[Fox]

Originally Posted by douggmc

What is your point? Romney signed a law implementing an AWB. Is it "OK" if it is "bipartisan"?

Whereas Obama has done nothing of the sort. In fact, no gun legislation at all unless I'm mistaken.

It was damage control and you are being obtuse.

[JFrame]

Originally Posted by douggmc

But you aren't now ... now that we've cleared up the obvious: That when I said "executives", I meant the two executives of which THE ENTIRE SUBJECT OF THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT.

I see -- it was a failure of yours to make the correct point the first time around. Previous experience tells me that is a systemic problem for you.


.

[nmk]

Originally Posted by Rabbi

Yes, I am watching MSNBC.

I dont want to hear what people I agree with say. That does me no good.

The world would be a better place if everyone thought this way.

[douggmc]

Originally Posted by tsmo1066

Are you honestly trying to argue that deliberately and knowingly providing weapons to known cartel members in direct violation of both US and Mexican law is OK and that the people who put together this intentional operation shouldn't be held accountable?

Are you honestly saying that the criminal wouldn't have had a gun anyway?

For the record, I think it was an atrocious and misguided idea and operation. I also think it is and has been ridiculously overplayed as a political tool and that accountability has taken place.

But, if we want to be credible, we can't have it both ways. We can't use as a primary defense that "guns are tools" and the real problem is the criminal, yet in this case, rail entirely on something other than the criminal who pulled the trigger (who would have had a gun regardless).

[douggmc]

Originally Posted by JFrame

I see -- it was a failure of yours to make the correct point the first time around. Previous experience tells me that is a systemic problem for you.


.

You know what is the most telling about this little debate I and several of you are having is? The fact that you all want to argue semantics, instead of the actual topic.

[JFrame]

Originally Posted by douggmc

You know what is the most telling about this little debate I and several of you are having is? The fact that you all want to argue semantics, instead of the actual topic.

Yet you seem strangely mesmerized by this exchange...


.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by douggmc

You know what is the most telling about this little debate I and several of you are having is? The fact that you all want to argue semantics, instead of the actual topic.

Words mean things.

[douggmc]

Originally Posted by countrygun

Words mean things.

They sure do.

[tsmo1066]

Originally Posted by douggmc

Are you honestly saying that the criminal wouldn't have had a gun anyway?

That's not the point. The criminal had a gun that our own government illegally provided him with in full knowledge that he was a Cartel member.

You just don't get it, do you?

[Fox]

Originally Posted by douggmc

Are you honestly saying that the criminal wouldn't have had a gun anyway?

For the record, I think it was an atrocious and misguided idea and operation. I also think it is and has been ridiculously overplayed as a political tool and that accountability has taken place.

But, if we want to be credible, we can't have it both ways. We can't use as a primary defense that "guns are tools" and the real problem is the criminal, yet in this case, rail entirely on something other than the criminal who pulled the trigger (who would have had a gun regardless).

We have a leftist president arming drug cartels in Mexico to advance a gun control agenda on US citizens.

Remember when the Democrat talking points were that 90% of guns used by Mexican drug cartels were purchased from gunshops in the border states? They had to manufacture evidence to support their propaganda.

[JFrame]

Originally Posted by countrygun

Words mean things.

Indeed...They can be stated clearly, or diffused in such a way as to obscure or even shade the point. We see that a lot from the leftist MSM also.


.

[Fox]

Originally Posted by tsmo1066

That's not the point. The criminal had a gun that our own government illegally provided him with in full knowledge that he was a Cartel member.

You just don't get it, do you?

He is being obtuse because he wants Obama to get reelected.

[tsmo1066]

Originally Posted by douggmc

But, if we want to be credible, we can't have it both ways. We can't use as a primary defense that "guns are tools" and the real problem is the criminal, yet in this case, rail entirely on something other than the criminal who pulled the trigger (who would have had a gun regardless).

You say the real problem is "the criminal" while overlooking that our own government were criminals here as well. F&F was an illegal operation from start to finish as it violated treaties with Mexico.

You are correct, the criminal is responsible - both the one behind the trigger and the one who illegally provided him with a weapon in full knowledge that he was a killer.

[Glotin]

Originally Posted by douggmc

I find it quite humorous that one of our primary mantras in defense of gun rights and against the gun grabbers is:: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" and "it isn't a gun problem, it is a criminal problem".

Yet, in the case of the FnF we effectively we want it the other way around. Isn't it the person who shot Brian Terry the responsible one?

Originally Posted by douggmc

That is an interesting spin, because unless I'm mistaken, Romney has been the only executive who chose to put pen to paper and sign into law an AWB (instead of exercising his veto power).

Originally Posted by douggmc

What is your point? Romney signed a law implementing an AWB. Is it "OK" if it is "bipartisan"?

Whereas Obama has done nothing of the sort. In fact, no gun legislation at all unless I'm mistaken.

Originally Posted by douggmc

You got me. Pedantic man to the rescue !!!

Originally Posted by douggmc

But you aren't now ... now that we've cleared up the obvious: That when I said "executives", I meant the two executives of which [about whom] THE ENTIRE SUBJECT OF THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT.

Wow.... The fail is strong with this one.

BTW, wtf does "of which" mean?

[tsmo1066]

Originally Posted by Fox

He is being obtuse because he wants Obama to get reelected.

Poor guy...

[NickC50310]

Originally Posted by Flying-Dutchman

Obama did better than last time but he still lost.

He cannot defend his record and he ran out of steam at the end.

Obama dodged the Fast and Furious topic.

Still its doubtful this debate changed anyone’s mind.

The moderator even stepped in to save his ass. When do we get a fox news moderator?

[douggmc]

How sad, that you would all rather circle jerk each other instead of acknowledge that what I said is true. Of the two executives in this debate this evening (also ... ironically ... the two executives being discussed in this thread), Romney is the only one that actually signed into law an AWB.

I think we should rename GT to "Group Think" instead of "Glock Talk"

[GAFinch]

Originally Posted by Boot Stomper

I started my, If Obama is reelected AR-15 fund. Anyone else have one or thinking of starting one???

It'll be a whole lot cheaper to buy one before he gets re-elected. Ammo and mags also. I already did a couple months ago.

[TK-421]

Originally Posted by douggmc

Are you honestly saying that the criminal wouldn't have had a gun anyway?

For the record, I think it was an atrocious and misguided idea and operation. I also think it is and has been ridiculously overplayed as a political tool and that accountability has taken place.

But, if we want to be credible, we can't have it both ways. We can't use as a primary defense that "guns are tools" and the real problem is the criminal, yet in this case, rail entirely on something other than the criminal who pulled the trigger (who would have had a gun regardless).

I personally think that the criminal would've had the gun no matter what, it just makes us look really bad when we gave them the guns.

Is it being overplayed? Oh absolutely, but everything gets overplayed when it's this close to election time.

Basically, **** happens, people get over it, it just takes longer when it's because of something we did that makes us look bad, and makes our agencies look incompetent. Personally, I think it was a really stupid idea to begin with.

[douggmc]

Originally Posted by TK-421

I personally think that the criminal would've had the gun no matter what, it just makes us look really bad when we gave them the guns.

Is it being overplayed? Oh absolutely, but everything gets overplayed when it's this close to election time.

Basically, **** happens, people get over it, it just takes longer when it's because of something we did that makes us look bad, and makes our agencies look incompetent. Personally, I think it was a really stupid idea to begin with.

I agree.

[SpectreRider]

Originally Posted by Fox

He is being obtuse because he wants Obama to get reelected.

Let me fix that for you.

He wants Obama to get reelected because he is being obtuse.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by douggmc

How sad, that you would all rather circle jerk each other instead of acknowledge that what I said is true. Of the two executives in this debate this evening (also ... ironically ... the two executives being discussed in this thread), Romney is the only one that actually signed into law an AWB.

I think we should rename GT to "Group Think" instead of "Glock Talk"

After saying,

"That is an interesting spin, because unless I'm mistaken, Romney has been the only executive who chose to put pen to paper and sign into law an AWB (instead of exercising his veto power). "


that isn't even a good backpeddle

You were mistaken, which takes a lot away from you "credibility chip pile" on the topic.

You still aren't touching on what Obama said he would do. which is the topic at hand.

[skippz]

Originally Posted by Rabbi

You didnt watch the same show I did...and everyone else did. The Mod jumped to prove the President was right...and everyone, including Fox are scoring that one for Obama.

Out of the entire night, the Libya round was Obamas biggest win. Romney fouled that one up.

Fox IS NOT spinning it that way, Hannity just aired the video of Obama in the rose garden proving what Romney said to be, in fact, correct... Obama did not identify Libya as a terrorist attack... He said it was unclear at the moment and justice would be done to those responsible... Even days after the rose garden address he still stuck to the "this could possibly be a spontaneous attack as the result of a YouTube video".
And his administration should be forced to release details of the fast & furious scandal... That is ridiculous...
Also Obama FLAT OUT LIED about coal production...

[domin8ss]

Originally Posted by douggmc

How sad, that you would all rather circle jerk each other instead of acknowledge that what I said is true. Of the two executives in this debate this evening (also ... ironically ... the two executives being discussed in this thread), Romney is the only one that actually signed into law an AWB.

I think we should rename GT to "Group Think" instead of "Glock Talk"

Cool! An old fashioned circle jerk. Can I get in on this? My wife hasn't been putting out lately. Something about her Aunt Flo coming to town this week. I hate when relatives come to visit. She never puts out. She says it has something to do with being afraid of her being heard.

:mad:

[GRIMLET]

Originally Posted by Boot Stomper

I started my, If Obama is reelected AR-15 fund. Anyone else have one or thinking of starting one???

And if there would be no grandfather clause, you may lose your investment.
Watch the run on the so called assault weapons in the gun stores.
Its about to get more desperate than 4 years ago now that it may be on the horizon. But will his dream of outlawing weapons include a no possession/no transfer rule?