit history (1)
See, I can play that game too.
"why do you have a problem with what the ATF did?"
I have a problem with what ATF did, because:
A. People are dead, and ATF is DIRECTLY responsible.
B. they used the results of fast and furious to push for further control, like a fire department going around committing arson to get more fire regulations or a bigger budget - see the long rifle demand letter.
C. They deliberately declined to interdict trafficking of arms across the border, commonly known (and more accurately characterized) as facilitation. Look it up in a dictionary if you need to, then consider what that means where the rule of law is concerned. Furthermore, it goes completely against the mission of ATF which is to INTERDICT those arms.
D. They deliberately left their counterparts in the Mexican government, and indeed their own attache in Mexico, out of the loop.
Why don't you appear to have a problem with any of this?
" If the ATF hadn't sold him the weapons, someone else would have."
Well, that makes it ok, I guess, huh?
Next time, when you're in court for a speeding ticket, or someone you know is, either you, or they, can go with the argument that "gee, if I hadn't been speeding, someone else would have been".
See how well it works out, and get back to us.
And last but not least, the centerpiece of your screed:
"And more Border Patrol agents would get killed, but nobody would care about them, since the ATF wasn't involved in those gun sales."
Your problem, is how you interpret "caring" as you use the word above.
A governmental agency whos job it is to prevent cross border trafficking themselves, facilitated trafficking across the border with no mechanism - I repeat no mechanism - in place to track them, and no cooperation with their counterparts in the Mexican government. Even ATFs own people in Mexico, were kept in the dark about it. And the guy your little piece above tries so desperately to protect - david voth - was "giddy" when those weapons started turning up at crime scenes in Mexico.
People are DEAD because of the ATF.
Thats all proven fact.
Now, your argument amounts to this (and I'll simplify it to make this as clear and obvious as possible):
The premise - a fire department - contrary to their duty and purpose, goes around setting some two thousand fires.
Your argument against the people that object to it is:
"if the fire department hadn't started those fires, someone else would have. And more people would burn to death, but nobody would care, since the fire department wasn't involved in starting those fires".
And thats really about all that needs saying, other than to inquire if your last name is newell.
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
So can I assume you think ALL attempts at gun regulation and/or bans should be legal?
|Tuesday Afternoon||Jul 2012||#33|
|4th law of robotics||Jul 2012||#34|
Please login to view edit histories.