fast and furious

[cherdano]

I think the principle is not to rely on principles when having to deal with a douchebag (Issa).

[luke warm]

Principles are totally irrelevant.

they usually are

[cherdano]

I wonder when lukewarm's sources will start pointing him to this side of the story. Oh, can't trust those liberal hacks at Fortune Magazine, understand.

[PassedOut]

I wonder when lukewarm's sources will start pointing him to this side of the story. Oh, can't trust those liberal hacks at Fortune Magazine, understand.

Thanks for the link. That report gives a lot of perspective I hadn't seen elsewhere. Looks like real life mirrors "The Wire" in many respects.

[luke warm]

the facts of the operation are pretty well known... some of the things in that article clearly show why documents were subpoenaed... i'd think everyone would like to know why the DOJ would approve an operation, execute the operation, then refuse to prosecute the operation... what was its purpose? it couldn't have been to track automatic weapons, there were no means in place to track them... it couldn't have been to arrest those who purchased/sold the weapons, no laws were broken

[hrothgar]

maybe so, but i think they just want to know who wrote the original feb 2011 letter (that was retracted in dec 2011) and what the reason was behind the program... regarding any potential future legislation, i also doubt that's a part of it...

 

Kind of surprised that you haven't followed up on this topic, what with the report being out and all...

 

Here's one the key finding in case you need to remind yourself

 

Attorney General Eric Holder "did not learn about Operation Fast and Furious until late January or early February 2011 and was not aware of allegations of 'gun walking' in the investigation until February." Though Justice Department divisions send weekly reports to the attorney general's office, "We determined that these reports did not refer to agents' failure to interdict firearms or include information that otherwise provided notice of the improper strategy and tactics that ATF agents were using in the investigation."

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/19/us/fast-furious-highlights/index.html

[luke warm]

just waiting to see if anyone is prosecuted for breaking the law

[andrei]

“I think it’s important for us to understand that the Fast and Furious program was a field-initiated program begun under the previous administration. When Eric Holder found out about it, he discontinued it. We assigned a inspector general to do a thorough report that was just issued, confirming that in fact Eric Holder did not know about this, that he took prompt action and the people who did initiate this were held accountable.”

— President Obama during Univision interview, Sept. 20, 2012

[beatrix45]

:D Watch every episode of 'Weeds', and you will be wiser about this issue.

[luke warm]

“I think it’s important for us to understand that the Fast and Furious program was a field-initiated program begun under the previous administration. When Eric Holder found out about it, he discontinued it. We assigned a inspector general to do a thorough report that was just issued, confirming that in fact Eric Holder did not know about this, that he took prompt action and the people who did initiate this were held accountable.”

— President Obama during Univision interview, Sept. 20, 2012

the only trouble with this is, it's largely untrue... wide receiver was in place from '06 - '07/'08 or thereabouts... from wiki "After President Barack Obama took office in 2009, the DOJ reviewed Wide Receiver and found that guns had been allowed into the hands of suspected gun traffickers."

 

so they disliked wide receiver so much they decided to upgrade it with f & f

[Cthulhu D]

the only trouble with this is, it's largely untrue... wide receiver was in place from '06 - '07/'08 or thereabouts... from wiki "After President Barack Obama took office in 2009, the DOJ reviewed Wide Receiver and found that guns had been allowed into the hands of suspected gun traffickers."

 

so they disliked wide receiver so much they decided to upgrade it with f & f

 

It's pretty clear from the fortune magazine report is that it was impossible to stop the gun runners because nothing they did was demonstrably illegal due to a lack of monitoring systems - why arn't gun sales tracked? - and permissive purchase and resale laws. Why isn't there even a law against arms tracking? What the hell?

[mike777]

It's pretty clear from the fortune magazine report is that it was impossible to stop the gun runners because nothing they did was demonstrably illegal due to a lack of monitoring systems - why arn't gun sales tracked? - and permissive purchase and resale laws. Why isn't there even a law against arms tracking? What the hell?

 

 

why are gun sales tracked

 

 

 

 

 

think about it.

 

You guys seem to miss the entire point or maybe not.

 

This reminds me of why so many ask why people need huge/super guns to shoot Bambi.

 

I mean really you dont know?

 

 

So many that lived in Asia or Europe in our families lifetimes.

--

 

 

 

I think you miss the point when you say the French dont own guns.

 

--

 

 

yes this is choice America has made when we see Camps in Europe, mass killing in Mexico, mass killing in Africa, and indifference in Asia and most of Europe shrugs and says more money for govt health care.

[luke warm]

It's pretty clear from the fortune magazine report is that it was impossible to stop the gun runners because nothing they did was demonstrably illegal due to a lack of monitoring systems - why arn't gun sales tracked? - and permissive purchase and resale laws. Why isn't there even a law against arms tracking? What the hell?

my understanding is, there were monitoring systems in place for the precursors to f&f, just not for f&f itself... as for why gun sales aren't tracked, i'm thinking you know why - or at least why the founders thought it a good idea for the citizenry to be armed... see, their experience (and ours, even now) showed that a nation's people have more to fear from their own gov't than any other entity

 

it all boils down to whether or not a person, or group of people, feel liberty is something to fight (and die) for

[dwar0123]

my understanding is, there were monitoring systems in place for the precursors to f&f, just not for f&f itself... as for why gun sales aren't tracked, i'm thinking you know why - or at least why the founders thought it a good idea for the citizenry to be armed... see, their experience (and ours, even now) showed that a nation's people have more to fear from their own gov't than any other entity

I find the notion that we are armed as a means to defend ourselves against a tyranny of our own government profoundly flawed on both ends.

 

On one end, if the US military actually wanted to suppress us, they would have very little difficulty doing so.

 

On the other end, there is no way the US military would actually suppress us, they are a still a citizen army.

 

I can actually come up with scenarios were your 'fear' makes sense, but it isn't easy.

 

You would have to start with something that would at least partially legitimize a permanent declaration of martial law and the subsequent suspension of elections.

 

Scenarios that I can think of would involve almost the complete collapse of society, such as an outbreak that wipes out 40% or more of the population, wide spread nuclear strikes, the Yellowstone super volcano going up in a big way or a near extinction level meteor strike.

 

Of course, to many gun carrying, 2nd amendment fanatics, this is probably something they fantasize about.

 

A tyranny is all but certain and arguable necessary in such a situation, I would rather the tyrant could trace some legitimacy to our democratic origins rather then leave it to the most successful warlord. An outcome that would be more likely with a relatively unarmed general population.

[Zelandakh]

my understanding is, there were monitoring systems in place for the precursors to f&f, just not for f&f itself... as for why gun sales aren't tracked, i'm thinking you know why - or at least why the founders thought it a good idea for the citizenry to be armed... see, their experience (and ours, even now) showed that a nation's people have more to fear from their own gov't than any other entity

 

it all boils down to whether or not a person, or group of people, feel liberty is something to fight (and die) for

Given

The Founding Fathers were vehemently against a standing army, and set up things in the Constitution so as (they hoped) to prevent such a thing. They failed. Do we need a standing army, or not? If so, how big does it really need to be?

I reckon I could think of a reason or two why the FFs might have felt gun ownership was a good idea. Things have moved on a little since then.

 

Or, put another way, if I am standing in a field with a government civil servant, a soldier from my country's military, a random American gun owner and a suicide bomber, I promise you I will not feel I have the most to fear from the beaurocrat. Nor the soldier for that matter.

 

As for liberty, whose precisely? Should a parent have the liberty to feel reasonably safe in letting their child play at their best friend's house without having to worry about whether there is a lethal weapon somewhere in the vicinity? If a child was meant to sleep over but comes home in the middle of the night for some reason should they have the liberty to do this without worrying that they will be mistaken as a burglar and shot? Liberty is often a complex issue. A classic example of that is abortion. It is interesting as a non-American to observe that on many issues where liberty/freedom/choice can be taken in more than one way, Republicans are often only able to see one side and think this is 100% clear. This provides a clear message that often resonates with voters but I suspect is highly detrimental to the political debate as a whole.

[luke warm]

A classic example of that is abortion. It is interesting as a non-American to observe that on many issues where liberty/freedom/choice can be taken in more than one way, Republicans are often only able to see one side and think this is 100% clear. This provides a clear message that often resonates with voters but I suspect is highly detrimental to the political debate as a whole.

unlike, for example, democrats? as for abortion (or most other social issues), i personally think the tea party would be virtually unbeatable if it changed the narrative from nationalizing such things to making them more states' issues

 

"what's your stand on gay marriage?" - well, i believe that's an issue best left to each state and its citizens to decide... i can tell you my personal belief but, whatever it is, i don't believe it's the job of the central gov't to mandate individual beliefs

 

"what's your stand on abortion?" - well, i believe that's an issue best left to each state and its citizens to decide... i can tell you my personal belief but, whatever it is, i don't believe it's the job of the central gov't to mandate individual beliefs

 

etc etc

[mike777]

It is interesting that many nonAmericans seem to be in favor of something close to a ban on private gun ownership compared to how it is in America.

 

This seems to be very strong in greater Europe, the one place that has suffered from real tyranny in our families' lifetime.

A place that had operating concentration camps during the 1990's.

A place where half of Europe was behind an Iron Curtain and I walked through Checkpoint Charlie.

 

Where even today in such places in Eastern Europe, see Moscow, one sees Putin and thinks tyranny. Where even today in places such as the Balkins, American boys are on the ground guarding against tyranny.

 

Other countries are shocked that yes we send our kids to neighbor's houses to ply and they own private firearms.

 

"Should a parent have the liberty to feel reasonably safe in letting their child play at their best friend's house without having to worry about whether there is a lethal weapon somewhere in the vicinity"

[dwar0123]

It is interesting that many nonAmericans seem to be in favor of something close to a ban on private gun ownership compared to how it is in America.

 

This seems to be very strong in greater Europe, the one place that has suffered from real tyranny in our families' lifetime.

A place that had operating concentration camps during the 1990's.

A place where half of Europe was behind an Iron Curtain and I walked through Checkpoint Charlie.

Those are all terrible things, but I don't think many accept the notion that liberal gun ownership would have changed any of them.

[mike777]

I accept that you dont accept that and per your post many others dont.

 

Given what happened whn the strongest miltary force in the world went to Iraq and Afganistan I wonder if the myth of an unbeatable home army stopping untrained home grown civilians still holds. I mean at some point many may change sides.

 

In any event the attitude of many Europeans does surprise me given your recent history of govt tyranny.

 

"We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

 

Churchhill.

[dwar0123]

Given what happened whn the strongest miltary force in the world went to Iraq and Afganistan I wonder if the myth of an unbeatable home army stopping untrained home grown civilians still holds. I mean at some point many may change sides.

I am not sure how to read that.

 

Are you suggesting that we are the tyrannical force successfully oppressing the unarmed Iraq's and Afghan's.

 

My response. They are hardly unarmed.

 

Are you suggesting that we are the tyrannical force successfully oppressing the heavily armed Iraq's and Afghan's?

 

My response. What good did the weapons do them?

 

Are you suggesting that we are the tyrannical force unsuccessfully oppressing the unarmed Iraq's and Afghan's?

 

My response. They are hardly unarmed.

 

Are you suggesting that we are the tyrannical force unsuccessfully oppressing the heavily armed Iraq's and Afghan's?

 

My response. Their level of armament prior to the outbreak of conflict was immaterial as in both cases they are acquiring arms at a substantial rate from outside sources.

 

Regardless, I don't think your premise is at all bolstered by this example, in fact I think it is substantially damaged. A truly determined and oppressed population doesn't need to be armed prior to conflict to overthrow their tyrant's. I give you the Arab spring in general as an example. Given it is a real world example I feel confident in stating that is how it would really go. Plenty of examples of the military backing the civilian populations and in the cases where it hasn't the relative armament of the oppressed was only a temporary impediment.

 

<insert awesome inspiring quote that has little to do with the topic and does nothing to aid my point>

[mike777]

"Regardless, I don't think your premise is at all bolstered by this example, in fact I think it is substantially damaged"

 

Very interesting that we look at the same facts and draw such different conclusions.

 

Looking at Northern Africa and Syria, IRaq, afghanstan, eastern europe and the balkins you see less need of liberal gun laws to fight Govt. tyranny.

[dwar0123]

"Regardless, I don't think your premise is at all bolstered by this example, in fact I think it is substantially damaged"

 

Very interesting that we look at the same facts and draw such different conclusions.

 

Looking at Northern Africa and Syria, IRaq, afghanstan, eastern europe and the balkins you see less need of liberal gun laws to fight Govt. tyranny.

Given the modern world with its global trade and fast transportation, I think the gun laws are mostly immaterial with respect to fighting govt. tyranny. This is one of many realities that is fundamentally alien to the founding fathers and thus not considered when crafting the constitution. In addition to the massive incease in the lethality of modern weapons.

[Cthulhu D]

Given the modern world with its global trade and fast transportation, I think the gun laws are mostly immaterial with respect to fighting govt. tyranny. This is one of many realities that is fundamentally alien to the founding fathers and thus not considered when crafting the constitution. In addition to the massive incease in the lethality of modern weapons.

 

Of course, the lesson from Syria, Iraq, Bosnia etc is that high explosives and shoulder launched anti tank and anti aircraft missles are critical for effective insurgencies. Tanks and Helicopters are key parts of the infrastructure of oppression and they cannot be dealt with with a hunting rifle, and high explosives - particularly mortars, but also mines, plastic explosives and artillery shells - are critical for fighting asymetric warfare and conducting bombing campaigns.

 

Missiles and explosives are much more important than guns and much harder to acquire - because they are so tightly controlled. For example, the Syrian resistance is currently desperately trying to acquire missles on the open market. Anyone who seriously believes that the purpose of gun ownership is to enable the populace to resist government oppression should be advocating for the purchase of shoulder launched missles and plastic explosives for the general populace.

 

But no-one is going to seriously argue for that because it's stupid. Once you understand that there is a trade-off to be made, it's obvious that the public health benefits outweigh the intangible FIGHT THE POWER stuff which is ridiculous.