Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 calronmoonflower Jul 01, 2011 13:57:10	Article Repeat after me: When you give guns to criminals, they will be used in crimes. Now write that on the blackboard 1,000 times.
#2 Cpt_Micha Jul 01, 2011 13:58:31	What did they think, that the guns would just sit on a wall somewhere? Really...
#3 zombie_babies Jul 01, 2011 14:09:32	I really don't get this.  It's like 'we have these systems in place to prevent the wrong kind of people from getting firearms but look at what happens when we don't use them!'.  It just doesn't make sense in any way.
#4 Escef Jul 01, 2011 14:19:03	I really don't get this.  It's like 'we have these systems in place to prevent the wrong kind of people from getting firearms but look at what happens when we don't use them!'.  It just doesn't make sense in any way. Well, the idea behind the program was to intentionally let them get firearms that we had all the data on (like serial numbers), so that when the weapons turned up again we could track how the weapons moved. Unfortunately, there are better ways to do it. Ways that don't involve putting weapons into the hands of gun runners. I'm not going to say that whoever authorized this program has blood on his hands. The people who did the trigger puling and the people who ordered the trigger pulling are responsible for that. But this program was flawed from the moment it was conceived, and whoever authorized it should be dismissed.
#5 Robin_Hoodlum Jul 01, 2011 15:32:33	So you can bemoan gun violence and attempt draconian gun controls?
#6 lokiare Jul 01, 2011 17:00:40	So you gun bemoan gun violence and attempt draconian gun controls? No you use better methods to track criminals, or you make the guns malfunction after just a few shots go off (like by blowing up and making them lose their hand) Or you know stop criminal behavior at its source...
#7 Robin_Hoodlum Jul 01, 2011 17:04:44	So you gun bemoan gun violence and attempt draconian gun controls? No you use better methods to track criminals, or you make the guns malfunction after just a few shots go off (like by blowing up and making them lose their hand) Or you know stop criminal behavior at its source... I think you misunderstand what I am getting at.
#8 bone_naga Jul 01, 2011 19:38:00	No you use better methods to track criminals, or you make the guns malfunction after just a few shots go off (like by blowing up and making them lose their hand) Yeah, until a legitimate citizen gets one and has it blow up in his face. Little Timmy loses a hand because his dad bought a gun that was supposed to be purchased by a gun smuggler. In any case, from the people I've talked to (and news interviews seemed to confirm this), the ATF agents involved were completely against the program, but it was pushed down from much higher.
#9 draco1119 Jul 01, 2011 20:19:26	In any case, from the people I've talked to (and news interviews seemed to confirm this), the ATF agents involved were completely against the program, but it was pushed down from much higher. Yeah, this does seem to have the distinctive smell of the DOJ all over it... Correction: This has "bumbling government beureaucrat ineptitude" written all over it.
#10 bone_naga Jul 01, 2011 20:27:43	In any case, from the people I've talked to (and news interviews seemed to confirm this), the ATF agents involved were completely against the program, but it was pushed down from much higher. Yeah, this does seem to have the distinctive smell of the DOJ all over it... Correction: This has "bumbling government beureaucrat ineptitude" written all over it. Yeah, my thoughts exactly.
#11 Escef Jul 02, 2011 13:57:20	So you can bemoan gun violence and attempt draconian gun controls? Who here (at that point) was suggesting any kind of gun control laws?
#12 bone_naga Jul 02, 2011 18:03:26	So you can bemoan gun violence and attempt draconian gun controls? Who here (at that point) was suggesting any kind of gun control laws? I think he was suggesting that someone higher up in the administration may have had another agenda when they pushed for this to go forward. Show that lots of guns are reaching the cartels and you have a case for stricter gun control laws (its amazing how easy it is to get people to ignore simple facts like how many of those weapons would never have reached the cartels if not for this operation). Of course, I could be completely wrong.
#13 Jharii Jul 02, 2011 19:08:12	Project Gunrunner.  Operation Fast and Furious.  I am stunned that Obama and Holder either have no idea who authorized these programs or are lying about not knowing who authorized them.  And these were high profile programs in the ATF. From The Washington Examiner: Documents released by the Issa panel make it clear that Operation Fast and Furious was well-known and enthusiastically supported at the highest leveIs of ATF. That means the program had to have been supported elsewhere within the Justice Department. They have on videotape the gun being sold to an illegal immigrant/drug trafficker which was used to kill a US border agent.  These guns, which have been used in several murders, are turning up all over the place and the topic continues to get dodged and danced around by Holder and the president. I won't provide any links here, but a simple Google search on those programs will leave you more than scratching your head.
#14 Escef Jul 02, 2011 19:59:39	Good job. Give the guns to the criminals and wonder why they are coming back as murder weapons... The biggest problem, as I see it, is not that they got the guns from us. They would have gotten weapons anyway. (Not that we needed to make it easier for them.) The problem is that these cartels need to be dealt with, and it isn't getting done.
#15 Jharii Jul 02, 2011 20:04:41	Both are huge problems, as well as the gangs there.  There is plenty of responsibility to be taken for all of it. The link I posted about the Cartels that got deleted...  making bus passengers/kidnap victims fight each other to the death...  Savage and vulgar.
#16 Robin_Hoodlum Jul 03, 2011 9:24:27	So you can bemoan gun violence and attempt draconian gun controls? Who here (at that point) was suggesting any kind of gun control laws? I think he was suggesting that someone higher up in the administration may have had another agenda when they pushed for this to go forward. Show that lots of guns are reaching the cartels and you have a case for stricter gun control laws (its amazing how easy it is to get people to ignore simple facts like how many of those weapons would never have reached the cartels if not for this operation). Of course, I could be completely wrong. No, you're right.
#17 Robin_Hoodlum Jul 03, 2011 9:27:00	Good job. Give the guns to the criminals and wonder why they are coming back as murder weapons... The biggest problem, as I see it, is not that they got the guns from us. They would have gotten weapons anyway. (Not that we needed to make it easier for them.) The problem is that these cartels need to be dealt with, and it isn't getting done. The biggest problem, as I see it, is that this admin sold guns to drug gangs, tried to blame it on gun-shop owners, and the whole operation not only failed, it failed epicly. And, I believe, it was all a ploy to usher in strict gun control laws.
#18 Escef Jul 03, 2011 10:19:36	The biggest problem, as I see it, is that this admin sold guns to drug gangs, tried to blame it on gun-shop owners, and the whole operation not only failed, it failed epicly. And, I believe, it was all a ploy to usher in strict gun control laws. Coloring for emphasis. I don't recall hearing about anything of the sort. But then, paranoid fearmongers have been claiming "Obama wants to take your guns!" since the day he was elected.
#19 bone_naga Jul 03, 2011 10:27:26	Coloring for emphasis. I don't recall hearing about anything of the sort. But then, paranoid fearmongers have been claiming "Obama wants to take your guns!" since the day he was elected. Well Obama did state his support during his campaign for stricter gun control laws. His actual record in office has been quite different (gun control hasn't exactly been at the top of his agenda), but naturally people are going to look at the things he said during the campaign. Interestingly enough, he got an "F" from both the NRA and the Brady Campaign.
#20 Robin_Hoodlum Jul 03, 2011 10:56:45	The biggest problem, as I see it, is that this admin sold guns to drug gangs, tried to blame it on gun-shop owners, and the whole operation not only failed, it failed epicly. And, I believe, it was all a ploy to usher in strict gun control laws. Coloring for emphasis. I don't recall hearing about anything of the sort. But then, paranoid fearmongers have been claiming "Obama wants to take your guns!" since the day he was elected. Barry, on more than one occasion, did, indeed, blame gun-shop owners in the Southwest with providing weapons to the Cartels. If you demand it, I will even look it up and provide links... but you could do that yourself... if you wished. Indirectly calling me a  "paranoid fearmonger" really doesn't prove anything, does it? Well... it does prove something about you though, doesn't it? And, again, Barry (and people in his admin) has been on record for stricter gun controls. And, again, I could search it and provide links, but then again, you could do that yourself... if you wished.
#21 Escef Jul 03, 2011 11:55:53	Barry, on more than one occasion, did, indeed, blame gun-shop owners in the Southwest with providing weapons to the Cartels. If you demand it, I will even look it up and provide links... but you could do that yourself... if you wished. Ok, show me where he tried to blame the activities of Project Gunrunner on SW gun shops. Indirectly calling me a  "paranoid fearmonger" really doesn't prove anything, does it? Well... it does prove something about you though, doesn't it? Actually, I was thinking of lovely little stickers I saw on the doors to the CHU's of private contractors in Iraq. But if you want to lump yourself in with that, by all means, don't let me stop you. And, again, Barry (and people in his admin) has been on record for stricter gun controls. And, again, I could search it and provide links, but then again, you could do that yourself... if you wished. Yes, he has stated he wants stricter gun controls. Hell, he was a senator from Illinois. Hello? Chicago? Gun crime? In case you failed to notice, gun crime is a big issue to people in urban areas. I know, that's so damn difficult to comprehend. And it falls into the whole panicked, "Somebody needs to do something!" mindset. It's a knee jerk reaction. It's the same mindset that spawns the "We need to close the boarders!" idea. Both are equally stupid ideas that appeal to people that are too afraid to think straight.
#22 Robin_Hoodlum Jul 03, 2011 15:30:06	Barry, on more than one occasion, did, indeed, blame gun-shop owners in the Southwest with providing weapons to the Cartels. If you demand it, I will even look it up and provide links... but you could do that yourself... if you wished. Ok, show me where he tried to blame the activities of Project Gunrunner on SW gun shops. www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/17... www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&... mexidata.info/id3035.html There you go.
#23 bone_naga Jul 03, 2011 15:34:26	www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/17... www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&... mexidata.info/id3035.html There you go.       I love how during all this talk about US guns in Mexico, no one points out that most US guns did not come from US gun stores and didn't just walk across the border. They were foreign arms sales to South American governments (and some of the others aren't even US-made, just foreign knock-offs but good luck trying to get the Mexican military to correctly distinguish between the two). So those gun control measures wouldn't actually do anything to prevent them from falling into cartel hands.
#24 Escef Jul 04, 2011 0:36:49	Doing a little research on these programs shows they were authorized in February of 2008, and were part of a larger program (that was not selling arms) that had been going since 2005. Now, this was a month after Obama took office. That's a very short amount of time after he took office for something that wasn't a large part of his agenda. Did he authorize it? I can't say, but I suspect it was a plan that someone in the ATF had cooked up months or even years before that had consistently been shot down. Someone had to have authorized it, the question is who? I doubt it was the president, but may well have been a member of his administration (it is possible Obama did authorize it, but my gut tells me that is unlikely). IF Obama did not authorize it (not an idea some people wish to entertain), the next question is when did he find out about it? To be perfectly honest, if I were president and I found out someone in my administration had authorized something like this, I would rescind authorization of further sales (the damage on that front is already done, might as well track it), and dismiss whoever authorized it. Probably put the relevant info into the hands of the justice department as one of my last acts before leaving office, but in the meantime I'd try to keep the whole thing under wraps. The whole damn thing is FUBAR. IF Obama did authorize it (which I doubt, but I must consider the possibility), well... It would cast serious doubts on his judgment as a whole. And it would cause me to revoke any support I have for him. (Of all the presidents we have had in my lifetime, Obama is the only one I have any real sympathy for. Bush the Elder I almost have sympathy for.)
#25 draco1119 Jul 04, 2011 0:45:42	Doing a little research on these programs shows they were authorized in February of 2008, and were part of a larger program (that was not selling arms) that had been going since 2005. Now, this was a month after Obama took office. That's a very short amount of time after he took office for something that wasn't a large part of his agenda. Did he authorize it? I can't say, but I suspect it was a plan that someone in the ATF had cooked up months or even years before that had consistently been shot down. Someone had to have authorized it, the question is who? I doubt it was the president, but may well have been a member of his administration (it is possible Obama did authorize it, but my gut tells me that is unlikely). Actually, Feb '08 is 9 months before he was even elected.  It was mentioned in at least one of Hoodlum's articles that the program was started under Bush and continued under Obama. IF Obama did not authorize it (not an idea some people wish to entertain), the next question is when did he find out about it? To be perfectly honest, if I were president and I found out someone in my administration had authorized something like this, I would rescind authorization of further sales (the damage on that front is already done, might as well track it), and dismiss whoever authorized it. Probably put the relevant info into the hands of the justice department as one of my last acts before leaving office, but in the meantime I'd try to keep the whole thing under wraps. The whole damn thing is FUBAR. IF Obama did authorize it (which I doubt, but I must consider the possibility), well... It would cast serious doubts on his judgment as a whole. And it would cause me to revoke any support I have for him. (Of all the presidents we have had in my lifetime, Obama is the only one I have any real sympathy for. Bush the Elder I almost have sympathy for.) Since it was an already authorized program, SOMEBODY high up had to know about it in order for it to continue.  If Obama didn't know, my guess is that he made it clear to his appointees that he wanted "plausible deniability" for the controversial programs.
#26 bone_naga Jul 04, 2011 0:54:26	Since it was an already authorized program, SOMEBODY high up had to know about it in order for it to continue.  If Obama didn't know, my guess is that he made it clear to his appointees that he wanted "plausible deniability" for the controversial programs. I know in the military whenever there is a change of command, a policy is usually issued stating that all previous policies are still in effect until further notice, and then at some later time a few policies might change but most do not. I imagine the president does something similar. He probably has a list of top priorities to change immediately, and everything else continues as usual. He probably eventually gets around to looking at other things and tweaking them here or there, but most of that stuff is probably in the hands of his staff and once in a while he actually reads something that is sent to him for approval. If the right person wanted this to keep going, all they had to do was ensure that the specifics never reached his desk and it would most likely remain in effect by default.
#27 Escef Jul 04, 2011 0:54:55	Actually, Feb '08 is 9 months before he was even elected. You're right, I brainfarted and saw the year he was elected right next to the month that follows the oath of office. Good catch. Crap, it's late man. I should just down a nightcap and get some sleep.
#28 Robin_Hoodlum Jul 04, 2011 10:19:59	The point I want emphasized is that he blamed gun-shop owners for putting guns in the hands of the cartels. Whether he knew about the program or not, he should not have made baseless accusations. And if he did know about the program, then his agenda should be questioned since he lied and blamed Americans. I'm no lokiare, but I think stricter gun laws isn't so far-fetched a reason.
#29 homicidal_squirrel Jul 04, 2011 10:27:47	The point I want emphasized is that he blamed gun-shop owners for putting guns in the hands of the cartels. Whether he knew about the program or not, he should not have made baseless accusations. And if he did know about the program, then his agenda should be questioned since he lied and blamed Americans. I'm no lokiare, but I think stricter gun laws isn't so far-fetched a reason. Wait... is this the first time you hear a politician speak?