Arizona conducts criminial investigation on the BATFE and company on Fast and Furious

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by friendorfoe, Jan 23, 2012.

Loading...
  1. friendorfoe

    friendorfoe Active Member

  2. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Only temporarily.

    Arizona is wasting its time and resources; a federal court will assume jurisdiction, invoke the Supremacy Clause, then dismiss everything, and the coverup will continue unabated, unless AZ has the stones to take it the US Supreme Court.

    It's actually not unprecedented;

    No.
     
  3. Steve King

    Steve King Member

    I'm surprised that reports that a current federal prosecutor chose to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights to avoid self-incrimination hasn't become a bigger news story today. I suspect that this will eventually become a bigger issue before it's all over.
     
  4. friendorfoe

    friendorfoe Active Member

    So then I guess individual federal agents can claim to act under color of law while willfully breaking both state and federal laws and nobody can do anything about it...my guess is Arizona has intention to take it to the Supreme Court. They can add it to the backlog of state's rights cases right up there with immigration and healthcare.
     
  5. friendorfoe

    friendorfoe Active Member

    You're right, that should be a HUGE story and I am betting that the course of this next Presidential election will have a major impact upon how many butts end up in slings. A change in administration and federal appointments will remove a lot of the protections that currently exist. I sincerely doubt however that the actors at the core of this whole thing will ever face any scrutiny as I have no doubt Fast and Furious goes all the way to the top. It was an ill conceived attempt to use the BATFE to gather criminal data for prohibitive gun legislation, especially in the Southwest region of the U.S.
     
  6. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    The Republican nominee should beat that drum with both hands during the campaign and especially during the debates.

    Under this administration......pretty much.

    I hope you're correct, although if the Republican nominee (whoever he may be) wins the general election, my guess is that you'll probably see federal indictments before the SCOTUS hears the Arizona appeal case.
     
  7. friendorfoe

    friendorfoe Active Member

    At the very least this will keep the heat on the BATFE long enough for it to be an issue (however minor) in the presidential race through election.
     
  8. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Good point, and I hope the Republican nominee beats that drum with both hands. It's hardly been a blip during the primary debates, which I hope changes for the Florida debate, and those going forward.
     
  9. friendorfoe

    friendorfoe Active Member

    Yeah, not much for the GOP to say about it now. It'd probably go something like this.

    Newt: "And I will hold those involved in Fast and Furious responsible for any and all crimes that may have occurred".

    Mitt: "Me too."
     
  10. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Actually, one of the few times it's been mentioned at a debate (there's been about 657 of them, so I forget which one), Romney fielded the question first, with Gingrich subsequently agreeing with Romney's position.
     
  11. friendorfoe

    friendorfoe Active Member

    Half dozen one way, six the other. My point is no GOP candidate in his right mind would say anything otherwise. Doesn't Romney have a spotty gun control thing in his past though? I don't know but being from Mass. as gov. I would think he had to sign some kind of anti-gun legislation.
     
  12. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    I'll mimic liberal media for ya:

    Iran/Contra, Iran/Contra,
    Iran/Contra, Iran/Contra,
    Iran/Contra, Iran/Contra,
    Iran/Contra, Iran/Contra,
    Iran/Contra, Iran/Contra,
    Iran/Contra, Iran/Contra,
    Iran/Contra, Iran/Contra,
    Iran/Contra, Iran/Contra,
    Iran/Contra, Iran/Contra,
    Iran/Contra, Iran/Contra,
    Iran/Contra, Iran/Contra,
    Iran/Contra, Iran/Contra,
    Iran/Contra, Iran/Contra,
    Iran/Contra, Iran/Contra,
    Iran/Contra, Iran/Contra,
    Iran/Contra, Iran/Contra,
    Iran/Contra, Iran/Contra,
    Iran/Contra, Iran/Contra,
    Iran/Contra, Iran/Contra,
    Iran/Contra, Iran/Contra,
    Iran/Contra, Iran/Contra,
    Iran/Contra, Iran/Contra,
    Iran/Contra, Iran/Contra,
    Iran/Contra, Iran/Contra,
    Iran/Contra, Iran/Contra,

    Hey did you see that rat bastard racist homophobic racist REALLY white conservative racist only paid 14% on his income tax? TAXES HTE RICH, LOLZZZ ZOMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  13. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    As Governor, he signed a bill to extend the ban on high-capacity magazines except for law enforcement & military, but that bill also made it easier/faster for people who are denied a gun permit by their local police chief to appeal to a judge, which resulted in a lot more gun permits being issued, which is a good thing to me.

    The bill was also endorsed by the Gun Owner's Action League (GOAL, which is like a state-level NRA of which I'm a member), so I can't really get too worked-up about it. I have enough pre-ban high capacity magazines (which are legal) for my AR-15, SR-1, and Glock to outfit a small army, so it's no big deal to me.

    Romney's record;

    http://goal.org/newspages/romney.html
     
  14. friendorfoe

    friendorfoe Active Member

    Thanks Bruce, I thought there was something. I never understood high capacity magazine bans. As if somehow being shot 10 times makes you less dead than if you were shot 15 times. I think the logic behind it is that cops would have superior "firepower" but I'm not sure "firepower" even belongs in the same sentence as "handgun". It must be a "feel good" thing for the anti-gun crowd.
     
  15. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    I think the idea is that if you have to reload more often, you can't kill as many people when you go on your inevitable rampage. Or something.
     
  16. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    Absolutley since every legal gun owner eventually goes on a rampage. I'm currently getting ready for mine.

    Hasan did not have high capacity magazines, niether did Cho. The high capacity magazine bans are nothing more than the tip of the iceberg for opponents of 2A, they're after bigger and better fish.

    A trained person can drop a magazine and have another loaded and be up and firing in less than a couple of seconds. You're dead no matter what.
     
  17. StefanM

    StefanM New Member

    Even though I disagree with your political opinions, I thought this was quite funny.

    That being said, Romney's not a racist. The only color he sees is green!
     
  18. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    Thanks, I was just trying to be funny. In this day and age wanting money and being successful at getting it is the new KKK. I accept the political climate as it is.
     
  19. friendorfoe

    friendorfoe Active Member

    That is true of pretty much every politician I've seen to date. Name one member of the House or Senate that left office with less money than they had going in. ;)
     
  20. major56

    major56 Active Member

    Top 10 wealthiest senators Pictures (8-Democrats /2-Republicans):
    1. Sen. John Kerry (D-Ma): Average net worth $238,812,295
    2. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va): Average net worth $174,385,102
    3. Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis): Average net worth $160,302,011
    4. Sen. James E. Risch (R-Idaho): Average net worth $109,034,052
    5. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va): Average net worth $98,832,010
    6. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn): Average net worth $94,870,116
    7. Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Ca): Average net worth $77,082,134
    8. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ): Average net worth $77,886,611
    9. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn): Average net worth $50,717,522
    10 Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Me): Average net worth $28,612,527

    Top 10 wealthiest senators*Pictures - CBS News
     

Share This Page