TexasCHLforum.com

Wait until closer to time for him to leave office. I bet he'll have our heads spinning.

I guess its safe to say that now his boyhood "Choom Gang" can schedule their reunion. Obamalamadingdong....keeping us all safer by releasing criminals. Who knows, with this line of reasoning, an alcoholic will actually be able to drink themselves to sobriety.

If you are in to irony (not "funny") here you go.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli ... dPresident

Obama Commutes 214 Criminal Sentences, Including Firearm Offenses

The White House is arguing these individuals were granted clemency for "non-violent" drug offenses, however it is important to point out a number of individuals were also serving time for violating federal firearms laws.

Earlier this year, President Obama granted clemency to 61 individuals. Twelve of them were serving time for the illegal use of a firearm during the commission of a drug trafficking crime.

You can make your own conclusions.

Why am I not surprised?

WFAA published 9 names of North Texans being released. 4 of them also had weapons charges included in
their "non-violent" crimes. You know, felon in possession, unregistered(?) firearm, possession during commission
of drug crime.....

One of those right wing stories with some, but not all, truth. POTUS is commuting sentences of people convicted under old laws that have been found to be too harsh. Some low level drug convictions got life terms. Under today's laws, passed by Congress, that would not happen. So they are getting commutations if they have served what the new law says is appropriate. But he has also pardoned a lot of "financial fraud" convicts. That I find disturbing.

jahasty wrote:One of those right wing stories with some, but not all, truth. POTUS is commuting sentences of people convicted under old laws that have been found to be too harsh. Some low level drug convictions got life terms. Under today's laws, passed by Congress, that would not happen. So they are getting commutations if they have served what the new law says is appropriate. But he has also pardoned a lot of "financial fraud" convicts. That I find disturbing.

So, you consider crimes involving firearms as non-violent and you are ok with them being pardoned?

mojo84 wrote:If you are in to irony (not "funny") here you go.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli ... dPresident

Obama Commutes 214 Criminal Sentences, Including Firearm Offenses

The White House is arguing these individuals were granted clemency for "non-violent" drug offenses, however it is important to point out a number of individuals were also serving time for violating federal firearms laws.

Earlier this year, President Obama granted clemency to 61 individuals. Twelve of them were serving time for the illegal use of a firearm during the commission of a drug trafficking crime.

You can make your own conclusions.

Obama loves him some "gun violence". He is chomping at the bit for fresh blood in the gun debate. He knows that the MSM would ignore that fact that it was one of his commutes if, heaven forbid, one of these felons does end up shooting someone after they are released.

The Obama administration keeps noting that "most" of these felons being released have committed "non-violent" crimes. Notice "most". Obama seems to feel that as long as a crime in non-violent, we shouldn't prosecute or punish it. Bernie Madoff did not commit a violent crime, why not let him out? Tax evasion is not a violent crime, I suppose Obama would understand if I decided not to pay anymore taxes. To this administration, the only crime that should be prosecuted is resistance to their agenda.

mojo84 wrote:

jahasty wrote:One of those right wing stories with some, but not all, truth. POTUS is commuting sentences of people convicted under old laws that have been found to be too harsh. Some low level drug convictions got life terms. Under today's laws, passed by Congress, that would not happen. So they are getting commutations if they have served what the new law says is appropriate. But he has also pardoned a lot of "financial fraud" convicts. That I find disturbing.

So, you consider crimes involving firearms as non-violent and you are ok with them being pardoned?

Did their crime involve them using the firearm or was it just in the commission of said crime and they happen to have a weapon ? Because being charged w/ a weapon possession as an add on charge isn't that far of a stretch. I haven't looked into their cases, just making the point that non-violent drug charges and gun charges together don't equal violence IMO.

Pariah3j wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

jahasty wrote:One of those right wing stories with some, but not all, truth. POTUS is commuting sentences of people convicted under old laws that have been found to be too harsh. Some low level drug convictions got life terms. Under today's laws, passed by Congress, that would not happen. So they are getting commutations if they have served what the new law says is appropriate. But he has also pardoned a lot of "financial fraud" convicts. That I find disturbing.

So, you consider crimes involving firearms as non-violent and you are ok with them being pardoned?

Did their crime involve them using the firearm or was it just in the commission of said crime and they happen to have a weapon ? Because being charged w/ a weapon possession as an add on charge isn't that far of a stretch. I haven't looked into their cases, just making the point that non-violent drug charges and gun charges together don't equal violence IMO.

I see your point but believe a person dealing drugs and carrying a gun is prepared for violence. Therefore, I see them as a violent criminal. There are many, including the sheriff quoted in the article sees them as violent criminals also.

Your opinion may differ but that won't change mine.

mojo84 wrote:

Pariah3j wrote:

mojo84 wrote:
Did their crime involve them using the firearm or was it just in the commission of said crime and they happen to have a weapon ? Because being charged w/ a weapon possession as an add on charge isn't that far of a stretch. I haven't looked into their cases, just making the point that non-violent drug charges and gun charges together don't equal violence IMO.

I see your point but believe a person dealing drugs and carrying a gun is prepared for violence. Therefore, I see them as a violent criminal. There are many, including the sheriff quoted in the article sees them as violent criminals also.

Your opinion may differ but that won't change mine.

Not trying to change your opinion per se, more just trying to offer up an additional view. I don't agree with Obama or the Democrats agenda one bit - but I do believe there are some things we as a country have gotten wrong, like the war on drugs. Commuting sentences for those over charged for minor drug possessions isn't a bad thing - even if the Failed as Chief is doing it for the wrong reasons, maybe some good can hopefully come out of it.

Sadly as I believe someone pointed out already, going into prison they may have been non-violent offenders, question is will they come out as non-violent offenders.

He is just being fair, he let terrorists out. I'm being facetious, Obama doesn't want criminals to put it on their resumes when applying for jobs. He probably wants to apply that when requesting a chl.

striker55 wrote:He is just being fair, he let terrorists out. I'm being facetious, Obama doesn't want criminals to put it on their resumes when applying for jobs. He probably wants to apply that when requesting a chl.

and all of the rest of the terrorists still held at Guantanamo will probably be transferred before January 20 to prisons run by third world countries who will accept bribes to release the inmates.

jahasty,

Cat got your tongue?

So, I'll paraphrase the question: What's your take on the firearms use convicts being released or are you a liberal whose come here to school the conservatives here?

Please, speak up or are you also a one time poster who then skedaddles leftist?