CRUZ: 15,000 Felons & Fugitives Tried To Buy Guns Illegally Last Year, Obama Adm. Prosecuted ONLY 44

page: 2
18
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Jeez, next you will be wanting everyone that fails their drivers test to e prosecuted.

Why are you afraid of universal background checks? If you are legally able to own a gun, you will pass it.

What a country you have there. Sheesh.

It would be like a gun registry right? Some people like to have a gun that nobody knows about, so they cant come and take it.




posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TownCryer
Gee, with breitbart and T Cruz as your sources, how could anyone have any problems accepting your premise lock stock and barrel?


Okay, how about the Washington Post?



“We should be focusing on violent criminals and that has not been the Obama Justice Department's priority. In 2010, there were over 15,000 felons and fugitives who tried to illegally purchase firearms. Of those 15,000, the Obama Justice Department prosecuted just 44. Let me repeat those numbers because those numbers are staggering, 15,000, they only prosecuted 44.”
— Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), on the Sean Hannity Show, April 10, 2013




We’ve written before about the disconnect between the number of people denied guns via a background check and the number of people prosecuted. Essentially, bringing a criminal case for lying on a government form is a relatively low priority for prosecutors.

But we have also shown that the federal numbers do not tell the complete picture, because there is strong evidence that state officials use background checks to pick up and charge fugitives and other at-large criminals.

Cruz, in a talking point he also repeated on the Lou Dobbs show, placed the blame for this problem on the Obama administration. He got one set of numbers wrong — in 2010 the number of felons and fugitive denied a firearm was actually 48,000, not 15,000 — but the number of prosecutions he cited (44) was on the nose.

True, the WP gives the statement '1 Pinocchio' for being framed in a partisan manner:



If Cruz wants to attack the fact that relatively few people are prosecuted by federal prosecutors for lying on a background check, he should drop the partisan frame.
This clearly has never been a priority in either Republican or Democratic administrations. So Cruz’s claim that Obama has not made this a priority lacks the proper context and, under our Pinocchio scale, represents “selective telling of the truth.”


However, a much higher average percentage have been prosecuted under the Bush administration...and Bush was not pursuing much stricter gun controls on law-abiding citizens.

www.washingtonpost.com... 90a4_blog.html



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Maybe the OP is unaware BUT the Obama administration has never and will never prosecute ANYONE for ANYTHING. It is not a function of the executive branch of government to prosecute criminals.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMTAT
 


This could simply be typical lack of enforcement. As much as we in the US have waaaay too many laws for Big Brother to choose what we can and cannot do (I'm speaking of the ones which don't harm anyone), we also only enforce most if those laws to a small degree. If we ever reached across-the-board, 50% enforcement of all laws, the nation would effectively shut down as the economy would collapse under the weight of all the fines and jail time for individuals. Instead of being a nation existing mainly to support the healthcare industry and weapons manufacturers, we would have an economy entirely centered around the criminal justice system.

ANYHOW, I went too long-winded there, my main point is this:

This could also be a clue that the theory I have been giving more and more thought to, and which seems more logical all the time, really could have some merit. That is... The panic and fear coming from the political "right" the moment Obama became Pres (even during the campaign as a "what if"), regarding guns, and how "he's gonna take our guns away!", was significantly louder and more overblown than at any point in history. Before a single mass shooting had occured during his administration, FOID applications, gun purchases, and ammo purchases were absolutely skyrocketing. This only increased with every incident and every talking head blathering on about Obama's Kenyan Secret Police kicking down doors, ripping the heads off of babies, and forcibly prying our guns from our cold, dead hands (exaggerating to make a point - I listen to these guys on the radio, to keep a finger on the pulse of the trends in fear-mongering.)

Meanwhile, their compatriots in boot-trembling on the left prattle on about how we need gun control measures enacted immediately, above all other concerns, and how righties simply want to arm up as many mentally-unstable individuals and criminals as possible, so that the gun manufacturers and for-profit private prisons can increase their profits as much as possible.

Has anyone noticed that's all you really hear in the media is the true, absolute loonies, on both left and right? Both doing their best to blow the issue far, far out of proportion? Heck, we've even seen here people flapping their gums about the UN treaty, which will effectively emd the 2nd Amendment (when a 5th-grade social studies class and 3 minutes of reading is all it would take to bring folks back to reality and realize they're completely wrong.

So why is all this fear being whipped up? Why the orchestrated effort from both sides which very clearly and obviously serves one purpose and one purpose only? That purpose being to drastically increase the level at which the populace is armed. If there were a script to follow to make the most highly-defended nation on the planet - by far, drastically stronger in defense against possible invasion, that script would be remiss if it strayed one iota from what has been being played out for years now.

I could very well be wrong, but I cannot see any other logical explanation. Either "they" have very little power to influence or control, or "they" want us armed to the teeth and beyond against possible invasion.

A point I almost missed...using such a plan, they may well be able to arm up 100-200 million Americans and make money (tax revenue), rather than spending a dime doing so.



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
So you want MORE prosecutions?
Seems to me that there are Felons and there are Felons. Kind of like how in my state, you can get on the sex offenders list if you get caught peeing in public. Not all felons and "offenders" are created equal. We need to stop dangerous people from getting guns, but we already way too many people in prison and our courts are already overburdened.

I'm not a fan of Obama -- because I wanted an Democrat in office. But complaining about an attack on the 2nd amendment while raising an alarm over NOT going after felons getting guns is a bit contradictory. Complain to the NRA lobby if you think we need more stringent background checks.



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by CT_Flyboy
Maybe the OP is unaware BUT the Obama administration has never and will never prosecute ANYONE for ANYTHING. It is not a function of the executive branch of government to prosecute criminals.


I've got a dog that keeps barking in my neighborhood -- Obama failed to take care of that as well. Sheesh!



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


Everyone knows that Cruz is talking about the Obama Administration's DOJ.
Please actually watch the video....but...keep on barking, my friend.

edit on 13-4-2013 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMTAT
 


If the customer (gun buyer) filled out the background check document correctly and the background check did indeed find that the information was correct (convicted felon, severe mental illness), they have committed no crime. They are simply not allowed to purchase the gun. If however, they lied on the form, or used a false identity, etc., they are guilty of a crime.

I didn't really bother to read the source article because it was from breitbart, that pretty much told me all I needed to know.





new topics
top topics
 
18
<< 1   >>

log in

join