Fast and Furious

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

So the latest twist is the fact that Obama increased funding for Operation Gunrunner, the anti-trafficking program started by Bush is somehow scandalous? Shame on Obama!

And a speech that Holder made in April of 09 is taking credit for Operation Fast and Furious which didnt begin until later that year?

Now that is a stretch only a true wing nut could believe.

And more paranoia about taking away the guns from law abiding citizens.

I am beginning to think Obama knows all about it. Hopefully we can come up with something to impeach his happy ass with.

[TheMercenary]

BUSTED!!!!!!!!

Yea, there is no plan to derail Second Amendment rights..... sure.

"Internal ATF emails seem to suggest that ATF agents were counseled to highlight a link between criminals and certain semi-automatic weapons in order to bolster a case for a rule like the one the DOJ announced yesterday [Monday]."

Townhall has obtained the email which states "Can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same FfL and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks Mark R. Chait Assistant Director Field Operations."

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...te_gun_control

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

BUSTED!!!!!!!!

Yea, there is no plan to derail Second Amendment rights..... sure.



http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...te_gun_control

There you go, again. Your paranoia over a non-existing conspiracy to take away guns from law abiding citizens.

These new regulations simply require dealers in border states to report the sale of two or more semi automatic rifles within five consecutive business days, specifically .22 caliber rifles with detachable ammunition magazines like AK 47's or AR 15's.

Do not such requirements already exist for multiple sale of handguns? So why not weapons like AK-47s?

Why should dealers not be required to report sales like this?

On Dec. 11, 2009, 23-year-old Uriel Patino walked into a shopping-center gun shop in Glendale, Ariz., and allegedly bought 20 AK-47 assault rifles. A month later, he allegedly bought 10 more on a single day from the same shop – Lone Wolf Trading – and two weeks after that bought another 15.

By February 2010, authorities say Patino had become a regular customer, hitting the store every few days. On Feb. 15 alone, court documents say he bought 40 AK-47s.

But ATF is powerless to immediately stop these sales, said the bureau’s former official, Bouchard, because there’s nothing illegal about buying a large number of assault weapons.

“It doesn’t look right, but under the law, there’s nothing wrong with it,” he said.

Bouchard said ATF doesn’t have enough agents to put every straw buyer under surveillance, so getting a conviction often means getting a confession. In Fast and Furious, the investigative trail eventually allowed agents able to get wiretaps on Patino and use them to try to prosecute the person orchestrating the scheme. Patino was ultimately charged with 33 others. But the probe dragged on for more than a year.

A straw buyer must sign a form at the gun shop declaring that they are buying the guns for themselves. Lying on the form is a crime. But in order to prove the lie, a prosecutor often must prove what the straw buyer was thinking when he or she bought the gun. Unless that straw buyer immediately delivers the weapon to someone prohibited from purchasing a firearm – like a convicted felon—all the buyer has to claim is that the gun was bought for personal use.

http://www.iwatchnews.org/2011/04/01...ay-atf-backers

Or perhaps, you dont see a problems with sales like these.

[Griff]

You do realize that a 22 cal rifle is very much unlike a 7.62mm AK-47? I think it is stupid to buy a 22 made to look like a serious rifle but the weapon itself is a plinker not a man-stopper. This reminds me of a local NPR radio report out out of Buffalo trumpeting a cash for guns program that got an, unlikely, "12 gauge street sweeper assault rifle" off the street. Reporters and would be regulators need to be a lot less casual and sweeping in their descriptions if the really don't want to feed paranoia. Our gun and anti-gun cultures are both kind of sick.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Griff

You do realize that a 22 cal rifle is very much unlike a 7.62mm AK-47?

Really? I never knew there was a difference....

[TheMercenary]

Once again, liberals and the Obama Administration are focused on guns rather than criminals and federal government incomptence. Operation Fast and Furious is looking more and more like a set up from the beginning to push Obama and Holder's radical anti-Second Amendment agenda as they used law abiding gun shop owners to enable government officals to break the law, then turned around and blamed the very same gun shops for illegal gun trafficking, despite those shops being forced by ATF to help ATF agents carry out Operation Fast and Furious, and now, those shops are being punished through new Justice Department gun control measures. Obama and Holder both have long records of being outspoken opponents of gunrights and both support the reinstatement of the "assault" rifle ban, better described as a ban on semi-automatic rifles. From the June issue of Townhall Magazine:

President Obama is calling for "commonsense" gun reforms, but as a man with a long a history of acting to limit Second Amendment rights and advocating gun control who tapped an attorney general with the same ideology -- and possibly the biggest gun trafficking scandal in U.S. history with his name written all over it -- is the president really calling for reforms or more government control?

As an Illinois state senator, Obama endorsed and spoke in support of an outright ban on ownership of all handguns and favored the licensing and registering of gun owners. Before his run for public office in 1996, Obama filled out a questionnaire expressing his support for a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.

[Fair&Balanced]

The regs seem pretty specific to me:

...require Federal Firearms Licensees to report multiple sales or other dispositions whenever the licensee sells or otherwise disposes of two or more rifles within any five consecutive business days with the following characteristics: (a) Semi automatic; (b) a caliber greater than .22; and (c) the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-31761.pdf

SO if such reporting requirements already exist for multiple sale of handguns, why not weapons like AK-47s?

I'm not interested in taking away any citizens rights, but when someone can walk into a gun store and buy 40 AK-47s at a time with no reporting by the dealer, IMO, there is something wrong with the system.

And I'm still trying to understand how a reporting requirement is a part of a broader plan to take away Second Amendment rights.

[Griff]

Ah, its >.22 cal your previous post mislead me.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

I'm not interested in taking away any citizens rights, but when someone can walk into a gun store and buy 40 AK-47s at a time with no reporting by the dealer....

Cite asshole.... when and where did that happen, unless of course you are talking about the DOJ scumfucks and the ATF that let it happen. They watched it happen at major gun dealers on the border and then tried to use them as examples as to why the system is broken... when those fucks set the whole thing up to, as the latest emails show, enact more restrictive gun laws.

Put up or shut the fuck up....

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Cite asshole.... when and where did that happen, unless of course you are talking about the DOJ scumfucks and the ATF that let it happen. They watched it happen at major gun dealers on the border and then tried to use them as examples as to why the system is broken... when those fucks set the whole thing up to, as the latest emails show, enact more restrictive gun laws.

Put up or shut the fuck up....

You can rant and rave and call me names, but it wont change the fact that until these regulations were issued last month, there was no requirement for dealers to report multiple sales of these weapons. I cited an example described by an ATF agent and the lack of adequate laws to respond.

I'm open to discussing it with anyone on the other side of the gun issue who wants to discuss the issue rationally and respectfully. There is no point in any further discussion with you.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

You can rant and rave and call me names, but it wont change the fact that until these regulations were issued last month, there was no requirement for dealers to report multiple sales of these weapons. I cited an example described by an ATF agent and the lack of adequate laws to respond.

I'm open to discussing it with anyone on the other side of the gun issue who wants to discuss the issue rationally and respectfully. There is no point in any further discussion with you.

Yea, well when the ATF and DOJ sell guns illegally to patron who they know are going to take them across the border and kill other Mexican, and a few of our own citizens, then we have a problem. And not a God Damm thing you say about the issue matters one bit, as you shill and make excuses for the racist fuck Eric Holder and the corrupt ATF. Nice try, you loose. I have posted numerous links to original emails from the ATF that show they are corrupt. Hell, it would surprise me if Obamy knew all about as well.... You can ignore the fact all you want, they will not change.

[infinite monkey]

This beats a soap opera.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Genocides happen in places where there is gun control, and doesn't where there is not. Consult history. The case is very strong: if you want actually to be antigenocide, you be pro-gun, and rigorously, and all the time.

Essentially, to make genocide something practicable, you need a defenseless population to practice it upon. The most efficient way ever found to make a defenseless population is to delegitimize armed self defense and outlaw private weaponry.

The most effective physical defense against any genocide imaginable is the reverse of this: a selective-fire individual weapon over every mantle and two hundred rounds ready ammunition. Whereupon we'd all be Switzerland. Which is notably free of that genocide thing.

On a less grandiose level, you might consult the most recent edition of J. Lott, More Guns, Less Crime. A few crime-loving wishful thinkers allege that Lott's work was debunked. Don't believe a word of it; his scholarship is formidable. It turned Prof. Lott into a longtime gun owner himself. Ruger revolver, I think he said.

Do take care on one point though: asking me, knowing what I do, to treat the genocidal-ideators respectfully is asking for the moon. They not only cannot be respected, they must not be respected.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Yeah, all those AK-47s really helped in Libya, didn't they?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I don't think the US sent them.

It was a reply to this:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

The most effective physical defense against any genocide imaginable is the reverse of this: a selective-fire individual weapon over every mantle and two hundred rounds ready ammunition. Whereupon we'd all be Switzerland. Which is notably free of that genocide thing.

When the government has artillery, tanks, an air force and an army with modern discipline and command structures, the civilians get massacred no matter how many selective fire individual weapons they may have.

Rifles in homes do not make genocide impossible.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

When the government has artillery, tanks, an air force and an army with modern discipline and command structures, the civilians get massacred no matter how many selective fire individual weapons they may have.

Rifles in homes do not make genocide impossible.

Zen, the history of genocide does NOT show that. Essentially, the reason is you don't use armored divisions for the actual genocide -- armies feel unendurably compromised if used for genocides, and this is always sloughed off on militias, organizations created especially for the genocide itself, or other outside-the-military groups. Let a single example represent the rest: the Einsatzkommandos -- and by the term the Nazis meant something like "special auxiliary teams" -- were very lightly equipped. With gun control laws and legal delegitimization of armed self-defense, rifles were about as much as they needed. Well, a rifle opposes another rifle just fine, does it not? How would the fate of European Jewry have been different had every Jew in Europe a Kar 98 (a mere bolt-action rifle) and two hundred rounds of ready ammunition? I'm not sure a single Einsatzkommando would have survived the war!

While you might try citing the Warsaw Ghetto as an exception to the idea you don't use armored divisions to perform genocides, it fails on close examination: the Jews of Warsaw successfully repelled the lightly-armed Einsatzkommandos, starting with hardly any rifles whatsoever -- you could count their first rifles on the fingers of one hand -- and these had to be reinforced by the SS, with some mechanized fighting gear but nothing to speak of for tanks, Gestapo detachments organized as infantry, and the Romanian Iron Guard -- and the Gestapo ended up complaining about the behavior of the Iron Guard. It's not everybody that can gross out the Gestapo.

And you aren't very well versed in guerrilla warfare either -- a truism in unconventional warfare is that a lesser weapon may be used to obtain a greater, and then a greater again.

I've actually tried to study this stuff. Learning is why I say what I do. What I've learned is that armed societies are inoculated against genocides, and that this is true worldwide. I regret to inform you that what you thought you knew, you don't know.