3 ms·

First and foremost, deliberately or not, you are good at manipulating words. Yes, the website clearly _says_ what happened, but it doesn't explain [clearly] _wh

First and foremost, deliberately or not, you are good at manipulating words. Yes, the website clearly _says_ what happened, but it doesn't explain [clearly] _why_. A doctor can tell you "the patient has died" and his statement "clearly says what happened". But it doesn't answer as of why he is dead. Second, some other guys replied already that this petition expired prematurely and this is the purpose behind all the fuzz. As of me going bit conspiratorish way, keep in mind that we are talking about DHS here. Those are the people in government that are beyond and sort of control, regardless if it comes from "we the people", President of the USA, or Congress itself. I could imagine all it takes one phonecall from DHS for WhiteHouse petitions website to have a "down for maintenance" issue. They do not answer to anyone or anything. Just a reminder, as you know they ran Fast and Furious where at least one Board Patrol Agent died as a direct results of their actions. At the end, Eric Holder was indeed held in contempt of Congress, but who cares? He won't face any responsibility just like DOD said they are not interested in pursuing this matter. This should be a perfect example to put in a dictionary under the term "mob". Imagine situation where you witnessed someone killing your family member you call the cops and the oppressor turned out to be police commissioner's brother, and their answer is "we are not interested in pursuing this matter". So if DHS is capable of pulling stuns like the one with Holder, you really think they will let "we the people" to petition against them without ability to stop the show anytime they want to? edit: good read: http://townhall.com/columnists/edfeulner/2012/08/10/the_furor_over_fast_and_furious http://townhall.com/columnists/edfeulner/2012/08/10/the_furo... edit: actually Brian's birthday would be today... http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/08/11/remembering_brian_terry_on_his_42nd_birthday http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/08/11/remembe...

slurgfest 14y ago
> one Board Patrol Agent died as a direct results of their actions. What happened to "guns don't kill people, people kill people"? Are you saying that ATF shot the Border Patrol Agent? Oh. I see. The mistake was that some Mexicans got guns. Obviously, without the ATF there is no way that Mexicans would be able to get guns. Right. But under that logic, failing to enact gun control makes the US government responsible for almost everyone killed with a gun in the US, since the relative lack of gun control both directly and indirectly results in more guns in hands, and therefore more guns in use, and therefore more people being shot. (For the record: I am against gun control, I just think your logic sucks) You ARE allowed to petition, but that isn't the same thing as whatever your complaint is about whitehouse.gov ... petitions vastly pre-existed whitehouse.gov. You seem to have forgotten the good old days when Reagan set up the Enterprise (an unaccountable shadow government with its own funding sources) and sold arms to our enemies, violating a US arms embargo, in order to fund a dirty war in Central America (another action violating US law). What great democracy that was!
- joering2 14y ago
  I read your response, but I will only partially bite on your bait. I don't know, and frankly don't care, why you assume I have forgotten about Reagan stunt. I hope you haven't forgotten that Constitution says that all men should be capable of being armed equally as the Government itself. Clearly we are not there anymore, but I hope we will never be in a situation where the only legal way of standing against burglar's .357 is with a plastic knife...
  - redler 14y ago
    Without getting into the fact that you're heavily paraphrasing the second amendment, surely you're not suggesting that "all men" should be able to possess, like the government, surface-to-air missiles, 1000-ton bombs, or nuclear weapons. And if we are at least in agreement on this point, then on what basis is the line drawn between weapons like these and hunting rifles?

slurgfest 14y ago

> one Board Patrol Agent died as a direct results of their actions. What happened to "guns don't kill people, people kill people"? Are you saying that ATF shot the Border Patrol Agent? Oh. I see. The mistake was that some Mexicans got guns. Obviously, without the ATF there is no way that Mexicans would be able to get guns. Right. But under that logic, failing to enact gun control makes the US government responsible for almost everyone killed with a gun in the US, since the relative lack of gun control both directly and indirectly results in more guns in hands, and therefore more guns in use, and therefore more people being shot. (For the record: I am against gun control, I just think your logic sucks) You ARE allowed to petition, but that isn't the same thing as whatever your complaint is about whitehouse.gov ... petitions vastly pre-existed whitehouse.gov. You seem to have forgotten the good old days when Reagan set up the Enterprise (an unaccountable shadow government with its own funding sources) and sold arms to our enemies, violating a US arms embargo, in order to fund a dirty war in Central America (another action violating US law). What great democracy that was!

joering2 14y ago
I read your response, but I will only partially bite on your bait. I don't know, and frankly don't care, why you assume I have forgotten about Reagan stunt. I hope you haven't forgotten that Constitution says that all men should be capable of being armed equally as the Government itself. Clearly we are not there anymore, but I hope we will never be in a situation where the only legal way of standing against burglar's .357 is with a plastic knife...
- redler 14y ago
  Without getting into the fact that you're heavily paraphrasing the second amendment, surely you're not suggesting that "all men" should be able to possess, like the government, surface-to-air missiles, 1000-ton bombs, or nuclear weapons. And if we are at least in agreement on this point, then on what basis is the line drawn between weapons like these and hunting rifles?