Arizona strikes back: State investigates feds over gun-running

Anything beyond that is sheer conjecture...

Click to expand...

The foundation of internet forums.

SharpsDressedMan said:

I'm still wondering why, in this day of superior technology, micro tracking devices could not have been put in the buttstocks of guns needing to be tracked in sting operations, etc. Anyone got an answer?

Click to expand...

Because that was never their intent.

Great post, PowerG. However, don't ascribe to malice what can more easily be ascribed to incompetence.

Click to expand...

I'm sure it's a coincidence that members of the administration were trumpeting the number of guns recovered in Mexico that had been smuggled out of this country. Can't possibly be that they were smuggling them out so they could try for more gun control laws.

jerkface11 said:

I'm sure it's a coincidence that members of the administration were trumpeting the number of guns recovered in Mexico that had been smuggled out of this country. Can't possibly be that they were smuggling them out so they could try for more gun control laws.

Click to expand...

There was also that communique coming out of the Obama administration some time ago, informing the Brady Bunch that they were working "under the radar" to advance the cause of greater gun control.


.

Man, that Jon Stewart skit was...404 Not Found...bummer.

JFrame said:

There was also that communique coming out of the Obama administration some time ago, informing the Brady Bunch that they were working "under the radar" to advance the cause of greater gun control.


.

Click to expand...

Did the administration release it, or did the Brady bunch release it?

Neverwinter said:

Did the administration release it, or did the Brady bunch release it?

Click to expand...

I don't remember.


.

Yay our thread derailer is here to pick nits.

Agreed. Nobody is above the law, even the most high priest of the ACLU.

armoredman said:

Man, that Jon Stewart skit was...404 Not Found...bummer.

Click to expand...

Try again. It is still working for me.

Jon Stewart on Fast and Furious

JFrame said:

I don't remember.


.

Click to expand...

All of the references that I've seen were sourced from Sarah Brady's accounts. Im just slightly surprised at the willingness to spread the propaganda of a dishonest anti, desperate to stem the loss of donations from her failing organization.

If there is guilt to be found, it is in legislative investigation like this and the federal one, not the statements of a woman with a history of lies regarding gun control.

Sent using Tapatalk

Neverwinter said:

All of the references that I've seen were sourced from Sarah Brady's accounts. Im just slightly surprised at the willingness to spread the propaganda of a dishonest anti, desperate to stem the loss of donations from her failing organization.

If there is guilt to be found, it is in legislative investigation like this and the federal one, not the statements of a woman with a history of lies regarding gun control.

Sent using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Running contrary to this narrative is that the Obama administration has made no vociferous effort to deny the account. You'd think they would be denying it left and right if it wasn't true...Not so much.

Whether the "under the radar" reference was specific to OF&F, or something else entirely, is totally up for conjecture. But the fact that the sentiment was relayed in a private meeting seems fairly uncontested.


.
.

JFrame said:

Running contrary to this narrative is that the Obama administration has made no vociferous effort to deny the account. You'd think they would be denying it left and right if it wasn't true...Not so much.

Click to expand...

It is easy to contest that any efforts to deny the account would have ever mattered. There is no physical evidence to prove non-existence. The administration already had to deal with attacks which persisted even after physical evidence was provided. Trying to prove the non-existence of the event to people who are willing to suspend disbelief of a lobbyist with a known history of dishonesty is a losing proposition, and they refused to participate.

I'm not willing to suspend my disbelief of Brady, and prefer the current investigations.

Sent using Tapatalk

Neverwinter said:

It is easy to contest that any efforts to deny the account would have ever mattered. There is no physical evidence to prove non-existence. The administration already had to deal with attacks which persisted even after physical evidence was provided. Trying to prove the non-existence of the event to people who are willing to suspend disbelief of a lobbyist with a known history of dishonesty is a losing proposition, and they refused to participate.

Click to expand...

The Obama administration does not have to deny an allegation because there's no point to denying an allegation.

Got it...

It's certainly a convenient argument...

I'm not willing to suspend my disbelief of Brady, and prefer the current investigations.

Click to expand...

And again -- the discussion of what the Obama administration may have said in regard to gun control can be taken separately from the discussion of OF&F. That Obama evidently wants to impose more gun control legislation can be taken on its own merits.


.

"At the cost of Mexican lives, of course."

Actually it has been at the expense of Mexican, and American lives on both sides of the border.

Derek Zeanah said:

I've got to agree here.

The plan as we know it would have never accomplished the goals that were attributed to it. However, it would have greatly increased the percentage of guns recovered from Mexican crime scenes that could be traced back to legal purchases in the US.

Wasn't there something in the news a few years back about misstating the numbers re: Mexican crime guns? It seems to me that Fast and Furious was designed to up those numbers to make domestic anti-gun legislation more palatable.

At the cost of Mexican lives, of course.

Click to expand...

Re: the bolded portion -- IIRC, the State Department announced that XX percent (I believe the number was close to 90 percent, originally) of all firearms used in Mexican drug violence came from the U.S. What they actually meant to say ( ) was that all captured firearms whose origin could even be traced came from the U.S. And then, after that, they fudged on even the numbers, and pushed it down to something like 75 or 80 percent.


.

JFrame said:

Re: the bolded portion -- IIRC, the State Department announced that XX percent (I believe the number was close to 90 percent, originally) of all firearms used in Mexican drug violence came from the U.S. What they actually meant to say ( ) was that all captured firearms whose origin could even be traced came from the U.S. And then, after that, they fudged on even the numbers, and pushed it down to something like 75 or 80 percent.


.

Click to expand...

The original myth involved the number 90%

When that one quickly became indefensible as a laughingstock, they tried scaling it back to 70%

Senator Grassley got tired of all the disinformation on this topic and he says the number is closer to 24%.

publius said:

The original myth involved the number 90%

When that one quickly became indefensible as a laughingstock, they tried scaling it back to 70%

Senator Grassley got tired of all the disinformation on this topic and he says the number is closer to 24%.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the actual numbers and links!


.

Why even bother prosecuting anyone over the flawed OFF? Obama would most certainly pardon anyone before they even got convicted anyway.

OFF, must have been the position their brains were in when they let this whole debacle go.

Sure, Wide Receiver was equally flawed (although didn't get any one killed (which is debatable)), but why resurrect an obviously flawed plan to begin with? Is it the same mentality that permeates modern Communists and Socialists? "It didn't work before because WE weren't in charge. Things will be different this time."

What AZ is doing is feel good stuff. The federal government will allow an employee to be tried in AZ court right after Ron Houriuchi is tried by the state of Idaho for murder.

JFrame said:

The Obama administration does not have to deny an allegation because there's no point to denying an allegation.

Got it...

Click to expand...

To this day, Richard Gere has never denied inserting a gerbil into his rectum.

Isn't that a convenient excuse.

And again -- the discussion of what the Obama administration may have said in regard to gun control can be taken separately from the discussion of OF&F. That Obama evidently wants to impose more gun control legislation can be taken on its own merits.

Click to expand...

Why does the uncorroborated word of the Brady bunch count as a merit?

Sent using Tapatalk