BOMBSHELL: Obama's DOJ Forced Deletion Of 500,000 Fugitives From Gun Background Check System

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: underwerks

You know your posting history better than I do.

As for the rest of your post?

It's all there for you to see if you care to look.

Prove me wrong.

a reply to: underwerks

Why should something I might have done in the past keep me from owning guns for protecting my family?

Makes perfect sense. A killer's past should not interfere with his right to own a firearm. What do people think he is going to do? Kill someone again? Pssssh. I am sure he has changed his ways. Lets just give him a chance, just to see if we are right or wrong.

The above statement is the logic that lost the left the election.

a reply to: underwerks


Just top be clear;

You are FOR wanted felons with outstanding warrants owning and purchasing firearms.

a reply to: 3daysgone

The member is conflating someone who has served their time and paid for their crimes with wanted felons with criminal warrants for their arrest.



The last time I saw something this weak and lame, it was in a wheel chair.

originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: underwerks

Why should something I might have done in the past keep me from owning guns for protecting my family?

Makes perfect sense. A killer's past should not interfere with his right to own a firearm. What do people think he is going to do? Kill someone again? Pssssh. I am sure he has changed his ways. Lets just give him a chance, just to see if we are right or wrong.

The above statement is the logic that lost the left the election.

So these 500,000 people were murderers? Source?

a reply to: DBCowboy I am game for it. I say take the guns from the good people and seek out the bad and give them to em. While we do this we can get that damn wall up between us and Canada. Then after that we can adopt Communism!

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: underwerks


Just top be clear;

You are FOR wanted felons with outstanding warrants owning and purchasing firearms.

Kind of does away with the whole we need stricter gun laws thing the left is pushing for huh?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Depends on what the warrants are for.

Do you support the innocent Americans who wrongly end up on these lists not being able to legally own firearms? Are you ok with a blanket ban on everyone with a felony, warrant or otherwise?

Because that's what you're arguing in support of.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: 3daysgone

The member is conflating someone who has served their time and paid for their crimes with wanted felons with criminal warrants for their arrest.



The last time I saw something this weak and lame, it was in a wheel chair.

Well I guess if someone is going to troll a thread, why not go full troll, even though you should never go full troll.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: DBCowboy I am game for it. I say take the guns from the good people and seek out the bad and give them to em. While we do this we can get that damn wall up between us and Canada. Then after that we can adopt Communism!

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: DBCowboy I am game for it. I say take the guns from the good people and seek out the bad and give them to em. While we do this we can get that damn wall up between us and Canada. Then after that we can adopt Communism!

Now your talking like a Bernie fan.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: underwerks
So you all are angry that under Obamas DOJ half a million Americans who couldn't legally own guns before were given the right to?

Kind of strange seeing conservatives support the population being less armed. But then again, Obama.

Pretty sure you won't find any law abiding gun owner supporting felons having guns...

But sure....continue with the great argument. It's similar to anti gun folks thinking guns are the problem and "AR" stands for assault rifle....

I beg to differ. I know a lot of people who don't support themselves and others not being allowed to legally own firearms because of some indiscretion in the past, felony or otherwise.

Why should something I might have done in the past keep me from owning guns for protecting my family?

Unfortunately choices, past, present and future all have consequences. If you don't like the consequences then maybe the original choice should have been more thoughtful?

If owning a gun is what you want to do legally, then choices should be made to continue that right. Outside of that you can still own one, just not legally.

a reply to: underwerks

So these 500,000 people were murderers?

Nice misleading assumption. I was talking about your statement, but for some reason I think you knew that.

Hmmmm. It looks like RDJ2 was right. You are very disingenuous.

Source?

Your post.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Now I WILL say that if you've done your time, you should have ALL rights returned to you.

That includes gun ownership and voting.

Because otherwise, the state is punishing that person for life.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Outside of that you can still own one, just not legally.

Do you really own anything if you get it illegally? That is a question probably best left to the Philosophy forum.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: underwerks
So you all are angry that under Obamas DOJ half a million Americans who couldn't legally own guns before were given the right to?

Kind of strange seeing conservatives support the population being less armed. But then again, Obama.

Pretty sure you won't find any law abiding gun owner supporting felons having guns...

But sure....continue with the great argument. It's similar to anti gun folks thinking guns are the problem and "AR" stands for assault rifle....

I beg to differ. I know a lot of people who don't support themselves and others not being allowed to legally own firearms because of some indiscretion in the past, felony or otherwise.

Why should something I might have done in the past keep me from owning guns for protecting my family?

Unfortunately choices, past, present and future all have consequences. If you don't like the consequences then maybe the original choice should have been more thoughtful?

If owning a gun is what you want to do legally, then choices should be made to continue that right. Outside of that you can still own one, just not legally.

I just don't support the government deciding which parts of the constitution apply to me based on a crime I may or may not have committed. In the present or the past. I think gun control hurts more than it helps.

I feel like I've shifted timelines, I'm actually arguing against blanket gun control for a group of citizens and everyone that is supposedly pro 2nd amendment is telling me I'm crazy.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Now I WILL say that if you've done your time, you should have ALL rights returned to you.

That includes gun ownership and voting.

Because otherwise, the state is punishing that person for life.

Even if they somehow serve time for killing someone in cold blood, during the robbery of a flood victim, while evading taxes as an Administrator of a non-profit foundation?

originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: underwerks

So these 500,000 people were murderers?

Nice misleading assumption. I was talking about your statement, but for some reason I think you knew that.

Hmmmm. It looks like RDJ2 was right. You are very disingenuous.

Source?

Your post.

How do you know these people are violent criminals? Is there any information in the article about the crimes they are accused of? I didn't see any.

I'd rather err on the side of more freedoms, as I've seen some posters here say in the past. But for some reason that doesn't seem to apply for them right now.

originally posted by: 3daysgone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Now I WILL say that if you've done your time, you should have ALL rights returned to you.

That includes gun ownership and voting.

Because otherwise, the state is punishing that person for life.

Even if they somehow serve time for killing someone in cold blood, during the robbery of a flood victim, while evading taxes as an Administrator for a non-profit foundation?

Bad example.

You're describing Bernie Sanders and he has armed guards.

a reply to: underwerks

How do you know these people are violent criminals?

How do you know they are not? Kind of hard to find out now isn't it? That is kind of what the discussion is about.

Is there any information in the article about the crimes they are accused of?

Not since Obama's DOJ deleted them from having to go through a background check. We don't even know who they are now. Yeah! Let that sink in.

I didn't see any.

Why? Did you think there would be a list of names and crimes when it says that they were deleted?

I'd rather err on the side of more freedoms, as I've seen some posters here say in the past. But for some reason that doesn't seem to apply for them right now.

“It was the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel that reviewed the law and believed that it needed to be interpreted so that if someone was a fugitive in a state, there had to be indications that they had crossed state lines.”

From the OP source. They chose state lines as the reason. lol. Not a mention of their crime.