Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

So what do you guys think about the ongoing controversy over the Fast and Furious scandal?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/demonizing-attorney-gene ral-eric-holder-gop-fast-furious/story?id=16561643

For those with short attention spans: Back in around 2008, the ATF sold guns to several Mexican cartels in an effort to gather evidence against them and their suppliers. Unfortunately, the sting went bad and the ATF lost track of the weapons, which were later used to kill over 300 Mexican citizens and at least one federal agent. Now Congress is leading in Inquisition into the case.

Thoughts?
Comments?
Crackpot Conspiracy Theories?

Let's let the discussion commence.

This was actually pretty big, but a lot of news stations seemed to kind of ignore it, or at least not show much about it.

conspiracy theories i've heard about it, "this was an attempt to blame gun owners for the illegal weapons in mexico."

That doesn't sound very wacko either. They have blamed the u.s. gun owners for mexican drug cartels having weapons without facts.

At 6/14/12 06:14 PM, thegarbear14 wrote: conspiracy theories i've heard about it, "this was an attempt to blame gun owners for the illegal weapons in mexico."

That doesn't sound very wacko either. They have blamed the u.s. gun owners for mexican drug cartels having weapons without facts.

It especially doesn't sound so far-fetched since Eric Holder made references to "taking measures to make sure nothing like this ever happens again."

Those measures? Stricter gun laws in Arizona and Texas.

At 6/14/12 07:42 PM, homor wrote:

At 6/14/12 06:14 PM, thegarbear14 wrote: conspiracy theories i've heard about it, "this was an attempt to blame gun owners for the illegal weapons in mexico."

That doesn't sound very wacko either. They have blamed the u.s. gun owners for mexican drug cartels having weapons without facts.

It especially doesn't sound so far-fetched since Eric Holder made references to "taking measures to make sure nothing like this ever happens again."

Those measures? Stricter gun laws in Arizona and Texas.

Yeah definately. Eric Holder is VERY VERY anti-gun. He would like nothing more than to pass another unconstitutional assault weapons ban.

which for some reason is still in effect in several states despite apparently violating people's rights....

Well he would totally love to ban all firearms but other than that he would just love to put in effect another awb.

Holder knows his ass and job are both on the line, and if this thing gets cracked upon, I'm sure more than just Holder will be taken to the metaphorical chopping block over it.

I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if Holder and most of the people in his inner circle at the DoJ end up in prison for life over it, or worse. Don't be surprised if Holder leaves the USA if Obama doesn't win in November. Question is, once they install a republican puppet in the DoJ, will they open the lid and expose it all? not likely, but possible.

Even though both sides fight each other like a married couple, neither will take such a step because it would open the door to letting the other side do it. that's why Obama didn't go after Bush and his administration because he knew he would eventually be out of office and if he wasn't replaced by another democrat, it would be his ass.

good point Korriken.

At 6/14/12 08:13 PM, thegarbear14 wrote: Yeah definately. Eric Holder is VERY VERY anti-gun. He would like nothing more than to pass another unconstitutional assault weapons ban.

Please point me to anything that says assault weapons are protected by the Constitution.

At 6/14/12 08:57 PM, Korriken wrote: I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if Holder and most of the people in his inner circle at the DoJ end up in prison for life over it, or worse. Don't be surprised if Holder leaves the USA if Obama doesn't win in November. Question is, once they install a republican puppet in the DoJ, will they open the lid and expose it all? not likely, but possible.

The hell you on about? What has he done at all that is illegal or even grounds for him leaving the country?

If you had any perspective, you'd realize he's actually been very friendly to the conservatives. (Seriously, how many securities lawsuits have been filed by the DoJ since 2008? How many should have? Exactly).

At 6/14/12 10:11 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Its a firearm and the Constitution says you have the right to bear arms (but you have Dems/Liberals that say OHNONONO!) then if you have a state law voted on and passed by the people of said state it is totally legal.

Do you honestly think the 2nd amenment allows for the holding of any weapon possible? Like missiles, bombs, rockets, and miniguns? technically those are all 'arms' as stated in the 2nd Amendment.

Again, point me to something to says assault rifles are Constitutionally protected.

hmm lets see he gave 2000 guns to mexican Cartel which helped fueled hundreds of gun related crimes in mexico and the border on both sides, some call it a violation of Mexican sovereignty. though if anything he will lose his job and live the rest of his life in obscurity.

So are you saying that you are against anti-terrorism actions? Or just missions meant to stop terrorism when they are done by Democrats? If you want to nail Holder to the cross for this, why aren't you looking to nail others to the cross for their failed actions (like Reagan?)

At 6/14/12 10:18 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Do you honestly think the 2nd amenment allows for the holding of any weapon possible? Like missiles, bombs, rockets, and miniguns? technically those are all 'arms' as stated in the 2nd Amendment.

If you have all the proper clearance, license and training, you SHOULD be allowed to own all those types of weapons.

You certainly shouldn't be allowed to have them in a residential neighborhood, but if you have a law abiding milita with military backing, it should be perfectly legal to own all of those.

Again, point me to something to says assault rifles are Constitutionally protected.

You're spiting hairs and bullshitting around to avoid the inevitable reality. Assault Rifles aren't explicitly mentioned in the constitution, arms in general are. To try and say it doesn't apply to assault rifles is a load of shit, it's just playing lawyer ball.

An assault weapon isn't even full auto. In 1994 they classified semi automatic rifles as assault weapons and that still goes on in my state. It expired and was allowed to expire because it was considred unconstitutional, yet for some reason state laws are allowed to violate peoples rights. I don't think that part makes any sense at all.

I don't really think it matters too much since Drug Cartels are in themselves really well equipped in Mexico. And in one case, are professional military forces, the Los Zetas Cartel, that probably would have to do with the fact that they were the Mexican army in the Northern part of Mexico when they defected and joined a Cartel as its military wing. When that cartel's leader was killed by the Mexican government Los Zetas took over the whole cartel and pretty much made the violence explode as the hitmen and the bodyguards of the Cartel took over.

Although I guess that's they thought no one would find out. Other than that if they really wanted to bring down the cartels they'd do something about the whole Americans buying drugs problem.

At 6/14/12 11:01 PM, thegarbear14 wrote: An assault weapon isn't even full auto. In 1994 they classified semi automatic rifles as assault weapons and that still goes on in my state. It expired and was allowed to expire because it was considred unconstitutional, yet for some reason state laws are allowed to violate peoples rights. I don't think that part makes any sense at all.

Better then the lol gun laws in my state. I could easily hide a sawed off shotgun just above the minimum requirements, or get huge ass magazines and stockpile thousands of rounds of ammo, all within 5 days of my 18th birthday. But a handgun? Oh no, that's too dangerous, you have to be 21.

At 6/14/12 11:05 PM, Warforger wrote: I don't really think it matters too much since Drug Cartels are in themselves really well equipped in Mexico.

It matters quite a bit that our government is supplying people who kill u.s. citizens and mexican citizens. They may as well have just went and killed the people for them.

At 6/14/12 11:23 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 6/14/12 11:01 PM, thegarbear14 wrote: An assault weapon isn't even full auto. In 1994 they classified semi automatic rifles as assault weapons and that still goes on in my state. It expired and was allowed to expire because it was considred unconstitutional, yet for some reason state laws are allowed to violate peoples rights. I don't think that part makes any sense at all.

Better then the lol gun laws in my state. I could easily hide a sawed off shotgun just above the minimum requirements, or get huge ass magazines and stockpile thousands of rounds of ammo, all within 5 days of my 18th birthday. But a handgun? Oh no, that's too dangerous, you have to be 21.

LOL! you must be 21 in every state for a handgun. I would need to pay about $200 to get a permit and ccw to carry it. If you don't have your ccw permit and you carry a handgun and get caught you get in big shit. like felony shit. You have a 1cm lump of metal to help a bayonet on your semi auto ak and a pistol grip and you get 10 years in jail, a felony, and a fine somewhere over $5,000.

to use magazines over 10 rounds they need to be made before 1994. To have 2 "evil features on a rifle" is a felony and that list includes: a pistol grip, a folding stock, a bayonet lug, a ww2 styled grenade launcher (where you screw on the grenade and fire a specially made blank and shoot off a grenade), a threaded muzzle, or a flash hider. Pistols have a weight limit in my state too.

New york state gun laws are way more a pita than your states. I have to also deal with federal law as well, every state does. You cannot carry a rifle openly it has to be in a a locked box seperate from ammunition when transported. Nobody really seems to give a fuck about that though. :/

At 6/14/12 10:01 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

The hell you on about? What has he done at all that is illegal or even grounds for him leaving the country?

that's the question of the day, isn't it? I'm pretty sure allowing the sale of guns to people who are known criminals isn't exactly kosher.

at best nothing happens, at semi-best a bunch of people are going to lose their jobs at the DoJ on many different levels. at worst a bunch of people are going to prison over it. we'll simply have to see.

At 6/14/12 11:29 PM, thegarbear14 wrote: LOL! you must be 21 in every state for a handgun. I would need to pay about $200 to get a permit and ccw to carry it. If you don't have your ccw permit and you carry a handgun and get caught you get in big shit. like felony shit. You have a 1cm lump of metal to help a bayonet on your semi auto ak and a pistol grip and you get 10 years in jail, a felony, and a fine somewhere over $5,000.

Here's the thing, in states like yours, the laws side by side make sense. In states like mine, it has a huge dissonance between being able to openly carry an assault rifle at 18, to being 20 and not being able to even have a handgun inside of your home.

At 6/14/12 11:33 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 6/14/12 11:29 PM, thegarbear14 wrote: LOL! you must be 21 in every state for a handgun. I would need to pay about $200 to get a permit and ccw to carry it. If you don't have your ccw permit and you carry a handgun and get caught you get in big shit. like felony shit. You have a 1cm lump of metal to help a bayonet on your semi auto ak and a pistol grip and you get 10 years in jail, a felony, and a fine somewhere over $5,000.

Here's the thing, in states like yours, the laws side by side make sense. In states like mine, it has a huge dissonance between being able to openly carry an assault rifle at 18, to being 20 and not being able to even have a handgun inside of your home.

LOL the laws i have make sense??!?!? that's ridiculous. You're laws make more sense than mine. Explain to me how having a bayonet lug and pistol grip means i'm armed with a full auto assault rifle and should lose the right to bear arms, right to vote, and get 10 years of jail along with several fines. That doesn't make any sense at all.

New york state considers semi automatic rifles with certain mostly cosmetic features to be fully automatic. A 30 round magazine doesn't make an assault rifle, selective fire does. theres probably like 1/190th of your state that owns machine guns. Machine guns cost around $20k or more. Wasr-10s, mak-90s, and ar-15s cost around $500 + and are semi automatic with the same action. They cannot fire full auto though.

If you say my laws make sense clearly you've never lived here. Here they the call the sks an assault rifle and unless it's been around here before 1994 or has too many banned features it is illegal.

At 6/14/12 11:39 PM, thegarbear14 wrote: LOL the laws i have make sense??!?!? that's ridiculous. You're laws make more sense than mine. Explain to me how having a bayonet lug and pistol grip means i'm armed with a full auto assault rifle and should lose the right to bear arms, right to vote, and get 10 years of jail along with several fines. That doesn't make any sense at all.

No, I am not saying the laws make sense in that way you are getting at. I am saying yours at least appear somewhat consistent unlike the general fuckery that goes on with mine. Yours looks like an uptight lib broad who wears a Che Guevara shirt to her anti-NRA protest, while mine is a hormonal teenage girl with DID

At 6/15/12 12:55 AM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 6/14/12 11:39 PM, thegarbear14 wrote: LOL the laws i have make sense??!?!? that's ridiculous. You're laws make more sense than mine. Explain to me how having a bayonet lug and pistol grip means i'm armed with a full auto assault rifle and should lose the right to bear arms, right to vote, and get 10 years of jail along with several fines. That doesn't make any sense at all.

No, I am not saying the laws make sense in that way you are getting at. I am saying yours at least appear somewhat consistent unlike the general fuckery that goes on with mine. Yours looks like an uptight lib broad who wears a Che Guevara shirt to her anti-NRA protest, while mine is a hormonal teenage girl with DID

well it isn't state law saying you cannot have a handgun at 18 (you should be able to. You apparently old enough to join the military and walk around afghanistan with an m9 and m16 but not old enough to drink and own a handgun...)

Also tony i live in new york state. Anyways this is getting off topic and we have been for a while lol.

I have still yet to see anyone put forth anything that says assault rifles are wholly protected by the Constitution, or even that they're protected as much as pistols are. Spouting the second Amendment (improperly, I might add) is NOT proof of anything.

Furthermore show me why there cannot be reasonable restriction of assault rifles. One more thing, show me how bannind assault rifles from urban and suburban areas completely is not a reasonable restriction.

At 6/15/12 08:47 AM, thegarbear14 wrote: well it isn't state law saying you cannot have a handgun at 18 (you should be able to. You apparently old enough to join the military and walk around afghanistan with an m9 and m16 but not old enough to drink and own a handgun...)

Again, what does drinking or being in the military have to do with civilian gun ownership? It's like claiming, Well, when I'm 16 they expect me to drive, so they should allow me to be President! They have zero to do with eachother.

Republicans making political hay over what Holder said vs what he received in a memo. Now they are desperately trying to save face by trying to get holder to resign, after making a big spectacle out of it.

As far as I'm concerned, Holder did put a stop to gun-running as a tactic. A tactic that was also used during the Bush years under Operation Wide Receiver. That operation did lose track of a few guns as well, but wasn't botched as badly as Fast and Furious. All this fuss just because the Republicans feel Holder is covering up his role in Fast and Furious.

At 6/14/12 11:23 PM, thegarbear14 wrote:

At 6/14/12 11:05 PM, Warforger wrote: I don't really think it matters too much since Drug Cartels are in themselves really well equipped in Mexico.

It matters quite a bit that our government is supplying people who kill u.s. citizens and mexican citizens. They may as well have just went and killed the people for them.

If the US government wanted to stop Cartels in Mexico from killing Mexican and US citizens it would legalize drugs and move away from the retarded jailing of every single drug dealer and user. Now I'm not saying that the act of selling weapons to Cartel's isn't a big deal, I'm just saying that for the overall situation it doesn't make much of a difference.

At 6/15/12 10:53 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I have still yet to see anyone put forth anything that says assault rifles are wholly protected by the Constitution, or even that they're protected as much as pistols are. Spouting the second Amendment (improperly, I might add) is NOT proof of anything.

You are actively ignoring what i told you explicitly. I told you that assault rifles are legally defensible as "arms" and you choose to ignore it because you simply refuse to acknowledge anything less than an explicit name-drop mentioning of assault rifles written in black and white bold print with a picture of the founding fathers holding it with today's newspaper and each of their combination hair blood and stool samples.

The second amendment states, quite crisply: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." You're sitting here splitting hairs trying to claim that somehow assault rifles don't count as arms, or that for some inane reason "arms" only applies to a specific, arbitrary type of guns you personally deem to be safer than others.