Another Fox pardon plea

He already did when he pardoned Arpaio.

His deputies failed to investigate or conducted only the sketchiest of inquiries into hundreds of sex crimes between 2005 and 2007, investigations by Arizona law enforcement agencies have shown. Many of those cases involved molested children.

“A sincere apology and acceptance of responsibility from Joe Arpaio to these victims would have been the professional and compassionate thing to do,” Bill Louis, a former assistant chief of the El Mirage police, wrote Thursday in The Arizona Republic. “But instead we once again witnessed Arpaio’s smug and defiant attitude — this time directed towards the very victims he neglected.”

I don’t, they are where they belong.

Get over it already.

Everyone Obama pardoned or commuted had drug charges. You heard it here, folks.

“Barack Obama ended his presidency having granted clemency to more people convicted of federal crimes than any chief executive in 64 years. But he also received far more requests for clemency than any U.S. president on record, largely as a result of an initiative set up by his administration to shorten prison terms for nonviolent federal inmates convicted of drug crimes.”

I personally think he did it because he wants to trot it out when he needs the “black vote”.

Criteria to qualify for the program:

  • They are currently serving a federal sentence in prison and, by operation of law, likely would have received a substantially lower sentence if convicted of the same offense(s) today;
  • They are non-violent, low-level offenders without significant ties to large scale criminal organizations, gangs or cartels;
  • They have served at least 10 years of their prison sentence;
  • They do not have a significant criminal history;
  • They have demonstrated good conduct in prison; and
  • They have no history of violence prior to or during their current term of imprisonment.

So did every single one have guns or not? Because that was Sneaky’s claim. He didn’t leave a caveat or exception. He said “they had gun charges.”

You don’t have to shoot a gun to be found guilty of a gun crime. In most felony cases it is the mere possession of the firearm that warrants the charge.

My thoughts, exactly.

yeah that’s super. means nothing.

The question was about gun convictions and the extrapolation that gun crimes are violent crimes when in reality most are not.

A felon simply attempting to acquire one is committing a gun crime, possession is a “gun crime”, etc, etc, etc.

For clarity

Gun charges on top of the drug charges. Not all of them. Many.

All you have to do is pull up the list and look at the charges.

That wasn’t my claim. There was a thread about it on the old board. I looked. One by one.

And yet they want to disarm us.

How does it mean nothing?

I refer you to my most recent thread.

It was until you clarified.