Someone needs to remind Creepy, Sleepy Joe about these:

The IRS targeting political opponents of the administration.

The death of a United States Ambassador and the events before and after they tried to cover up.

The NSA spying on American citizens

The CIA spying on the United States Senate

The DOJ and other intelligence agencies spying on a rival political campaign.

(06-13-2019 09:16 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:According to the original affidavit filed days after the murder: "All of the individuals were armed, to include Osorio-Arellanes. Osorio-Arellanes stated that he had raised his weapon towards the Border Patrol agents, but he did not fire because he had realized that they were Border Patrol agents. At this time, he was shot."
The bullet that killed the agent is identified in the FBI's report as Q6. The investigators determined it could have been fired by a gun "like" those they had in possession. But, they wrote, "due to a lack of sufficient agreement in the individual microscopic marks of value, it could not be determined if the Q6 bullet was fired from the barrel of the K2 or K3 rifles."

https://kjzz.org/content/which-gun-kille...rian-terry

So your argument appears to be, "There were multiple guns there, and we cannot be certain which one was the specific gun that killed him."

Or are you saying that none of the guns were attributable to Fast and Furious?

The latter argument is the one that really amounts to anything. The first one doesn't.

Regardless of the specifics of this situation, moreover, F&F is still a fraudulent scandal. The apologists like to say, "They were only continuing a Bush-era program." Except they weren't. There was a program under the Bush administration that sold some guns with tracers. They found that the tracers did not work or could be removed or disabled. So they cancelled the program as ineffective. Fast and Furious revived the program, but without the tracers, so they did exactly what the Bush era experiment said would not work. There is no logical explanation that I can infer. Except one.

(06-13-2019 09:43 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Someone needs to remind Creepy, Sleepy Joe about these:

The IRS targeting political opponents of the administration.

The death of a United States Ambassador and the events before and after they tried to cover up.

The NSA spying on American citizens

The CIA spying on the United States Senate

The DOJ and other intelligence agencies spying on a rival political campaign.

Still to me, the biggest failure was the VA debacle.

(06-13-2019 10:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 09:16 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:According to the original affidavit filed days after the murder: "All of the individuals were armed, to include Osorio-Arellanes. Osorio-Arellanes stated that he had raised his weapon towards the Border Patrol agents, but he did not fire because he had realized that they were Border Patrol agents. At this time, he was shot."
The bullet that killed the agent is identified in the FBI's report as Q6. The investigators determined it could have been fired by a gun "like" those they had in possession. But, they wrote, "due to a lack of sufficient agreement in the individual microscopic marks of value, it could not be determined if the Q6 bullet was fired from the barrel of the K2 or K3 rifles."

https://kjzz.org/content/which-gun-kille...rian-terry

So your argument appears to be, "There were multiple guns there, and we cannot be certain which one was the specific gun that killed him."

Or are you saying that none of the guns were attributable to Fast and Furious?

The latter argument is the one that really amounts to anything. The first one doesn't.

Regardless of the specifics of this situation, moreover, F&F is still a fraudulent scandal. The apologists like to say, "They were only continuing a Bush-era program." Except they weren't. There was a program under the Bush administration that sold some guns with tracers. They found that the tracers did not work or could be removed or disabled. So they cancelled the program as ineffective. Fast and Furious revived the program, but without the tracers, so they did exactly what the Bush era experiment said would not work. There is no logical explanation that I can infer. Except one.

I'm only stating facts. There is no proof he was killed with one of the F&F Weapons.

Additionally, even without F&F, there is no guarantee he would not have been killed. It's not like there's a shortage of weaponry in the Americas.

But yes, both programs under both administrations were deeply flawed. I get what they were trying to accomplish, but they should have both realized it was not the right way to go about it.

(06-13-2019 12:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But yes, both programs under both administrations were deeply flawed. I get what they were trying to accomplish, but they should have both realized it was not the right way to go about it.

The Bush administration had what might have been a good idea if the trackers had worked. When they realized it didn't, they shut it down. That strikes me as prudent.

What the Obama/Holder administration did is restart it without the trackers, knowing from the Bush experience that couldn't possibly work. So what was their motivation?

(06-13-2019 02:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 12:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But yes, both programs under both administrations were deeply flawed. I get what they were trying to accomplish, but they should have both realized it was not the right way to go about it.

The Bush administration had what might have been a good idea if the trackers had worked. When they realized it didn't, they shut it down. That strikes me as prudent.

What the Obama/Holder administration did is restart it without the trackers, knowing from the Bush experience that couldn't possibly work. So what was their motivation?

Clearly to kill American border agents according to the right spin masters.

(06-13-2019 02:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 02:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 12:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But yes, both programs under both administrations were deeply flawed. I get what they were trying to accomplish, but they should have both realized it was not the right way to go about it.

The Bush administration had what might have been a good idea if the trackers had worked. When they realized it didn't, they shut it down. That strikes me as prudent.
What the Obama/Holder administration did is restart it without the trackers, knowing from the Bush experience that couldn't possibly work. So what was their motivation?

Clearly to kill American border agents according to the right spin masters.

If not that, then what?

(06-13-2019 03:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 02:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 02:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 12:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But yes, both programs under both administrations were deeply flawed. I get what they were trying to accomplish, but they should have both realized it was not the right way to go about it.

The Bush administration had what might have been a good idea if the trackers had worked. When they realized it didn't, they shut it down. That strikes me as prudent.
What the Obama/Holder administration did is restart it without the trackers, knowing from the Bush experience that couldn't possibly work. So what was their motivation?

Clearly to kill American border agents according to the right spin masters.

If not that, then what?

Government doesn't always do right or smart things. This can't be news to you.

(06-13-2019 03:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 02:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 02:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 12:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But yes, both programs under both administrations were deeply flawed. I get what they were trying to accomplish, but they should have both realized it was not the right way to go about it.

The Bush administration had what might have been a good idea if the trackers had worked. When they realized it didn't, they shut it down. That strikes me as prudent.
What the Obama/Holder administration did is restart it without the trackers, knowing from the Bush experience that couldn't possibly work. So what was their motivation?

Clearly to kill American border agents according to the right spin masters.

If not that, then what?

The same as it always was under Obama. Gun control and placing additional barriers for US citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

(06-13-2019 05:36 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 03:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 02:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 02:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 12:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But yes, both programs under both administrations were deeply flawed. I get what they were trying to accomplish, but they should have both realized it was not the right way to go about it.

The Bush administration had what might have been a good idea if the trackers had worked. When they realized it didn't, they shut it down. That strikes me as prudent.
What the Obama/Holder administration did is restart it without the trackers, knowing from the Bush experience that couldn't possibly work. So what was their motivation?

Clearly to kill American border agents according to the right spin masters.

If not that, then what?

The same as it always was under Obama. Gun control and placing additional barriers for US citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

That'd be my guess.

(06-13-2019 05:36 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 03:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 02:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 02:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 12:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But yes, both programs under both administrations were deeply flawed. I get what they were trying to accomplish, but they should have both realized it was not the right way to go about it.

The Bush administration had what might have been a good idea if the trackers had worked. When they realized it didn't, they shut it down. That strikes me as prudent.
What the Obama/Holder administration did is restart it without the trackers, knowing from the Bush experience that couldn't possibly work. So what was their motivation?

Clearly to kill American border agents according to the right spin masters.

If not that, then what?

The same as it always was under Obama. Gun control and placing additional barriers for US citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

What necessary gun rights were taken away under Obama?

Not to mention...

Quote:In fact, the only two major gun-related laws enacted during the Obama administration’s first term actually expand the rights of gun owners.

The first of these laws, which took effect in February 2012, allows people to openly carry legally owned guns in national parks. The law replaced a Ronald Reagan era policy that required guns to remain locked in glove compartments or trunks of private vehicles that enter national parks.

In addressing this law, Obama surprised his pro-gun right critics when he wrote, “In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that's handed from generation to generation. Hunting and shooting are part of our national heritage. And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners - it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.”

The other law allows Amtrak passengers to carry guns in checked baggage; a reversal of a measure put in place by President George W. Bush in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

https://www.thoughtco.com/president-bara...hts-721329

(06-14-2019 09:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 05:36 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 03:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 02:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 02:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The Bush administration had what might have been a good idea if the trackers had worked. When they realized it didn't, they shut it down. That strikes me as prudent.
What the Obama/Holder administration did is restart it without the trackers, knowing from the Bush experience that couldn't possibly work. So what was their motivation?

Clearly to kill American border agents according to the right spin masters.

If not that, then what?

The same as it always was under Obama. Gun control and placing additional barriers for US citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

What necessary gun rights were taken away under Obama?

None, because he didn't have the votes. Same reason Obamacare wasn't single-payer and didn't include a public option. He clearly wanted more than he got in both areas. There is speculation that F&F was designed to blow up and in so doing generate public sentiment for gun regulation so he could get the votes. I don't know whether that was the rationale or not. But I see nothing to indicate that it wasn't, and there's really nothing else that makes sense.

"We're going to revive a program that was cancelled because it failed, and we are going to change it to make sure it fails." Hard to come up with any other rationale.