Jump to content

Obama's Mexican Gunrunning Operation


Recommended Posts

So I wonder whether the NRA controllers will have those little earpieces in Issa's ears to give him the questions at today's hearings?

 

Or is that too obvious? Is he deeply enough involved to have an implant?

 

I wonder whether the hearings will actually be controlled from NRA headquarters, or from some secret location?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's Judge Jackson or Judge Berman Jackson. It isn't Judge Berman unless you're watching reality court TV at the laundromat. Actually, I did mean only those documents. Again, the Kenyan’s EP was

Maybe he'll be nicer now that his period is over.

People who have time to read things like the relevant Inspector General's report instead of just spewing insults and talking points know that the reality is that the stupid program was shut down under

Posted Images

 

 

Sarah Brady must have tipped him off.

 

It's a plot, I tell ya.

 

The Washington Post has invented a whole new anti-gun scare term around this guy:

 

(cue scary music)

 

The TERROR Gap!

 

In addition to further perpetuating the gun show loophole myth and the false notion that there is such a thing as a "private dealer" at a gun show, they took the opportunity in that article to point out that people on the secret "watch list" who cannot fly still have constitutional rights, among them second amendment rights! The horror! The government putting a person on a secret list should easily be reason enough to start violating constitutional rights! We just need a term to scare the people!

 

The TERROR Gap! PANIC!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's Gunwalking hearings focused on whether Congress has the power to investigate something the Justice Department is also investigating. Consensus is, they do.

 

I was wrong about part of the content of today's hearing. The testimony from the family of Agent Brian Terry, ATF whistleblowers, and Assistant Stonewaller Weich will happen Wednesday.

 

Gunwalking Hearings Report On Fox

 

More on gunwalking hearings

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they finally had a hearing today. More to talk about than just speculation, although I see that has kept Tom plenty busy.

 

http://tpmmuckraker....eo.php?ref=mblt

 

At the risk of being once again identified as someone who actually pays attention to gun rights issues, and therefore is nuts by definition, I might point out that the video and posts above relate to Monday's hearings, which Mark completely missed, apparently.

 

Not being nuts, he does not pay attention to gun issues. ;)

 

When this scandal broke, you went looking for what the NRA had done and was doing wrong. Now that we're on the second hearing, you have identified the problem: weak gun laws! Reasonable people agree, the solutions that are best for America are obvious: less NRA and stronger gun laws! :rolleyes:

 

Now, back to the subject of the hearing... More was revealed than just the fact that we have hopelessly weak gun laws. For example:

 

ISSA: "Who authorized this program that got people killed? Do you know who authorized it at the highest level? Yes or no."

 

WEICH: No.

 

So we have a program involving a contentious bill of rights issue, people are dead, documents handed over to explain it are completely blacked out, no one knows all these months later who authorized it, no one knows for sure whether the bullet that killed Brian Terry came from a "walked" gun, ATF agents testified that they had been ordered to let guns "walk" into the hands of suspected and known criminals with little hope of ever seeing them again or being able to successfully track them to their final owners.

 

But the really important thing that all of this shows is that the NRA is bad and our gun laws are weak. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stunning....While we debate Sarah Palin's intelligence the current administration are funneling guns to Mexican drug cartels. You can't make this up.

 

The stonewalling regarding who authorized this idiocy is the really amazing part. It looks like we may have Congress holding the administration in contempt in the effort to find out, something that has happened about a dozen times since Watergate.

 

It's pretty serious stuff. You would think the legal issues surrounding it would have generated some media coverage after Monday's hearings. You would think that the question of who authorized these sales might be of interest to someone whose mind is not controlled by the NRA. I guess not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stunning....While we debate Sarah Palin's intelligence the current administration are funneling guns to Mexican drug cartels. You can't make this up.

 

The stonewalling regarding who authorized this idiocy is the really amazing part. It looks like we may have Congress holding the administration in contempt in the effort to find out, something that has happened about a dozen times since Watergate.

 

It's pretty serious stuff. You would think the legal issues surrounding it would have generated some media coverage after Monday's hearings. You would think that the question of who authorized these sales might be of interest to someone whose mind is not controlled by the NRA. I guess not.

NPR did a piece on this yesterday and a scathing one at that.

 

I would follow these threads a bit more often if it weren't for "everything wrong is Obama's fault" and "don't be mean to Sarah" crap.

 

Having several relatives who are career federal law enforcement the idea that Obama decided this would be a great idea is laughable. There are layers of bureaucracy and SOMEBODY decided this was a great idea but I seriously doubt it was from the Whitehouse.

 

Really. I mean it's not like there isn't anything else to worry about or anything.

 

And as far as gun rights? Liberals aren't out to take them away nearly as much as Conservatives portray. I know plenty of both and it's a live and let live attitude, with a "don't piss off asshole drivers because they are probably carrying" thrown in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stunning....While we debate Sarah Palin's intelligence the current administration are funneling guns to Mexican drug cartels. You can't make this up.

 

The stonewalling regarding who authorized this idiocy is the really amazing part. It looks like we may have Congress holding the administration in contempt in the effort to find out, something that has happened about a dozen times since Watergate.

 

It's pretty serious stuff. You would think the legal issues surrounding it would have generated some media coverage after Monday's hearings. You would think that the question of who authorized these sales might be of interest to someone whose mind is not controlled by the NRA. I guess not.

NPR did a piece on this yesterday and a scathing one at that.

 

I would follow these threads a bit more often if it weren't for "everything wrong is Obama's fault" and "don't be mean to Sarah" crap.

 

Having several relatives who are career federal law enforcement the idea that Obama decided this would be a great idea is laughable. There are layers of bureaucracy and SOMEBODY decided this was a great idea but I seriously doubt it was from the Whitehouse. Really. I mean it's not like there isn't anything else to worry about or anything.

 

And as far as gun rights? Liberals aren't out to take them away nearly as much as Conservatives portray. I know plenty of both and it's a live and let live attitude, with a "don't piss off asshole drivers because they are probably carrying" thrown in.

 

Think Iran Contra and you will see that it is who Authorised IT not who thought it up. If we found out that a foreign Government was involved with shipping weapons including machine guns into the US I'm thinking we would be seeing some screaming headlines by now.

 

Why is it the left is so concerned about illegal alien laws that might target Latinos, but are so unconcerned about GUNS Transported to gangs that would be targeting Latinos in a much deadlier way?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

NPR did a piece on this yesterday and a scathing one at that.

 

 

About time. It has only been in the news for half a year now. CBS coverage has been very good.

 

 

I would follow these threads a bit more often if it weren't for "everything wrong is Obama's fault" and "don't be mean to Sarah" crap.

 

 

Your complaint would seem more valid if this thread had a bunch of either, but it does not.

 

 

Having several relatives who are career federal law enforcement the idea that Obama decided this would be a great idea is laughable. There are layers of bureaucracy and SOMEBODY decided this was a great idea but I seriously doubt it was from the Whitehouse.

 

Really. I mean it's not like there isn't anything else to worry about or anything.

 

And as far as gun rights? Liberals aren't out to take them away nearly as much as Conservatives portray. I know plenty of both and it's a live and let live attitude, with a "don't piss off asshole drivers because they are probably carrying" thrown in.

 

Weich has gone from denying it happened to denying knowledge of who authorized it. That does not seem like a hard question to answer, and if it is so unimportant that we should be worrying about other things, then it should just be answered so that we can move on.

 

I do not believe I have overplayed people or organizations who have favored gun bans. A large number of my friends and neighbors lean left, most are armed, and I do not personally know any who I would describe as anti-gun. By characterizing people who deserve it as being in favor of gun bans, I do not intend to imply that everyone who agrees with them on other issues holds a similar view.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about it, I should amend my above statement. I would describe my friend Ellen as anti-gun, but she has a pretty good sense of humor about it when she is here - policy differences, but live and let live personally...

 

I don't know who got her that hugger for her beer, but it was pretty funny.

 

ellenNRAfriend.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this really a Tom Ray thread, I don't think it's fair to say Obama is being blamed. I think he's been pretty good at pointing the finger at the BATF and perhaps DOJ and Holder. I also doubt Obama personally authorized it, but it is HIS administration that fucked up.

 

Did you miss the title of the thread?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they finally had a hearing today. More to talk about than just speculation, although I see that has kept Tom plenty busy.

 

http://tpmmuckraker....eo.php?ref=mblt

 

At the risk of being once again identified as someone who actually pays attention to gun rights issues, and therefore is nuts by definition, I might point out that the video and posts above relate to Monday's hearings, which Mark completely missed, apparently.

 

Not being nuts, he does not pay attention to gun issues. ;)

 

When this scandal broke, you went looking for what the NRA had done and was doing wrong. Now that we're on the second hearing, you have identified the problem: weak gun laws! Reasonable people agree, the solutions that are best for America are obvious: less NRA and stronger gun laws! :rolleyes:

 

Now, back to the subject of the hearing... More was revealed than just the fact that we have hopelessly weak gun laws. For example:

 

ISSA: "Who authorized this program that got people killed? Do you know who authorized it at the highest level? Yes or no."

 

WEICH: No.

 

So we have a program involving a contentious bill of rights issue, people are dead, documents handed over to explain it are completely blacked out, no one knows all these months later who authorized it, no one knows for sure whether the bullet that killed Brian Terry came from a "walked" gun, ATF agents testified that they had been ordered to let guns "walk" into the hands of suspected and known criminals with little hope of ever seeing them again or being able to successfully track them to their final owners.

 

But the really important thing that all of this shows is that the NRA is bad and our gun laws are weak. :rolleyes:

 

Except for the part about the NRA being bad, looks like that's what Special Agent Focelli was trying to say doesn't it? Prosecutors that won't prosecute, laws too weak, and then judges dismissing cases on technicalities are making the job of stopping weapons flowing into Mexico extremely difficult. Of course, all that is highly irrelevant. Even inappropriate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they finally had a hearing today. More to talk about than just speculation, although I see that has kept Tom plenty busy.

 

http://tpmmuckraker....eo.php?ref=mblt

 

At the risk of being once again identified as someone who actually pays attention to gun rights issues, and therefore is nuts by definition, I might point out that the video and posts above relate to Monday's hearings, which Mark completely missed, apparently.

 

Not being nuts, he does not pay attention to gun issues. ;)

 

When this scandal broke, you went looking for what the NRA had done and was doing wrong. Now that we're on the second hearing, you have identified the problem: weak gun laws! Reasonable people agree, the solutions that are best for America are obvious: less NRA and stronger gun laws! :rolleyes:

 

Now, back to the subject of the hearing... More was revealed than just the fact that we have hopelessly weak gun laws. For example:

 

ISSA: "Who authorized this program that got people killed? Do you know who authorized it at the highest level? Yes or no."

 

WEICH: No.

 

So we have a program involving a contentious bill of rights issue, people are dead, documents handed over to explain it are completely blacked out, no one knows all these months later who authorized it, no one knows for sure whether the bullet that killed Brian Terry came from a "walked" gun, ATF agents testified that they had been ordered to let guns "walk" into the hands of suspected and known criminals with little hope of ever seeing them again or being able to successfully track them to their final owners.

 

But the really important thing that all of this shows is that the NRA is bad and our gun laws are weak. :rolleyes:

 

Except for the part about the NRA being bad, looks like that's what Special Agent Focelli was trying to say doesn't it? Prosecutors that won't prosecute, laws too weak, and then judges dismissing cases on technicalities are making the job of stopping weapons flowing into Mexico extremely difficult. Of course, all that is highly irrelevant. Even inappropriate.

 

This is a government oversight committee, and the central question before them is who authorized this program. Whether or not we have weak gun laws does not seem to me relevant to that inquiry. How is determining whether our gun laws are weak going to help answer the question at hand?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this really a Tom Ray thread, I don't think it's fair to say Obama is being blamed. I think he's been pretty good at pointing the finger at the BATF and perhaps DOJ and Holder. I also doubt Obama personally authorized it, but it is HIS administration that fucked up.

 

Did you miss the title of the thread?

 

Did you miss the content? Or my question to you much earlier:

 

How soon is "soon enough" for us to get some answers about who authorized this program?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they finally had a hearing today. More to talk about than just speculation, although I see that has kept Tom plenty busy.

 

http://tpmmuckraker....eo.php?ref=mblt

 

At the risk of being once again identified as someone who actually pays attention to gun rights issues, and therefore is nuts by definition, I might point out that the video and posts above relate to Monday's hearings, which Mark completely missed, apparently.

 

Not being nuts, he does not pay attention to gun issues. ;)

 

When this scandal broke, you went looking for what the NRA had done and was doing wrong. Now that we're on the second hearing, you have identified the problem: weak gun laws! Reasonable people agree, the solutions that are best for America are obvious: less NRA and stronger gun laws! :rolleyes:

 

Now, back to the subject of the hearing... More was revealed than just the fact that we have hopelessly weak gun laws. For example:

 

ISSA: "Who authorized this program that got people killed? Do you know who authorized it at the highest level? Yes or no."

 

WEICH: No.

 

So we have a program involving a contentious bill of rights issue, people are dead, documents handed over to explain it are completely blacked out, no one knows all these months later who authorized it, no one knows for sure whether the bullet that killed Brian Terry came from a "walked" gun, ATF agents testified that they had been ordered to let guns "walk" into the hands of suspected and known criminals with little hope of ever seeing them again or being able to successfully track them to their final owners.

 

But the really important thing that all of this shows is that the NRA is bad and our gun laws are weak. :rolleyes:

 

Except for the part about the NRA being bad, looks like that's what Special Agent Focelli was trying to say doesn't it? Prosecutors that won't prosecute, laws too weak, and then judges dismissing cases on technicalities are making the job of stopping weapons flowing into Mexico extremely difficult. Of course, all that is highly irrelevant. Even inappropriate.

 

This is a government oversight committee, and the central question before them is who authorized this program. Whether or not we have weak gun laws does not seem to me relevant to that inquiry. How is determining whether our gun laws are weak going to help answer the question at hand?

 

I keep forgetting that this has nothing to do with stopping the flow of arms to drug cartels. Thanks for the reminder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of being once again identified as someone who actually pays attention to gun rights issues, and therefore is nuts by definition, I might point out that the video and posts above relate to Monday's hearings, which Mark completely missed, apparently.

 

Not being nuts, he does not pay attention to gun issues. ;)

 

When this scandal broke, you went looking for what the NRA had done and was doing wrong. Now that we're on the second hearing, you have identified the problem: weak gun laws! Reasonable people agree, the solutions that are best for America are obvious: less NRA and stronger gun laws! :rolleyes:

 

Now, back to the subject of the hearing... More was revealed than just the fact that we have hopelessly weak gun laws. For example:

 

ISSA: "Who authorized this program that got people killed? Do you know who authorized it at the highest level? Yes or no."

 

WEICH: No.

 

So we have a program involving a contentious bill of rights issue, people are dead, documents handed over to explain it are completely blacked out, no one knows all these months later who authorized it, no one knows for sure whether the bullet that killed Brian Terry came from a "walked" gun, ATF agents testified that they had been ordered to let guns "walk" into the hands of suspected and known criminals with little hope of ever seeing them again or being able to successfully track them to their final owners.

 

But the really important thing that all of this shows is that the NRA is bad and our gun laws are weak. :rolleyes:

 

Except for the part about the NRA being bad, looks like that's what Special Agent Focelli was trying to say doesn't it? Prosecutors that won't prosecute, laws too weak, and then judges dismissing cases on technicalities are making the job of stopping weapons flowing into Mexico extremely difficult. Of course, all that is highly irrelevant. Even inappropriate.

 

This is a government oversight committee, and the central question before them is who authorized this program. Whether or not we have weak gun laws does not seem to me relevant to that inquiry. How is determining whether our gun laws are weak going to help answer the question at hand?

 

I keep forgetting that this has nothing to do with stopping the flow of arms to drug cartels. Thanks for the reminder.

Finding out who authorized the flow of arms to the cartels has nothing to do with stopping the flow of arms to the cartels?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is a government oversight committee, and the central question before them is who authorized this program. Whether or not we have weak gun laws does not seem to me relevant to that inquiry. How is determining whether our gun laws are weak going to help answer the question at hand?

 

I keep forgetting that this has nothing to do with stopping the flow of arms to drug cartels. Thanks for the reminder.

 

Distracting the committee with an unrelated discussion of supposedly weak gun laws is not going to work, any more than it seems to have worked on Dog. Once we learn a name, we can ask him why he authorized this program, at which time the strength of our gun laws may become relevant.

 

But I'm willing to skip ahead, or skip back in time...

 

Cutting off the flow of arms to the Cartels could get pretty gol-derned draconian for a spell. The NRA has to be on board for that to happen. Only they can give Blue Dogs and rational Republicans the political cover they would need on this.

 

I asked you what you meant when you wrote that, and now I'll ask again, since you seem stuck on our "weak" gun laws instead of the idiotic gunwalking program.

 

What did you mean by "for that to happen" above? For what to happen? What do you think we really need to do about our weak gun laws?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I keep forgetting that this has nothing to do with stopping the flow of arms to drug cartels. Thanks for the reminder.

Finding out who authorized the flow of arms to the cartels has nothing to do with stopping the flow of arms to the cartels?

 

Nothing at all! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is a government oversight committee, and the central question before them is who authorized this program. Whether or not we have weak gun laws does not seem to me relevant to that inquiry. How is determining whether our gun laws are weak going to help answer the question at hand?

 

I keep forgetting that this has nothing to do with stopping the flow of arms to drug cartels. Thanks for the reminder.

 

Distracting the committee with an unrelated discussion of supposedly weak gun laws is not going to work, any more than it seems to have worked on Dog. Once we learn a name, we can ask him why he authorized this program, at which time the strength of our gun laws may become relevant.

 

But I'm willing to skip ahead, or skip back in time...

 

Cutting off the flow of arms to the Cartels could get pretty gol-derned draconian for a spell. The NRA has to be on board for that to happen. Only they can give Blue Dogs and rational Republicans the political cover they would need on this.

 

I asked you what you meant when you wrote that, and now I'll ask again, since you seem stuck on our "weak" gun laws instead of the idiotic gunwalking program.

 

What did you mean by "for that to happen" above? For what to happen? What do you think we really need to do about our weak gun laws?

 

Just listen to all that Special Agent Focelli said yesterday. All your answers are there. Are you claiming he made those comments in order to distract the committee from the investigation? Or that he lacks the qualification to be an expert witness on the matter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just listen to all that Special Agent Focelli said yesterday. All your answers are there. Are you claiming he made those comments in order to distract the committee from the investigation? Or that he lacks the qualification to be an expert witness on the matter?

 

I'm agreeing with Issa that asking about straw buyer laws is a distraction from finding out who authorized this operation, but allowing the questions and answers to continue was OK. Just entertaining the distraction, sort of like I am now.

 

He's well qualified to talk about straw buyer laws, but the penalties are not exactly weak, and agents whine about having to prove intent, but I say tough shit. The one thing that distinguishes a straw buyer from any other kind is intent, and it can be tough to prove. Too friggin bad. It can be hard to get warrants for searches and wiretaps too. Too friggin bad. That's law enforcement in a free country.

 

He's qualified to talk about the matter under discussion as well: whether or not ATF agents were ordered to allow guns to walk, and who gave those orders. They were, and we don't know. We do know now (as if we did not before) that Weich was lying when he said it did not happen, and now he has said he does not know who authorized this in Congressional testimony, which is legally different from saying it to news cameras...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just listen to all that Special Agent Focelli said yesterday. All your answers are there. Are you claiming he made those comments in order to distract the committee from the investigation? Or that he lacks the qualification to be an expert witness on the matter?

 

I'm agreeing with Issa that asking about straw buyer laws is a distraction from finding out who authorized this operation, but allowing the questions and answers to continue was OK. Just entertaining the distraction, sort of like I am now.

 

He's well qualified to talk about straw buyer laws, but the penalties are not exactly weak, and agents whine about having to prove intent, but I say tough shit. The one thing that distinguishes a straw buyer from any other kind is intent, and it can be tough to prove. Too friggin bad. It can be hard to get warrants for searches and wiretaps too. Too friggin bad. That's law enforcement in a free country.

 

He's qualified to talk about the matter under discussion as well: whether or not ATF agents were ordered to allow guns to walk, and who gave those orders. They were, and we don't know. We do know now (as if we did not before) that Weich was lying when he said it did not happen, and now he has said he does not know who authorized this in Congressional testimony, which is legally different from saying it to news cameras...

 

You are replying to a different question again, it is not the one you asked, whcih is the one I replied to. You wanted to know how the laws are weak, and Forcelli explained that. You may not agree with him, but he is a field agent with the ATF. And you are..?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just listen to all that Special Agent Focelli said yesterday. All your answers are there. Are you claiming he made those comments in order to distract the committee from the investigation? Or that he lacks the qualification to be an expert witness on the matter?

 

I'm agreeing with Issa that asking about straw buyer laws is a distraction from finding out who authorized this operation, but allowing the questions and answers to continue was OK. Just entertaining the distraction, sort of like I am now.

 

He's well qualified to talk about straw buyer laws, but the penalties are not exactly weak, and agents whine about having to prove intent, but I say tough shit. The one thing that distinguishes a straw buyer from any other kind is intent, and it can be tough to prove. Too friggin bad. It can be hard to get warrants for searches and wiretaps too. Too friggin bad. That's law enforcement in a free country.

 

He's qualified to talk about the matter under discussion as well: whether or not ATF agents were ordered to allow guns to walk, and who gave those orders. They were, and we don't know. We do know now (as if we did not before) that Weich was lying when he said it did not happen, and now he has said he does not know who authorized this in Congressional testimony, which is legally different from saying it to news cameras...

 

You are replying to a different question again, it is not the one you asked, whcih is the one I replied to. You wanted to know how the laws are weak, and Forcelli explained that. You may not agree with him, but he is a field agent with the ATF. And you are..?

Why does it matter if the laws are strong or weak if the government itself won't obey them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just listen to all that Special Agent Focelli said yesterday. All your answers are there. Are you claiming he made those comments in order to distract the committee from the investigation? Or that he lacks the qualification to be an expert witness on the matter?

 

I'm agreeing with Issa that asking about straw buyer laws is a distraction from finding out who authorized this operation, but allowing the questions and answers to continue was OK. Just entertaining the distraction, sort of like I am now.

 

He's well qualified to talk about straw buyer laws, but the penalties are not exactly weak, and agents whine about having to prove intent, but I say tough shit. The one thing that distinguishes a straw buyer from any other kind is intent, and it can be tough to prove. Too friggin bad. It can be hard to get warrants for searches and wiretaps too. Too friggin bad. That's law enforcement in a free country.

 

He's qualified to talk about the matter under discussion as well: whether or not ATF agents were ordered to allow guns to walk, and who gave those orders. They were, and we don't know. We do know now (as if we did not before) that Weich was lying when he said it did not happen, and now he has said he does not know who authorized this in Congressional testimony, which is legally different from saying it to news cameras...

 

You are replying to a different question again, it is not the one you asked, whcih is the one I replied to. You wanted to know how the laws are weak, and Forcelli explained that. You may not agree with him, but he is a field agent with the ATF. And you are..?

 

I replied to both of your questions, but maybe if I shorten the replies you will be able to understand them.

 

To this question:

 

Are you claiming he made those comments in order to distract the committee from the investigation?

 

My reply said no. The agent was not the one who wanted to create a distraction, that was a politician who wanted to create a distraction. The agent just answered questions.

 

To this one:

 

Or that he lacks the qualification to be an expert witness on the matter?

 

I said he is well qualified to talk about the laws that are alleged to be weak, and went on to point out why they are really not weak and to try once again to steer you away from your obsession with making gun laws more strict and back toward ATF's stupid policy of walking guns to criminals in Mexico.

 

Being a slow learner, I'll try again. Do you plan to answer this question, or just continue to ignore it and try for distractions?

 

How is determining whether our gun laws are weak going to help answer the question at hand, namely who authorized this program?

 

It's not a hard question, but you seem to be at least as scared of talking about it as the administration is. Reasonable gun owners wonder why... ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
There are layers of bureaucracy and SOMEBODY decided this was a great idea but I seriously doubt it was from the Whitehouse.

 

Really. I mean it's not like there isn't anything else to worry about or anything.

 

 

Does that look to anyone else like it could have been lifted directly from the notebook of a Nixon supporter back in the 1970's?

 

Watergate was just a little burglary, and no one even died. Really minor compared to sending thousands of guns to criminals in a foreign country, some of whom wound up killing a federal agent.

 

There were plenty of other things to worry about, but somehow, when the White House refuses to answer questions, the questions become more interesting to everyone...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm thinking the NRA (a front for the gun manufacturers) wanted to tip their dealers that the ATF is running these stings big-time, and concocted a pile of nonsense about Obama wanting to arm drug lords in order to do that. Issa and Grassley are providing political cover for the NRA's blowing of a LE sting operation.

 

I'm still wondering how the NRA got the ATF whistleblowers to come forward.

 

Dodson said he came forward because of the death of Agent Terry. Does that mean the NRA had the Mexicans kill Agent Terry? Is there no end to their evil? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm thinking the NRA (a front for the gun manufacturers) wanted to tip their dealers that the ATF is running these stings big-time, and concocted a pile of nonsense about Obama wanting to arm drug lords in order to do that. Issa and Grassley are providing political cover for the NRA's blowing of a LE sting operation.

 

I'm still wondering how the NRA got the ATF whistleblowers to come forward.

 

Dodson said he came forward because of the death of Agent Terry. Does that mean the NRA had the Mexicans kill Agent Terry? Is there no end to their evil? :lol:

Mark has been trained in interrogation techniques and likes to ask questions. He skipped class when the listen to answers and think about it part was covered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Though it was missed in some quarters, Agent Forcelli did talk about the gunwalking program:

 

Forcelli, a career cop who came to Phoenix after the Fast and Furious operation had begun, told the committee he was astounded at the way it was being conducted. However, when he voiced concerns to Special Agent in Charge William Newell and Assistant Special Agent in Charge George Gillett, he said those concerns were dismissed.

 

Sounds like he may have been one of the targets of that email from Voth that I discussed a while back. After trying to handle the situation internally and being rebuffed, the NRA told him to blow the whistle to Congress. Still wondering how they got to him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I learn about this, the stronger my conclusion that everyone involved in the decision to implement this, should be strung up by their shorthairs, along with anyone stonewalling the committees trying to provide oversight of this fiasco. The stonewalling, to me, is as damning as the cluster-f that set all of this in motion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

We once had a President who claimed to have a solution to those Washington situations in which everyone agrees something happened, but no one wants to take responsibility for it..

 

Truman_pass-the-buck.jpg

 

I was thinking about the man from Independence Missouri the other day and just that plaque on his desk. Interesting how the times have changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We once had a President who claimed to have a solution to those Washington situations in which everyone agrees something happened, but no one wants to take responsibility for it..

 

Truman_pass-the-buck.jpg

 

I was thinking about the man from Independence Missouri the other day and just that plaque on his desk. Interesting how the times have changed.

 

Holder should resign.

 

Worse than Iran-contra

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not on the day he was confirmed although the Mark Rich parden certainly was on my mind

 

I'd say after his talk about moving KSM to trial in new York. Combined with this little issue would get obama thinking about a resignation. One of GW's short comings was his loyalty to his staff hope Obama is not going down that same path

Link to post
Share on other sites

That may be the case, but I cannot help but wonder if you did not have the opinion that "Holder should resign" on the day that he was confirmed.

 

Yes, I did have that opinon at that time, as a matter of fact. He should still resign. (PS I redacted the part where you were an asshole.....again!).

 

 

ATF Director Could Watch Live Video of Cartel Gun Buys--While Permitting Them to Proceed

"The acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was able to watch live video surveillance feeds as intermediaries for Mexican drug cartels purchased guns at licensed U.S. firearms dealers for transhipment south of the border--while ATF agents in the field were specificaly ordered not to stop the purchases, intercept the purchasers after they made their deals, or retrieve the guns after they were bought."

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/top-atf-official-very-much-weeds-gun-run

It just keeps getting worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That may be the case, but I cannot help but wonder if you did not have the opinion that "Holder should resign" on the day that he was confirmed.

 

Yes, I did have that opinon at that time, as a matter of fact. He should still resign. (PS I redacted the part where you were an asshole.....again!).

The joke is on you Nanny, because you left in the part where I was an even bigger asshole, and you didn't even see it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just listen to all that Special Agent Focelli said yesterday. All your answers are there. Are you claiming he made those comments in order to distract the committee from the investigation? Or that he lacks the qualification to be an expert witness on the matter?

 

I'm agreeing with Issa that asking about straw buyer laws is a distraction from finding out who authorized this operation, but allowing the questions and answers to continue was OK. Just entertaining the distraction, sort of like I am now.

 

He's well qualified to talk about straw buyer laws, but the penalties are not exactly weak, and agents whine about having to prove intent, but I say tough shit. The one thing that distinguishes a straw buyer from any other kind is intent, and it can be tough to prove. Too friggin bad. It can be hard to get warrants for searches and wiretaps too. Too friggin bad. That's law enforcement in a free country.

 

He's qualified to talk about the matter under discussion as well: whether or not ATF agents were ordered to allow guns to walk, and who gave those orders. They were, and we don't know. We do know now (as if we did not before) that Weich was lying when he said it did not happen, and now he has said he does not know who authorized this in Congressional testimony, which is legally different from saying it to news cameras...

 

You are replying to a different question again, it is not the one you asked, whcih is the one I replied to. You wanted to know how the laws are weak, and Forcelli explained that. You may not agree with him, but he is a field agent with the ATF. And you are..?

 

I replied to both of your questions, but maybe if I shorten the replies you will be able to understand them.

 

To this question:

 

Are you claiming he made those comments in order to distract the committee from the investigation?

 

My reply said no. The agent was not the one who wanted to create a distraction, that was a politician who wanted to create a distraction. The agent just answered questions.

 

To this one:

 

Or that he lacks the qualification to be an expert witness on the matter?

 

I said he is well qualified to talk about the laws that are alleged to be weak, and went on to point out why they are really not weak and to try once again to steer you away from your obsession with making gun laws more strict and back toward ATF's stupid policy of walking guns to criminals in Mexico.

 

Being a slow learner, I'll try again. Do you plan to answer this question, or just continue to ignore it and try for distractions?

 

How is determining whether our gun laws are weak going to help answer the question at hand, namely who authorized this program?

 

It's not a hard question, but you seem to be at least as scared of talking about it as the administration is. Reasonable gun owners wonder why... ;)

 

What you are not getting is that some people are concerned with more than what you call "the question at hand". They even feel that stopping the flow of arms to Mexico is relevant. Seems pretty clear that the agents have that in mind, and that is a serious burr in the saddle for Issa.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I learn about this, the stronger my conclusion that everyone involved in the decision to implement this, should be strung up by their shorthairs, along with anyone stonewalling the committees trying to provide oversight of this fiasco. The stonewalling, to me, is as damning as the cluster-f that set all of this in motion.

 

It was a hell of a meeting. There's about 5 hours of tape there and I listened to most it. It would have been nice to have had those three agents supervisors there, Gillet and Newell, but it is highly likely they are all lawyered up these days. I honestly believe that they may be facing criminal charges here. Everybody in the ATF in the chain from them to the top dog, Melson, might as well spend their time updating their resumes and crafting the perfect letter of resignation. I see no way they can survive this.

 

It's that bad.

 

The other outfit that got slaughtered was the Phoenix DOJ office. Two people in particular, Hurley and the US DA Burke, are toast.

Not only are these two being tagged as the ones in the DOJ who signed off on the legality of this operation, but they were body slammed by the agents for failing to prosecute cases. The ATF in Arizona had to take all these cases to the Arizona state DA to get anything action on gun cases at all, by they way they told it. Focelli specifically called out several other districts he has worked in where he had competent US DA's to work with.

 

When gross incompetence from a Fed level LE agency meets gross incompetence from the USDOJ, and there are murder investigations and on-going murder prosecutions related to organized mobs, we have a hell of a mess. Elijah Cummings says that he understands why things must be handled very carefully here, I tend to agree. I think he is dedicated to getting to the bottom of this, as was everybody else in the committee. What those agents described was some of the stupidest LE anybody has ever seen.

 

The charges of stonewalling stem from that. They have Issa busted for being let in on confidential things and giving them to the press already. I beleive his only motivation here is to try to use this to slam Obama. The agents really are not cooperating with that, even saying they believe that it was hatched by some middle management guys. Issa did not appear to be a happy camper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm thinking the NRA (a front for the gun manufacturers) wanted to tip their dealers that the ATF is running these stings big-time, and concocted a pile of nonsense about Obama wanting to arm drug lords in order to do that. Issa and Grassley are providing political cover for the NRA's blowing of a LE sting operation.

 

I'm still wondering how the NRA got the ATF whistleblowers to come forward.

 

Dodson said he came forward because of the death of Agent Terry. Does that mean the NRA had the Mexicans kill Agent Terry? Is there no end to their evil? :lol:

 

I was clearly wrong, but it is hard to imagine people concocting such non-sense for no reason. Until, that is, you begin to understand their abject hatred of the man. I underestimated the depth of that hatred.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We once had a President who claimed to have a solution to those Washington situations in which everyone agrees something happened, but no one wants to take responsibility for it..

 

Truman_pass-the-buck.jpg

 

I was thinking about the man from Independence Missouri the other day and just that plaque on his desk. Interesting how the times have changed.

 

Scroll down to "scandals and controversies"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman

 

That plaque was more about how decisions flow than a promise to resign because something went wrong, I suspect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how you are already giving obama a pass or holder for that matter

It is the Doj and the white house tha have been stonewalling the investigation. Why would they do that unless they were concerned about getting burned. Oh and would the real Mark step forward love the answer to Sol. Funny how you seemed to be down playing this issue for weeks when tom was pointing out the similar concerns

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how you are already giving obama a pass or holder for that matter

It is the Doj and the white house tha have been stonewalling the investigation. Why would they do that unless they were concerned about getting burned. Oh and would the real Mark step forward love the answer to Sol. Funny how you seemed to be down playing this issue for weeks when tom was pointing out the similar concerns

 

Finally got to hear from the people involved. Before that it would be talking about a bunch of speculation.

 

What is the evidence that Obama and Holder knew? There was nothing presented yesterday that implicated them. Lack of evidence is the reason they get a "pass" with me right now.

 

The reason given for the stonewalling is plausible to me. Those reasons have a time limit too.

 

The real Mark? Ok, the jig is up. I'm Sparticus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Early on...

 

 

I think the ATF were overzealous and a bit naive.

 

Later....

 

 

 

"If it was just a sting op.....?"

What else is it besides a sting op in the Mexican drug war?

 

And now it seems to have sunk in that what was going on was not just a sting op, but a major screw up.

 

 

Elijah Cummings says that he understands why things must be handled very carefully here, I tend to agree. I think he is dedicated to getting to the bottom of this, as was everybody else in the committee. What those agents described was some of the stupidest LE anybody has ever seen.

 

The charges of stonewalling stem from that. They have Issa busted for being let in on confidential things and giving them to the press already. I beleive his only motivation here is to try to use this to slam Obama. The agents really are not cooperating with that, even saying they believe that it was hatched by some middle management guys.

 

So where is the evidence that Issa only wants to slam Obama, and is not interested in fixing "some of the stupidest LE anybody has ever seen"?

 

What confidential information has he given to the press? Source?

 

Who hatched this idea is not really important, except in that it might lead to who authorized it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Well, I don't have anything specific," White House press secretary said in response to a question asking if President Obama ordered or had any knowledge of project "Fast and Furious." The mission involved gunrunning at the southern border between the U.S. Mexico.

 

Congress is currently investigating this secret operation which has resulted in subpoenaing the Department of Justice to testify on the issue and provide unredacted memos relating to the mission.

 

"He did not know about or authorize this operation," Carney told the press about President Obama's lack of involvement.

 

----------------

 

If it turns out Obana was involved will this be an impeachable lie?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Early on...

 

 

I think the ATF were overzealous and a bit naive.

 

Later....

 

 

 

"If it was just a sting op.....?"

What else is it besides a sting op in the Mexican drug war?

 

And now it seems to have sunk in that what was going on was not just a sting op, but a major screw up.

 

 

Elijah Cummings says that he understands why things must be handled very carefully here, I tend to agree. I think he is dedicated to getting to the bottom of this, as was everybody else in the committee. What those agents described was some of the stupidest LE anybody has ever seen.

 

The charges of stonewalling stem from that. They have Issa busted for being let in on confidential things and giving them to the press already. I beleive his only motivation here is to try to use this to slam Obama. The agents really are not cooperating with that, even saying they believe that it was hatched by some middle management guys.

 

So where is the evidence that Issa only wants to slam Obama, and is not interested in fixing "some of the stupidest LE anybody has ever seen"?

 

What confidential information has he given to the press? Source?

 

Who hatched this idea is not really important, except in that it might lead to who authorized it.

 

"Early on" and "later"? Do you see something mutually exclusive in "sting op" and "massive screw up"? If so, what planet are you from? It's not this one.

 

It is my opinion of Issa. You are entitled to your own as well.

 

The beginning of the second part of the hearing is where the documents are mentioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Early on...

 

I think the ATF were overzealous and a bit naive.

 

Later....

 

"If it was just a sting op.....?"

What else is it besides a sting op in the Mexican drug war?

 

And now it seems to have sunk in that what was going on was not just a sting op, but a major screw up.

 

 

Elijah Cummings says that he understands why things must be handled very carefully here, I tend to agree. I think he is dedicated to getting to the bottom of this, as was everybody else in the committee. What those agents described was some of the stupidest LE anybody has ever seen.

 

 

 

"Early on" and "later"? Do you see something mutually exclusive in "sting op" and "massive screw up"?

 

I see a difference between "overzealous and a bit naive" and "some of the stupidest LE anybody has ever seen" and over on my planet, I was able to speculate successfully that this operation was the latter long before you were. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those not inclined to clicking and reading, here is an email sent by Phoenix ATF group supervisor David Voth to his team:

 

vothletter.gif

 

GO TEAM! The not-so-subtle message: if you do not agree with the Gunwalking program, you do not deserve to be here.

 

Sounds like some were trying to handle this "through channels" over a year ago, but with the top level of the ATF and their bosses at the Justice Dept showing this attitude, what is someone who thinks he deserves his job, but who also thinks gunwalking is monumentally stupid, supposed to do?

 

So a year ago we had dramatic reports about US guns in Mexico, we had calls for draconian new gun control laws to fix this problem, and we had Mark wondering if the NRA and sane Republicans would back that sensible solution.

 

What was really happening was that the ATF was telling gun dealers to make obvious straw sales, then watching the guns go to Mexico. At least one gun dealer objected, and asked for and got reassurances from ATF and the Justice Department that the guns were being monitored and that the dealer would not be in trouble. That was not true. Since then, the Justice Department has denied any knowledge of the program, and topped it off by allowing Congressman Issa, but not Senator Grassley, to review a few useless and irrelevant documents.

 

Treating a Senator that way is further evidence that I was right in my charitable assessment that this is all monumental stupidity by someone at Justice. If he were at all inclined to back off before, he won't be now.

 

"People of rank and authority at HQ are paying close attention to this case and they also believe we (Phoenix Group VII) are doing what they envisioned the SW border groups doing"

 

When I speculated correctly that David Voth wrote that email, it also made me speculate that this was not just a Phoenix thing, but a Washington thing. I wonder if I was right yet again?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those not inclined to clicking and reading, here is an email sent by Phoenix ATF group supervisor David Voth to his team:

 

vothletter.gif

 

GO TEAM! The not-so-subtle message: if you do not agree with the Gunwalking program, you do not deserve to be here.

 

Sounds like some were trying to handle this "through channels" over a year ago, but with the top level of the ATF and their bosses at the Justice Dept showing this attitude, what is someone who thinks he deserves his job, but who also thinks gunwalking is monumentally stupid, supposed to do?

 

So a year ago we had dramatic reports about US guns in Mexico, we had calls for draconian new gun control laws to fix this problem, and we had Mark wondering if the NRA and sane Republicans would back that sensible solution.

 

What was really happening was that the ATF was telling gun dealers to make obvious straw sales, then watching the guns go to Mexico. At least one gun dealer objected, and asked for and got reassurances from ATF and the Justice Department that the guns were being monitored and that the dealer would not be in trouble. That was not true. Since then, the Justice Department has denied any knowledge of the program, and topped it off by allowing Congressman Issa, but not Senator Grassley, to review a few useless and irrelevant documents.

 

Treating a Senator that way is further evidence that I was right in my charitable assessment that this is all monumental stupidity by someone at Justice. If he were at all inclined to back off before, he won't be now.

 

"People of rank and authority at HQ are paying close attention to this case and they also believe we (Phoenix Group VII) are doing what they envisioned the SW border groups doing"

 

When I speculated correctly that David Voth wrote that email, it also made me speculate that this was not just a Phoenix thing, but a Washington thing. I wonder if I was right yet again?

 

I've seen some real weiners in high plces before but this Voth is certifiable. "Having fun yet" I guess he wan't addressing his question to Special Agent Jaime Zapata.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The British are getting better coverage than the Washington Post is providing.

 

Fast and Furious revolved around so-called "straw" purchases of firearms, in which a buyer purchase military-grade hardware from a gun-store with the intention of illegally passing it to a criminal third party. ATF agents who track suspected straw purchases typically run intensive surveillance operations allowing them to arrest suspects and recover the guns. During the Fast and Furious operation they were instructed to simply let the weapons disappear.

 

A record was kept of their serial numbers. The idea was that this would later allow agents to link individual weapons to particular crime scenes. Somehow, this was supposed to help the ATF build up a nuanced picture of the complex structure of a major drug cartel, which would in turn lead to high-level arrests. But it wasn't to be.

 

"Both line agents and gun dealers who co-operated with the ATF repeatedly expressed concerns", about the operation, the report says. "But ATF supervisors did not heed those warnings. Instead, they told agents to follow orders because this was sanctioned from above."

 

In total, agents watched at least 1,730 guns flood on to the black market, knowing they would be used to commit murders and other violent crimes. Their concerns about the policy were ignored. In one email to field staff printed in the report, ATF supervisor David Voth suggested that staff who objected to his orders would be fired.

 

"I will be damned if this case is going to suffer due to petty arguing, rumours, or other adolescent behavior," he wrote. "We are all adults, we are all professionals, and we have an exciting opportunity to use the biggest tool in our law-enforcement tool box. If you don't think this is fun, you are in the wrong line of work, period!"

 

John Dodson, a special agent from Phoenix who eventually blew the whistle on the "flawed" operation, told congressmen his superiors would be "giddy" with delight when "their" guns were found at a crime scene in Mexico, because they believed it "validated" their tactic. With regard to potential loss of life, an ATF boss told him: "if you are going to make an omelette, you need to scramble some eggs."

 

On 14 December, disaster struck when the US border patrol guard, Brian Terry, was killed during a shootout with suspected illegal aliens on the Arizona border. His killers dropped their rifles to flee faster. Two of the weapons were AK-47s which had been intentionally allowed to walk during Fast and Furious.

 

Rather than admit to any mistake, the ATF embarked on a cover-up. William Newell, the special agent in charge of the operation, ordered the arrest of 20 of the people agents had been watching buy weapons for months. Then, although not one senior cartel member was arrested, he held a press conference declaring the operation a success.

 

Newell was then asked if any weapons had been deliberately allowed to end up in the hands of criminals. He replied, "Hell no!" The report describes that statement as untrue and "shocking." It alleges that the Department of Justice continued to attempt a cover-up for several months.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I see a difference between "overzealous and a bit naive" and "some of the stupidest LE anybody has ever seen" and over on my planet, I was able to speculate successfully that this operation was the latter long before you were. :P

 

Actually, I believe at the time I made that someone was speculating that this was all a plot hatched by Obama to create new gun laws.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a difference between "overzealous and a bit naive" and "some of the stupidest LE anybody has ever seen" and over on my planet, I was able to speculate successfully that this operation was the latter long before you were. :P

 

Actually, I believe at the time I made that someone was speculating that this was all a plot hatched by Obama to create new gun laws.

 

A suggestion almost as nonsensical as the idea that the NRA is behind these oversight hearings, but with at least a whiff of evidence, so it's not quite as ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a difference between "overzealous and a bit naive" and "some of the stupidest LE anybody has ever seen" and over on my planet, I was able to speculate successfully that this operation was the latter long before you were. :P

 

Actually, I believe at the time I made that someone was speculating that this was all a plot hatched by Obama to create new gun laws.

 

A suggestion almost as nonsensical as the idea that the NRA is behind these oversight hearings, but with at least a whiff of evidence, so it's not quite as ridiculous.

 

See post #1.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a difference between "overzealous and a bit naive" and "some of the stupidest LE anybody has ever seen" and over on my planet, I was able to speculate successfully that this operation was the latter long before you were. :P

 

Actually, I believe at the time I made that someone was speculating that this was all a plot hatched by Obama to create new gun laws.

 

A suggestion almost as nonsensical as the idea that the NRA is behind these oversight hearings, but with at least a whiff of evidence, so it's not quite as ridiculous.

 

See post #1.

 

I already commented on Beck's rant, but also provided a timeline of the gunwalking escapade. It starts last December. There was a month and a half of waiting for the NRA "weinermobile" to show up to this story.

 

Then this:

 

The National Rifle Association has weighed in on the unfolding story of a Project Gunrunner operation gone awry. In a February 11 Institute for Legislative Action statement, the association informed its members that “U.S. Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) is calling on the agency to fully respond to his inquiries into the case.”

 

They were the fourth gun rights group to call for investigation, they did it after Grassley was already investigating, and somehow they started all this?

 

Sounds like NRA Derangement Syndrome to me.

 

The people who were letting guns walk started all this, and the only way to stop them was to blow the whistle and make it public.

 

I think that without Congressional hearings, organizations like NPR would not have taken any interest in this story, so I'm glad they are having them, even if I do not believe they are just some NRA operation to increase gun sales. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I already commented on Beck's rant, but also provided a timeline of the gunwalking escapade. It starts last December. There was a month and a half of waiting for the NRA "weinermobile" to show up to this story.

 

Then this:

 

The National Rifle Association has weighed in on the unfolding story of a Project Gunrunner operation gone awry. In a February 11 Institute for Legislative Action statement, the association informed its members that “U.S. Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) is calling on the agency to fully respond to his inquiries into the case.”

 

They were the fourth gun rights group to call for investigation, they did it after Grassley was already investigating, and somehow they started all this?

 

Sounds like NRA Derangement Syndrome to me.

 

The people who were letting guns walk started all this, and the only way to stop them was to blow the whistle and make it public.

 

I think that without Congressional hearings, organizations like NPR would not have taken any interest in this story, so I'm glad they are having them, even if I do not believe they are just some NRA operation to increase gun sales. :rolleyes:

 

 

Yep, I thought all the gun nut sites were going ape-shit over this in an effort to screw with the ATF. "Death watch on the ATF" or something like that. Their interest seemed a bit too zealous, especially in the area of making claims that this was a plot by Obama.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yep, I thought all the gun nut sites were going ape-shit over this in an effort to screw with the ATF.

 

Yeah, just because I was able to recognize this as a major screw up that needed correction well before you were does not mean that all gun nuts could do the same thing. Most probably fit the evil, crazy and stupid stereotype of gun owners that is so popular in the media.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nanny, thats a bit of a stretch even for you and the NRA to accuse the admin of deliberately allowing guns to cross the border for the purpose of them showing up back here to be used in crimes. Its a good conspiracy theory for political blogs, but its blatent supposition as to the intent.

 

However, allowing the guns to cross over knowing they were illegal with no way to keep an eye on them until they reached the bigger fish is just asininely stupid and someone needs to hang for that. And if it turns out to be Holder and/or Obama - I'll tie the knot myself.

 

Looks like Rep Issa and Sen Grassely are not happy and this letter explains the whole deal a lot better than the NRA gobbledy gook.

 

Contrast that letter with Melson's testimony last year. http://www.atf.gov/p...opriations.html

 

He is quite proud of what Gunrunner accomplished in 2009, expanded it with Stim money, and is asking for more.

Lists alot of busts and arrests too.

 

They are attacking the field agents. They must want to stop them from running stings. NRA false flag operation? Pretend to be a crusader against gun smugglers to cover up the attack on ATF's stings that hurt sales?

 

Now we know that Melson was likely watching video of known straw purchases occurring from his office at the time he was giving that testimony. And now it looks like he will have to go.

 

At a House hearing this week, Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, disclosed internal documents showing that Mr. Melson was closely involved in managing Fast and Furious operation. One email among ATF officials described Mr. Melson's request for an Internet link to hidden cameras the ATF had planted in gun shops cooperating with the operation, Mr. Issa said, citing the documents.
Link to post
Share on other sites

So will they bring in someone bright enough to figure out that letting weapons loose in criminal hands to see where they turn up is not a great method of tracking down cartel bosses?

 

Doesn't look that way...

 

In November, President Barack Obama nominated Andrew Traver, the head of the ATF's Chicago office, as permanent ATF director. The nomination stalled in the Senate after the National Rifle Association said Mr. Traver had a "demonstrated hostility" to the rights of gun owners.

 

Mr. Traver is set to travel to Washington on Tuesday to meet with Attorney General Eric Holder and Deputy Attorney General James Cole, the people said. The administration is weighing whether to name Mr. Traver as acting director or choose another interim chief while awaiting Senate action on his nomination, they said.

 

 

Who is Andrew Traver?

 

...Traver has significant connections to projects of the notoriously anti-gun Joyce Foundation. The Joyce Foundation provided $675,000 in funding for the International Association of Chiefs of Police - IACP - to put on the 2007 Great Lakes Summit on Gun Violence. Traver was a participant in this meeting along with such gun control notables as Gary Wintemute, Director of UC-Davis' Violence Prevention Research Program, Nina Vinik and Robyn Thomas of the Legal Community Against Violence, and David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health. There were also a number of representatives from some of the local gun control organizations and a selection of anti-gun politicians and police chiefs including Mayor Richard Daley.

 

It is important to note that Traver was not a mere attendee at this meeting, he is listed as an advisor to it along with others like Tom Diaz of the Violence Policy Center and Nina Vinik of LCAV. The acknowledgments thanks the advisers who "worked tirelessly to help us design and accomplish a powerful policy summit by attending many meetings and events and by voicing their invaluable counsel as we moved forward with this important initiative."

 

Out of this conference came a report entitled Taking a Stand: Reducing Gun Violence in Our Communities. Contributors to the report included Tom Diaz mentioned above and Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center. The report made a number of recommendations which, to put it mildly, are anathema to those who believe in gun rights. Included in the recommendations were:

 

* Requiring that all gun sales take place through Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders with mandatory background checks

* Enacting an effective ban on military-style assault weapons, armor-piercing handgun ammunition, .50 caliber sniper rifles and other weapons that enable criminals to outgun law enforcement

* Repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, which hinders investigation of illegal gun trafficking

* Destroying guns that come into police possession once their law enforcement use has ended

* Mandating safe storage of firearms by private citizens and providing safe facilities where gun owners can store their weapons

* Mandating reporting of lost and stolen firearms

* Develop a best practices protocol for voluntary gun surrender programs

* Congress should restore funding for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program for state, local and tribal agencies to investigate and prosecute cases of gun trafficking and gun violence

* The federal government should increase funding to ATF for personnel and technical assistance to combat gun violence

* Congress should enact legislation to allow federal health and safety oversight of the firearms industry

...

 

CleanUpATF.org is a forum for dissident ATF agents and staff to vent their frustrations with the organization and with management. Reading the comments there on a regular basis gives you an idea of what the agents in the field think. Their comments on Traver are both revealing and discouraging.

 

Word is the Vetting process found some pretty scary skeletons in Mr. Travers closet. We are in trouble if this is true. Hopefully Mr. Obama has an alternate plan or we are done. Another 6 months w/o a Director and we will all be carrying Homeland security badges.Word is Mr. Traver has some issues with the truth. More to follow. Guess Steve Martin will be retiring after all. (Oct. 11)

 

Somebody explain The Andy Traver selection please.Everyone that has worked with him has the same opinion. A nice guy, as vanilla as they come and a marginal performer at every level of his career. The only plus being championed is "at least he's a gun toter". In other words, our first AGENT Director. Seriously? We have 2500 agents many of whom are quiet legends, to include reitred prior "gun toters". With all due respect he had ONLY 2 ASACs under his command, and one was driving a Government owned Cadillac and he DIDN'T notice? She abused her authority and misappropriated funds and is still an ASAC? (Sept 30)

 

This guy put a fully automatic AK in the hands of an NBC reporter, who sprayed rounds all over the place, then said that stray rounds are one of the problems with the easy availability of such weapons. Fully automatic weapons are for government officials and rich people only, and are not easily available to gangs at all. An ATF SAC who is not bright enough to figure that out is probably also not bright enough to stop future Fast and Furious operations. If he is bright enough to figure it out, he was being deliberately deceptive in the TV report. Either way, not a good choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The British are getting better coverage than the Washington Post is providing.

 

John Dodson, a special agent from Phoenix who eventually blew the whistle on the "flawed" operation, told congressmen his superiors would be "giddy" with delight when "their" guns were found at a crime scene in Mexico, because they believed it "validated" their tactic.

 

They truly believed that somehow these guns were going to lead to big busts. Magical crime-seeking guns that will turn up in all the right places to take ATF straight to the cartel bosses, if we just set them free to do their work?

 

I'm trying to believe this, but it strains even a libertarian's belief in governmental incompetence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Out of this conference came a report entitled Taking a Stand: Reducing Gun Violence in Our Communities. Contributors to the report included Tom Diaz mentioned above and Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center. The report made a number of recommendations which, to put it mildly, are anathema to those who believe in gun rights. Included in the recommendations were:

 

* Requiring that all gun sales take place through Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders with mandatory background checks

* Enacting an effective ban on military-style assault weapons, armor-piercing handgun ammunition, .50 caliber sniper rifles and other weapons that enable criminals to outgun law enforcement

* Repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, which hinders investigation of illegal gun trafficking

* Destroying guns that come into police possession once their law enforcement use has ended

* Mandating safe storage of firearms by private citizens and providing safe facilities where gun owners can store their weapons

* Mandating reporting of lost and stolen firearms

* Develop a best practices protocol for voluntary gun surrender programs

* Congress should restore funding for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program for state, local and tribal agencies to investigate and prosecute cases of gun trafficking and gun violence

* The federal government should increase funding to ATF for personnel and technical assistance to combat gun violence

* Congress should enact legislation to allow federal health and safety oversight of the firearms industry

...

 

 

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

With the exception of the second item, how does anything in that list infringe on "gun rights?"

 

It appears that your source is arguing that "investigat[ing] and prosecut[ing] cases of gun trafficking and gun violence" is "anathema to those who believe in gun rights." Are "gun trafficking and gun violence" "gun rights?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Out of this conference came a report entitled Taking a Stand: Reducing Gun Violence in Our Communities. Contributors to the report included Tom Diaz mentioned above and Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center. The report made a number of recommendations which, to put it mildly, are anathema to those who believe in gun rights. Included in the recommendations were:

 

* Requiring that all gun sales take place through Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders with mandatory background checks

* Enacting an effective ban on military-style assault weapons, armor-piercing handgun ammunition, .50 caliber sniper rifles and other weapons that enable criminals to outgun law enforcement

* Repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, which hinders investigation of illegal gun trafficking

* Destroying guns that come into police possession once their law enforcement use has ended

* Mandating safe storage of firearms by private citizens and providing safe facilities where gun owners can store their weapons

* Mandating reporting of lost and stolen firearms

* Develop a best practices protocol for voluntary gun surrender programs

* Congress should restore funding for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program for state, local and tribal agencies to investigate and prosecute cases of gun trafficking and gun violence

* The federal government should increase funding to ATF for personnel and technical assistance to combat gun violence

* Congress should enact legislation to allow federal health and safety oversight of the firearms industry

...

 

 

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

With the exception of the second item, how does anything in that list infringe on "gun rights?"

 

It appears that your source is arguing that "investigat[ing] and prosecut[ing] cases of gun trafficking and gun violence" is "anathema to those who believe in gun rights." Are "gun trafficking and gun violence" "gun rights?"

Why no, unlicensed trafficking is illegal and, in general, so is violence.

 

I don't believe that either of those are first amendment rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of this conference came a report entitled Taking a Stand: Reducing Gun Violence in Our Communities. Contributors to the report included Tom Diaz mentioned above and Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center. The report made a number of recommendations which, to put it mildly, are anathema to those who believe in gun rights. Included in the recommendations were:

 

* Requiring that all gun sales take place through Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders with mandatory background checks

* Enacting an effective ban on military-style assault weapons, armor-piercing handgun ammunition, .50 caliber sniper rifles and other weapons that enable criminals to outgun law enforcement

* Repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, which hinders investigation of illegal gun trafficking

* Destroying guns that come into police possession once their law enforcement use has ended

* Mandating safe storage of firearms by private citizens and providing safe facilities where gun owners can store their weapons

* Mandating reporting of lost and stolen firearms

* Develop a best practices protocol for voluntary gun surrender programs

* Congress should restore funding for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program for state, local and tribal agencies to investigate and prosecute cases of gun trafficking and gun violence

* The federal government should increase funding to ATF for personnel and technical assistance to combat gun violence

* Congress should enact legislation to allow federal health and safety oversight of the firearms industry

...

 

 

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

With the exception of the second item, how does anything in that list infringe on "gun rights?"

 

It appears that your source is arguing that "investigat[ing] and prosecut[ing] cases of gun trafficking and gun violence" is "anathema to those who believe in gun rights." Are "gun trafficking and gun violence" "gun rights?"

 

Were you planning to address the question I asked you here and again here about what you said? Or do you just want to ask my opinion about something someone else said that really is not all that relevant to the thread?

 

Nevermind, the answer is clear. I'll answer anyway.

 

Items 1 and 6 are most worrisome to me. I do not see how to implement those without a nationwide gun registry, and we have already seen what happens with registries: they turn into bans.

 

Now, if some non-extremist groups had objected to the registries in Washington DC and Chicago turning into bans, I might feel a bit more comfortable with registries. But alas, they did not. I'm willing to bet you cannot name a non-extremist group that was on my side in the Heller and McDonald cases, so there you have it. Only extremists like me oppose gun registries becoming gun bans, so I fear them.

 

Mandating safe storage seems an intrusion into my personal business, but the next part of that one is the really worrisome part: providing storage facilities. That suggests to me that the only "safe" storage will be storage at a government facility, not my house. That is exactly what the fights at Lexington and Concord were about.

 

There are others that are objectionable, but let's skip to the main one: more money for ATF.

 

Does this really seem to you like an agency that needs more money? Are you willing to accept that they deliberately sent guns to criminals in Mexico yet? Are you willing to accept that this program came from the top of ATF, and had considerable support within the organization, so much so that whistleblowers could not get it stopped internally?

 

Are you going to answer any questions about this stupid ATF program, now that more of the stupidity has been revealed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other one you didn't mention is the last one, and that the most troubling of all.

Congress should enact legislation to allow federal health and safety oversight of the firearms industry

I don't want the Fed's regulating my personal ownership of guns with OSHA or similar. Jebus, can you imagine the red tape and nightmares involved with THAT??? You might as well ban them, because that's how hard it would become to own and maintain a gun. Which I believe might be the intent all along.

 

It's the Consumer Product Safety Commission that they want to use to restrict gun ownership based on how "unsafe" guns are, not OSHA. I agree, that one is very troubling, but complicated and I felt like getting back onto the ATF's case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of this conference came a report entitled Taking a Stand: Reducing Gun Violence in Our Communities. Contributors to the report included Tom Diaz mentioned above and Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center. The report made a number of recommendations which, to put it mildly, are anathema to those who believe in gun rights. Included in the recommendations were:

 

* Requiring that all gun sales take place through Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders with mandatory background checks

* Enacting an effective ban on military-style assault weapons, armor-piercing handgun ammunition, .50 caliber sniper rifles and other weapons that enable criminals to outgun law enforcement

* Repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, which hinders investigation of illegal gun trafficking

* Destroying guns that come into police possession once their law enforcement use has ended

* Mandating safe storage of firearms by private citizens and providing safe facilities where gun owners can store their weapons

* Mandating reporting of lost and stolen firearms

* Develop a best practices protocol for voluntary gun surrender programs

* Congress should restore funding for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program for state, local and tribal agencies to investigate and prosecute cases of gun trafficking and gun violence

* The federal government should increase funding to ATF for personnel and technical assistance to combat gun violence

* Congress should enact legislation to allow federal health and safety oversight of the firearms industry

...

 

 

With the exception of the second item, how does anything in that list infringe on "gun rights?"

 

It appears that your source is arguing that "investigat[ing] and prosecut[ing] cases of gun trafficking and gun violence" is "anathema to those who believe in gun rights." Are "gun trafficking and gun violence" "gun rights?"

 

Items 1 and 6 are most worrisome to me. I do not see how to implement those without a nationwide gun registry, and we have already seen what happens with registries: they turn into bans.

 

Now, if some non-extremist groups had objected to the registries in Washington DC and Chicago turning into bans, I might feel a bit more comfortable with registries. But alas, they did not. I'm willing to bet you cannot name a non-extremist group that was on my side in the Heller and McDonald cases, so there you have it. Only extremists like me oppose gun registries becoming gun bans, so I fear them.

 

Mandating safe storage seems an intrusion into my personal business, but the next part of that one is the really worrisome part: providing storage facilities. That suggests to me that the only "safe" storage will be storage at a government facility, not my house. That is exactly what the fights at Lexington and Concord were about.

 

Completely agree with #6 as well. I don't want to be told that I have to keep a gun locked up at all times. I deliberately have loaded and unlocked firearms in the house, out of the safe when I'm home or in bed. When I leave the house to go to work, they go in the safe. Probably unecessary, because no one is getting through my GSD to get in the house while I'm gone. But mandating safe storage into a one size fits all is stupid.

 

The other one you didn't mention is the last one, and that the most troubling of all.

Congress should enact legislation to allow federal health and safety oversight of the firearms industry

I don't want the Fed's regulating my personal ownership of guns with OSHA or similar. Jebus, can you imagine the red tape and nightmares involved with THAT??? You might as well ban them, because that's how hard it would become to own and maintain a gun. Which I believe might be the intent all along.

 

The question isn't whether you like those proposals or not.

 

The question is which proposals infringe on your constitutional right to bear arms.

 

If "investigat[ing] and prosecut[ing] cases of gun trafficking and gun violence" is "anathema to those who believe in gun rights" then I don't want to hear any squealing when I point out that the one of the "rights" that Tom Ray is so intent on protecting is his "right" to sell firearms to criminals and lunatics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It appears that your source is arguing that "investigat[ing] and prosecut[ing] cases of gun trafficking and gun violence" is "anathema to those who believe in gun rights." Are "gun trafficking and gun violence" "gun rights?"

 

 

 

The question isn't whether you like those proposals or not.

 

The question is which proposals infringe on your constitutional right to bear arms.

 

If "investigat[ing] and prosecut[ing] cases of gun trafficking and gun violence" is "anathema to those who believe in gun rights" then I don't want to hear any squealing when I point out that the one of the "rights" that Tom Ray is so intent on protecting is his "right" to sell firearms to criminals and lunatics.

 

Why don't you start a thread on the Tiahrt Amendments if they are so interesting to you? You do not have to pretend that everyone who is on the other side just wants to break laws and put guns in the hands of criminals like the ATF did, you know.

 

BTW, you are ready to admit the ATF did what you are accusing me of wanting to do, are you not? I mean, in their case, their is evidence, in stark contrast to mine. Does evidence matter at all?

 

For more than five years, cities suing the gun industry and anti-gun organizations have sought access to confidential law enforcement data on firearms traces. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) compiles these records when it traces firearms in response to requests from law enforcement agencies.

 

Every year since 2003, the U.S. Congress has passed increasingly strong language to keep this information confidential. The legislation—a series of "riders" to the appropriations bill that funds BATFE—is widely known as the "Tiahrt Amendment," after its sponsor, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.).

 

There are good reasons for keeping this information confidential, and for strengthening the Tiahrt Amendment and making it permanent:

 

* Releasing the information serves no useful purpose. The Congressional Research Service has repeatedly said "firearm trace data may be biased" and "cannot be used to test for statistical significance between firearm traces in general and the wider population of firearms available to criminals or the wider American public."[1] These limitations exist because the "tracing system is an operational system designed to help law enforcement agencies identify the ownership path of individual firearms. It was not designed to collect statistics."[2]

* Traced guns aren't always "crime guns"; firearms may be traced for reasons unrelated to any armed crime. The BATFE trace request form lists "crime codes" for traffic offenses and election law violations, among many others.

* Trace information remains available for law enforcement use. The FY 2007 version of the Tiahrt amendment ensures that trace data is available to federal, state, and local agencies "in connection with and for use in a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution" or for use in administrative actions by BATFE—which is, of course, the principal agency responsible for overseeing the conduct of federally licensed firearms dealers.The language and history of the Gun Control Act are clear: Congress always intended to keep this information confidential, and to allow its use only for legitimate law enforcement purposes. The firearms trace database includes information such as the agency requesting a gun trace, the location from which the gun was recovered, and the identity of the dealer and original retail buyer.

* Both BATFE and the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) oppose release of trace data. In fact, BATFE has fought for years in the federal courts to keep the databases confidential, because they contain information (such as names of gun buyers) that could jeopardize ongoing investigations—not to mention law enforcement officers' lives. For example, a suspected gun trafficker could search databases for names of "straw purchasers" he had used to buy handguns, or for traces requested on guns he had sold. That information could lead him to names of officers, informants and other witnesses against his crimes. (View commentary by FOP President Chuck Canterbury from April 24, 2007)

* Even the current language has allowed too many disclosures of sensitive information. For instance, anti-gun groups and the media have repeatedly received confidential trace data from government "leaks." And Judge Jack Weinstein of the Federal District Court in Brooklyn, who presides over New York City's lawsuit against the firearms industry, has "creatively" ruled that the riders do not protect the information that Congress so clearly intended to protect.

 

NRA is committed to ensuring confidentiality of sensitive law enforcement information, on two fronts:

 

* NRA supports continuing and strengthening the annual appropriations riders that prevent abuse of this information outside legitimate criminal investigations.

* In the 109th Congress, NRA supported H.R. 5005 by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), which would make the disclosure ban permanent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Were you planning to address the question I asked you here and again here about what you said?

 

 

What I said is that we will eventually find out the truth of the matter, and as long as ATF is no longer allowing guns to "walk" anywhere without ensuring that they are actively followed to the ultimate buyer, then I think that gaining an accurate understanding of what exactly happened is more important then rushing to judgment. It looks like a lot of people were in involved in this mess, so I imagine it is a pretty complicated investigation. I don't want anyone's career ruined because they were prematurely pilloried in the press because someone else was trying to save his own ass. I want to make sure that the right idiot(s) face the consequences of their poor decisions.

 

 

Or do you just want to ask my opinion about something someone else said that really is not all that relevant to the thread?

 

If that something that someone else said is "really is not all that relevant" then why on earth did you post it?

 

 

There are others that are objectionable, but let's skip to the main one: more money for ATF.

 

Does this really seem to you like an agency that needs more money? Are you willing to accept that they deliberately sent guns to criminals in Mexico yet? Are you willing to accept that this program came from the top of ATF, and had considerable support within the organization, so much so that whistleblowers could not get it stopped internally?

 

Are you going to answer any questions about this stupid ATF program, now that more of the stupidity has been revealed?

 

I think that gun trafficking is a problem and ATF is the agency responsible for dealing with it. If we don't fund the ATF to deal with it, then how do you propose we curtail gun trafficking? Or, as I have suggesting before, is your right to sell firearms to criminals what you are really fighting for?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Were you planning to address the question I asked you here and again here about what you said?

 

 

What I said is that we will eventually find out the truth of the matter, and as long as ATF is no longer allowing guns to "walk" anywhere without ensuring that they are actively followed to the ultimate buyer, then I think that gaining an accurate understanding of what exactly happened is more important then rushing to judgment. It looks like a lot of people were in involved in this mess, so I imagine it is a pretty complicated investigation. I don't want anyone's career ruined because they were prematurely pilloried in the press because someone else was trying to save his own ass. I want to make sure that the right idiot(s) face the consequences of their poor decisions.

 

Or do you just want to ask my opinion about something someone else said that really is not all that relevant to the thread?

 

If that something that someone else said is "really is not all that relevant" then why on earth did you post it?

 

There are others that are objectionable, but let's skip to the main one: more money for ATF.

 

Does this really seem to you like an agency that needs more money? Are you willing to accept that they deliberately sent guns to criminals in Mexico yet? Are you willing to accept that this program came from the top of ATF, and had considerable support within the organization, so much so that whistleblowers could not get it stopped internally?

 

Are you going to answer any questions about this stupid ATF program, now that more of the stupidity has been revealed?

 

I think that gun trafficking is a problem and ATF is the agency responsible for dealing with it. If we don't fund the ATF to deal with it, then how do you propose we curtail gun trafficking? Or, as I have suggesting before, is your right to sell firearms to criminals what you are really fighting for?

 

What you snipped out was part of a post describing the background of Andrew Travers with respect to guns. I thought it pretty obvious why the initiatives and groups he is associated with are not popular with gun owners, and have explained it further.

 

We may eventually find out the truth here, thanks ONLY to extremist gun bloggers and pro-gun representatives in Congress. OK, and CBS News too. Many believe Melson's resignation may be the end of the line here, and the rest of the people responsible may go unpunished. I'm sure that is what the Washington Post would like to see happen.

 

As for the ATF, there used to be a reason that alcohol, tobacco, and firearms were separate from other law enforcement: ATF was part of the treasury, and they enforced tax laws.

 

These days, there is no reason for the ATF to be a separate agency within Justice. They should be folded into the FBI, which does not have the same history of irresponsible behavior.

 

If given a choice between a world with registries for people like yourself to work on expanding into bans and a world in which I could, if I wished to commit a crime, knowingly sell to a criminal, well, I'll take the criminal world. Talk to me about registries if you want to talk about stopping all private gun sales, because you're going to have to track every single gun, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What you snipped out was part of a post describing the background of Andrew Travers with respect to guns. I thought it pretty obvious why the initiatives and groups he is associated with are not popular with gun owners, and have explained it further.

 

 

Right. Travers is unpopular with "those who believe in gun rights" and the piece that you posted is an explanation of why that is. It's because he actively participated in the "Great Lakes Summit on Gun Violence" put on by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and that conference put out a report that you don't like. I mean, the nerve. How dare anyone, especially police chiefs, sit down and discuss how to curb gun violence in this country. It's clear that what we need is more gun violence and it's a clear infringement on our "gun rights" to "destroy guns that come into police possession once their law enforcement use has ended" and "investigate and prosecute cases of gun trafficking and gun violence." Of course those things would be anathema to people like you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Destroying the guns is merely stupid. They are valuable and should be auctioned off like any other seized product for which there is a legal market.

 

Making gun trace data public is a bad idea for reasons already explained, and the fact that some anti-gun extremists think that only by making it public can we investigate and prosecute cases just shows how ignorant they are. Did you happen to notice that even the ATF opposes making that information public? By your standards, that means they do not want to "investigate and prosecute cases of gun trafficking and gun violence."

 

Who would have thought this thread would lead to happy agreement between me and the ATF that you are being an idiot? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites