Only because field agents blew the whistle on them. Otherwise they could easily have been used to justify new anti-gun laws.
Justice officials in "Panic Mode" over failed Gun Program
- Thread starter usmarine0352_2005
- Start date
- Status
Only because field agents blew the whistle on them. Otherwise they could easily have been used to justify new anti-gun laws.
azmjs
member
Sure they could, sure they could.
Easily, is it... It's so eeeeeasy to pass anti-gun laws in America today, so easy, isn't it?
Easily, is it... It's so eeeeeasy to pass anti-gun laws in America today, so easy, isn't it?
publius
Member
Carl N. Brown
Member
Vern Humphrey: All true, except for the word "unwitting." They wanted killings they could trace to these guns, so they could "justify" new anti-gun laws.
azmjs: That is an absurd and vulgar slander, and an insult to federal law enforcement and our many dedicated public servants.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/23/eveningnews/main20035609.shtml
Sharyl Attkinsson, "Gunrunning scandal uncovered at the ATF", CBS Evening News, 23 Feb 2011.
CBS March 3, 2011 followup:
I take the "making an omelette" as building a case for more gun control, and the "break some eggs" as more drug gang deaths in Mexico with the US guns that ATF let walk.
Decision makers in "Operation Fast and Furious" are dedicated public servants?
The gun dealers objected.
The field agents objected.
The supervisors ordered the guns to walk, wanting to break some eggs, to make some omelettes.
Wake up!
Even if the supervisors were just lone nuts, like the ATF agent behind Warbirds Inc. back in the 1990s, or the Wategate burglars in the 1970s, the cover-up goes to the top just the same, even if we are to believe that the federal government plagued with rogue agents acting on their own, doing things that just happen to co-incide with the policy goals of their overlords.
And if azmjs meant to be sarcastic about "dedicated public servants", next time use
azmjs: That is an absurd and vulgar slander, and an insult to federal law enforcement and our many dedicated public servants.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/23/eveningnews/main20035609.shtml
Sharyl Attkinsson, "Gunrunning scandal uncovered at the ATF", CBS Evening News, 23 Feb 2011.
CBS March 3, 2011 followup:
I take the "making an omelette" as building a case for more gun control, and the "break some eggs" as more drug gang deaths in Mexico with the US guns that ATF let walk.
Decision makers in "Operation Fast and Furious" are dedicated public servants?
The gun dealers objected.
The field agents objected.
The supervisors ordered the guns to walk, wanting to break some eggs, to make some omelettes.
Wake up!
Even if the supervisors were just lone nuts, like the ATF agent behind Warbirds Inc. back in the 1990s, or the Wategate burglars in the 1970s, the cover-up goes to the top just the same, even if we are to believe that the federal government plagued with rogue agents acting on their own, doing things that just happen to co-incide with the policy goals of their overlords.
And if azmjs meant to be sarcastic about "dedicated public servants", next time use
alsaqr
Member
Everyone who cares about gun rights needs to read the 51 page congressional staff report prepared for Rep. Issa and Sen. Grassley:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM192_atf_report.html
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM192_atf_report.html
jerkface11
Member
You mean our dedicated public servants who armed Mexican drug cartels? As for federal law enforcement there is NOTHING too foul you can say about them.
publius
Member
Who do you think tried repeatedly to stop this insane program from within, then finally blew the whistle in public to get it stopped?
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
That is exactly how the government is supposed to work, in the context of the checks and balances. The actions of one branch are subject to opposition from the other branches when it comes to passing.
The supervisors aren't public servants? No True Scotsmancarl n. brown said:
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Rehetoric -vs- Analysis
I see we have "technical argumentation" rules being invoked.
How cute.
Before we get too far down that road, I would point out that the "rules for rhetoric" (the "logical fallacies" family) are not data analysis tools.
Truth is not established by "arguing better" than the next guy.
When you're trying to discover the actual motives behind a series of actions, cute debating forms like red herring, straw man, begging the question, and the rest of the "scoring points in arguments" devices are worse than useless, as they can actually impair your ability to examine the data for actual "data defect" conditions.
The Gunwalker/OFF project is either an exercise in unparalleled stupidity, or a deliberate ploy to set the stage for more gun control.
While I would never assert that a government agency isn't capable of stunning stupidity, my money in this case is on the malice.
This was a false flag operation.
They were outed by their own people.
The firing of those involved in planning and managing this fiasco is merely a baseline requirement.
Considering the laws knowingly broken and the malicious intent of the project, justice will only have been served if jail time is included.
I see we have "technical argumentation" rules being invoked.
How cute.
Before we get too far down that road, I would point out that the "rules for rhetoric" (the "logical fallacies" family) are not data analysis tools.
Truth is not established by "arguing better" than the next guy.
When you're trying to discover the actual motives behind a series of actions, cute debating forms like red herring, straw man, begging the question, and the rest of the "scoring points in arguments" devices are worse than useless, as they can actually impair your ability to examine the data for actual "data defect" conditions.
The Gunwalker/OFF project is either an exercise in unparalleled stupidity, or a deliberate ploy to set the stage for more gun control.
While I would never assert that a government agency isn't capable of stunning stupidity, my money in this case is on the malice.
This was a false flag operation.
They were outed by their own people.
The firing of those involved in planning and managing this fiasco is merely a baseline requirement.
Considering the laws knowingly broken and the malicious intent of the project, justice will only have been served if jail time is included.
azmjs
member
Vern Humphrey: All true, except for the word "unwitting." They wanted killings they could trace to these guns, so they could "justify" new anti-gun laws.
azmjs: That is an absurd and vulgar slander, and an insult to federal law enforcement and our many dedicated public servants.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/23/eveningnews/main20035609.shtml
Sharyl Attkinsson, "Gunrunning scandal uncovered at the ATF", CBS Evening News, 23 Feb 2011.
CBS March 3, 2011 followup:
I take the "making an omelette" as building a case for more gun control, and the "break some eggs" as more drug gang deaths in Mexico with the US guns that ATF let walk.
Decision makers in "Operation Fast and Furious" are dedicated public servants?
The gun dealers objected.
The field agents objected.
The supervisors ordered the guns to walk, wanting to break some eggs, to make some omelettes.
Wake up!
Even if the supervisors were just lone nuts, like the ATF agent behind Warbirds Inc. back in the 1990s, or the Wategate burglars in the 1970s, the cover-up goes to the top just the same, even if we are to believe that the federal government plagued with rogue agents acting on their own, doing things that just happen to co-incide with the policy goals of their overlords.
And if azmjs meant to be sarcastic about "dedicated public servants", next time use
And again we get the classic fallacy, and really the "modus ponens" of paranoia- imagining that you know people's motives.
Specifically in this case, attributing to malice what was likely instead caused by folly.
azmjs
member
Tell that to the people whose lives have been saved because the perpetrators of crimes ranging from child rape to terrorism have been captured due to the efforts of federal law enforcement.
Then explain it to their parents, or children.
R.W.Dale
Member
It would have to be a lot of saved children to make up for the ones the Feds burned to death in a little place called Waco
Typical emotional reactionary liberal argument "think of the children"
And I thought you were more subtle than that
Tapatalk post via IPhone.
azmjs
member
Surely this isn't the thread to tell lies about what happened at waco, just to tell lies about "fast and furious" or whatever...
I'd be happy to hear what you've got to say about Waco in another thread, but not here.
I'd be happy to hear what you've got to say about Waco in another thread, but not here.
Vern Humphrey
Member
My point, exactly -- and given the multiple warnings sent by those actually on the ground, I find it hard to excuse this on the grounds of mere stupidity.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Really?
Your assertion is dishonestly constructed. Insulting, too. Are you sure you want to continue to impugn the membership here?
You seem to be compelled to defend the actions of the ATF on this.
Do you have information to which the rest of us are not privy? Because from the available data, even a thumbnail analysis indicates agency misconduct condoned -- if not actively sponsored -- by senior administration levels.
Perhaps you would care to share with us what exculpatory evidence you have in your possession.
Your assertion is dishonestly constructed. Insulting, too. Are you sure you want to continue to impugn the membership here?
You seem to be compelled to defend the actions of the ATF on this.
Do you have information to which the rest of us are not privy? Because from the available data, even a thumbnail analysis indicates agency misconduct condoned -- if not actively sponsored -- by senior administration levels.
Perhaps you would care to share with us what exculpatory evidence you have in your possession.
azmjs
member
I don't need exculpatory evidence against statements which are lies invented whole-cloth, such as "willingly wanted killings they could trace to the guns." I think I made it clear when I quoted this statement more than once, and called it a slander, that it is specifically what I'm talking about in the post about telling lies.
I'm just as much "the membership" as the individual who I quoted. I think that his statements impugn the membership of the entire website. Is this The High Road or is it a paranoid conspiracy theory website? Surely there are other outlets for this kind of slander to be posted.
I'm only compelled to defend the truth, because I have a vested interest in firearms ownership, and do not want to see it threatened. The gun control movement in America is dead in the water. This is a good thing, but it also means that we've been given the rope with which we might hang ourselves. In this day and age, where the government is increasingly, on nearly every level, liberalizing gun laws, we are very much our own worst enemy.
It's a very bad idea to willingly paint yourself into a corner where the ATF gets the privilige of being on the side of truth. It takes a catastrophic blunder in order to get to that place with respect to an organization as riddled with problems as the ATF. Why should we make them that gift, if we don't need to?
Why not take a "just the facts" stance on this scandal? Why mix truth with speculative fantasy, and why lie by passing off speculative paranoia as truth?
I wonder, also, why this particular thread gets amnesty?
A government scandal is not a gun topic. This has nothing to do with your gun ownership or my gun ownership. Paranoid conspiracy theories are not "high road." Accusing people of conspiring to murder as part of a cabal is not high road. Insulting all the good men and women who risk their lives doing hard work to keep us safe in federal law enforcement is not high road.
If policy is that this thread is exempted from the ordinary constraints on the content of the site, please let me know, and I will quit reading and responding to it.
Last edited:
zxcvbob
Member
Sometimes there really is a conspiracy
azmjs,
I'm not commenting on any theories, but I fail to see how this doesn't warrant any sort of gun rights discussion when two politicians in the latest hearing are introducing legislation based on this very event. I also fail to see how you can defend 'the truth' with 'just the facts' when the investigation is still underway.
I'm not commenting on any theories, but I fail to see how this doesn't warrant any sort of gun rights discussion when two politicians in the latest hearing are introducing legislation based on this very event. I also fail to see how you can defend 'the truth' with 'just the facts' when the investigation is still underway.
Mike1234567
member
Vern Humphrey
Member
I wonder if someone here has a theory that the dead Border Patrolman is really faking it?
If we have respect and sympathy for law enforcement, it seems to me that our respect and sympathy should be directed toward him, not to the reckless and incompetent high-ranking people who allowed the gun that killed him to "walk."
If we have respect and sympathy for law enforcement, it seems to me that our respect and sympathy should be directed toward him, not to the reckless and incompetent high-ranking people who allowed the gun that killed him to "walk."
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Facts?
If I catch you leaving my store with a candy bar in your pocket, for which you have not paid, and I call you a thief, that's not slander, it's a conclusion drawn from available evidence. If the case goes to court and you are exonerated, and I continue to call you a thief, then that could be construed as slander.
You are, of course, not obliged to participate.
It would be wrong to force you to discuss a topic that makes you uncomfortable.
Conclusions derived from available evidence are not "lies invented whole-cloth." The term "from whole cloth" means entirely made up. Nobody "made up" the F&F scandal. This is an actual series of government sponsored crimes committed by agents of said government. They are actions taken in violation of pertinent law. Actual crimes. The only thing currently not known is how high up in the administration the culpability extends.
If I catch you leaving my store with a candy bar in your pocket, for which you have not paid, and I call you a thief, that's not slander, it's a conclusion drawn from available evidence. If the case goes to court and you are exonerated, and I continue to call you a thief, then that could be construed as slander.
It's pretty clear there is an actual, real live, honest-to-gawd, bottled at the source, genuine conspiracy here, fulfilling all the requirements of the legal definition of a conspiracy. To claim otherwise is impossibly naive. To claim that the other members are "lying" because they contemplate this in a discussion is to insult them as a group.
You're not representing any scenario or body of "facts" that can be labeled "the truth" here, you are merely sniping at what others believe and conclude. If you have an actual "truth" worth defending, let's hear it.
Except that it's not. There are already new bills being proposed as a result of this "uncontrolled trafficking" of firearms across the border.
I'm not even sure what kind of point you're trying to make here, unless it is that we should be nice to the government lest we might "hang" ourselves.
Dude, what?? ATF agents have openly admitted to breaking the law. What "truth" is it to which you refer?
You can't have a meaningful discussion of this matter without attempting to derive culpability and motive. Limiting yourself to "oh, look, a bunch of guns were discovered in Mexico, and one of them was used to kill a US agent" without also considering "and an ATF agent has confessed to being involved" as well as "and was receiving orders from and passing reports to senior administration officials" and without contemplating the causes from that data, is effectively blinkering oneself into a topical blindness. "Speculative fantasy??" LOL. "Speculative paranoia?" You're saying that believing the confession of a sworn federal agent is paranoia? Wow.
Maybe because "amnesty" is a loaded word meaning "allowing a discussion that I'd prefer didn't happen." Maybe because the thread discusses a pertinent gun control issue in the context of efforts to commit crimes relating to firearms trafficking and to assign blame for that to innocent gun dealers so that new regulations and laws can be proposed that constrain honest gun owners and buyers without hindering criminals? Maybe because gun rights for Americans are at risk from this false flag operation?
And in this you would be completely wrong. "Scandal" is not a gun topic. A scandal involving a government agency aiding gun smugglers so as to inflate "Mexican gun violence fueled by American firearms" statistics very much is.
Unless there is credible evidence of such a real conspiracy, such as public admissions by involved parties implicating senior administration officials. And "murder" is a valid term to describe collateral deaths due to depraved indifference, especially deaths occurring as a consequence of the felonious arming of the murderers.
Let me go on record as stating that we support honest, hard working law enforcement officers and their honest, hard working agencies.
This thread is not "exempted." This thread is on topic and pointedly relevant to gun rights issues.
You are, of course, not obliged to participate.
It would be wrong to force you to discuss a topic that makes you uncomfortable.
jerkface11
Member
ArfinGreebly you left out one other option. They could have been trying to help overthrow the Mexican government.
I have been fortunate to have watched 90% of the last 2 hearings.
The consensus of opinion including 100% of the Republicans and over 50% of the Dems and Elijah Cummings was that William Newell was absolutely not answering the questions. When Newell stated that ATF didn't walk guns into Mexico Cummings ate him up. You could see the look on Cummings face when he determined the kind of civil servant William Newel is.
At this point, there are few if any defenders of ATF management and F&F on Capitol Hill. Politics may keep this out of the hands of a Special Prosecutor but with the budget situation of ATF may become a sacrificial lamb with agents moving to the FBI and management going away.
There are dems which are still pushing gun control and trying to use ATF positions to justify these legislative changes. In the second hearing it was the first time I heard an ATF agent not demand increased legislation to restrict ownership when asked. I can't remember which one but it wasn't Newel or the mgr to his right.
Like it or not all federal agencies in DC are totally politicized today but the ATF HQ is totally dedicated to the Brady Center and gun control. Now I believe this is not the case with the field agents. I believe that they are typical dedicated street level LEO's.
If you don't agree here, please provide PROOF. certainly the testimony given in the Committee on Oversight and Governmental Affairs supports my assessment.
Not really related but the last number I heard was that 59 Senators have sent Obama a letter to forget the UN Gun Control Treaty if it attacks the 2nd amendment.
Like it or not this is now a DOJ / WH scandal. I honestly believe even Rep Cummings sees this.
IMO ATF is eating itself from the inside today. There is public discourse between HQ and field agents.
The consensus of opinion including 100% of the Republicans and over 50% of the Dems and Elijah Cummings was that William Newell was absolutely not answering the questions. When Newell stated that ATF didn't walk guns into Mexico Cummings ate him up. You could see the look on Cummings face when he determined the kind of civil servant William Newel is.
At this point, there are few if any defenders of ATF management and F&F on Capitol Hill. Politics may keep this out of the hands of a Special Prosecutor but with the budget situation of ATF may become a sacrificial lamb with agents moving to the FBI and management going away.
There are dems which are still pushing gun control and trying to use ATF positions to justify these legislative changes. In the second hearing it was the first time I heard an ATF agent not demand increased legislation to restrict ownership when asked. I can't remember which one but it wasn't Newel or the mgr to his right.
Like it or not all federal agencies in DC are totally politicized today but the ATF HQ is totally dedicated to the Brady Center and gun control. Now I believe this is not the case with the field agents. I believe that they are typical dedicated street level LEO's.
If you don't agree here, please provide PROOF. certainly the testimony given in the Committee on Oversight and Governmental Affairs supports my assessment.
Not really related but the last number I heard was that 59 Senators have sent Obama a letter to forget the UN Gun Control Treaty if it attacks the 2nd amendment.
Like it or not this is now a DOJ / WH scandal. I honestly believe even Rep Cummings sees this.
IMO ATF is eating itself from the inside today. There is public discourse between HQ and field agents.
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
This is what happens when I post before my coffee. I apply logical fallacies to cases that barely fit. The post wasn't even about being a public servant or not.
Logic is a fundamental tool of rational analysis. Many of the logical fallacies are an indication of a failure in the process used to reach a conclusion. It is difficult to go from good data to a good conclusion given a bad process.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked