Fast and Furious "gun-walking" operation

[Dacien]

"Fast and Furious" was a so-called "gun-walking" operation conducted by the United States Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. They instructed gun dealers in border states to sell guns to suspected drug cartel associates. Their plan was, purportedly, to trace the guns to higher-ups in the cartels, so they could catch the "big fish".

Problem was, it was a massive failure. One border patrol agent was even killed by a gun purportedly purchased by a drug cartel buyer, under the supervision and authorization of the ATF. Thousands of guns that cannot be recovered are in the hands of the drug cartels, and no "big fish" were ever caught. Now CBS has obtained documents that show the ATF conducted this operation to make a case for new gun regulations.

This has been in the news for a while, but these new documents are really damning. What do you all think?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_16...n-regulations/

[Maharishi]

While I understand that tagging the little fish to find the big fish is a legitimate strategy, allowing 2500 assault weapons onto the streets is mind boggling inept. Depending on what surfaces, I wouldn't be against charges of negligent homocide against the leadership of the ATF. But, of course, the US government is immune to all prosecution of wrong doing.

[Dacien]

I really think these new documents really take this to a new level. Some conservatives have been making up-to-now "conspiracy theories" that this whole program was run in order to put tighter restrictions on guns. Turns out it might have some truth to it.

[Maharishi]

I'll also be interested to see how much crap Holder gets in. He point blank lied to congress about some very important stuff. I don't think "lying is a state of mind" equivocations are going to work to cover his ass. And by extension, what knowledge and involvement did Obama have.

[Deleted]

Somewhat reminds me of how FBI is trying to catch terrorists. First they target them and inspire them to become a terrorist, providing the tools but always keeping a track on them, and then as they're about to do it the FBI captures them. I.E. entrapment (altough patriot act allows them do so).


The situation can easily get out of hand when you play these games.

[Maharishi]

Somewhat reminds me of how FBI is trying to catch terrorists. First they target them and inspire them to become a terrorist, providing the tools but always keeping a track on them, and then as they're about to do it the FBI captures them. I.E. entrapment (altough patriot act allows them do so).


The situation can easily get out of hand when you play these games.

Or undercover cops posing a hookers approaching "johns." As much as I dislike slippery slop fallacies, this is a situation where I have a hard time saying "the line should be here."

[vaeevictiss]

I really think these new documents really take this to a new level. Some conservatives have been making up-to-now "conspiracy theories" that this whole program was run in order to put tighter restrictions on guns. Turns out it might have some truth to it.

wow, news flash! people on these forums think im crazy every time i say "don't trust the government". Its not conspiracy if it is fact. This particular incident just goes to show how far they are willing to go. Initially, one of the key reasons for this was to show that we need stricter legislation on firearms because they wanted to prove they were going over the border and being used in murders. Sure enough they were, but it was the very agency created to infringe on the 2nd amendment that caused it.

Its pretty sick that the BATFE knew exactly what would happen; innocent people would be murdered, and they still let it happen...and they make me wait 6 months to get a suppressor and short barrel on my AR15. How bout we control what they get...lousy friggin jack boot thugs.

[Davisdoesdallas]

I really think these new documents really take this to a new level. Some conservatives have been making up-to-now "conspiracy theories" that this whole program was run in order to put tighter restrictions on guns. Turns out it might have some truth to it.

Whether or not it's true that they allowed something so negligble it is obvious that the gun violence began to spike in Mexico AFTER the assault rifle ban ended. This isn't the only cause but truly to think you have more of a right to a rifle than a person has to their life is laughable.

And if you want to talk about the constitution you have to admit FACT that the founding fathers never imagined rifles you could fire repeatedly let alone hold the trigger once and fire 30 shots. The leading technology was a kentucky longrifle which had the amazing new technology of rifling.

[Maharishi]

Whether or not it's true that they allowed something so negligble it is obvious that the gun violence began to spike in Mexico AFTER the assault rifle ban ended. This isn't the only cause but truly to think you have more of a right to a rifle than a person has to their life is laughable.

Correlation =/= causation

Also implying that the only options are "get an assault rifle and shoot someone" or "guns are banned" is pretty fallacious.

[Maruka]

They probably never hired on vin diesel, just like 2 fast 2 furious. no wonder they both failed.

[Davisdoesdallas]

Correlation =/= causation

Also implying that the only options are "get an assault rifle and shoot someone" or "guns are banned" is pretty fallacious.

I'm not saying ban assualt rifles... I'm saying have legislation in place that makes the gun sellers report if someone is buying more one 3. I'm sorry but you don't need more than one rifle to go hunting and if you do, you don't need to buy all of them at the same time. They never said they wanted to replace the assualt rifle ban. They want the gun sellers to own some responsibility.

but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

Where does it say they want to ban assault rifles?

[Dacien]

And if you want to talk about the constitution you have to admit FACT that the founding fathers never imagined rifles you could fire repeatedly let alone hold the trigger once and fire 30 shots. The leading technology was a kentucky longrifle which had the amazing new technology of rifling.

Well the common rebuttal to this is that the Constitution is a living document, that the Founding Fathers knew that they could not possibly plan for every circumstance or situation, so they provided methods for it to be modified as society changed and grew.

[Davisdoesdallas]

Well the common rebuttal to this is that the Constitution is a living document, that the Founding Fathers knew that they could not possibly plan for every circumstance or situation, so they provided methods for it to be modified as society changed and grew.

and my rebuttal would be that since this law was enacted in 1779, there has been no change to it aside from minor regulations. While it's true they expected the document to evolve, it is patently obviously that there has been no change and the charge that the goverment is taking away its citizens guns is ludicrous. Not allowing felons a gun or making someone wait a few days for a background check is in no ways inhibiting people from purchasing a gun legally. Yes the process isn't stream lined but name something in our society that is.

I live in Chicago and I would agree a handgun ban like Chicago had was infringement of the 2nd amendment. But not allowing a person to bring a gun into a church or a resturant truly is a responsible thing. Telling a person they must leave their guns at home is not banning or taking away guns so painting anti- C&C laws as the goverment taking their firearms is once again, patently false.


TLDR: Regulation =/= ban(or the goverment stealing your guns)

[vaeevictiss]

lol...go look up what that assault ban really was and how it really did nothing. All the assault ban did was ban "cosmetic features" of the weapon making it look like the media created term...assault weapon. There is no such thing as an assault weapon.

On the cosmetic thing. You can take a nice chinese SKS in its factory wood stock. It is a nice historic and collectable weapon. No one would ever thing otherwise. But put an aftermarket adjustable stock and a 25/30 round magazine...it is not considered an "assault weapon" and now banned under that bill. The whole thing was laughable and accomplished nothing.

Fully automatics were already made a controlled NFA item back in the 30's, it wasnt until 1968 they created the atf form 4 process to acquire one after paying the $200 dollar tax stamp fee and having an intensive background check. In 1986 a bill was passed that made it illegal to own or manufacture an automatic weapon made after 1986, UNLESS you are an class 3 FFL with an SOT to create such a weapon. Even if you were you cannot sell it to civilians. They can only be made for shop use, or sold to military/law enforcement. By the time the "assault weapon" ban rolled out. It covered nothing that had not already been covered. All it did was make it a little harder to get high capacity magazines. You were only allowed to purchase ones made b4 the ban was created.

Bring up the founding fathers and the constitution on this is pointless. It doesn't matter what they assumed would be created in the future. The founding fathers and the constitution simply point out rights we already have as human beings, and put them in writing on the constitution so they would be known and protected. The idea that so many people have that the founding fathers or the constitution gives us rights is ridiculous. The Bill of Rights is what lists these rights we as human beings have. The remainder of the constitution lists out powers granted to the government, by the people. By granted, it means they can be taken away...by the people.

If you want to go further back (depending on your religion) in the bible, in the book of Luke at 22:36: Jesus said... "...and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." So what now, sure when jesus said that he had no idea there would be an amazing technological advancement creating the....flintlock rifle. He simply knew that at the time, the sword was the best weapon you can have, because often times, your enemy also has one. The weapon simply equalizes the fight, it brings those doing harm to your level.

Please try to make your point without invoking an argument from religion. People will take issue with that instead of the point you're trying to make. - Dacien

[Davisdoesdallas]

lol...go look up what that assault ban really was and how it really did nothing. All the assault ban did was ban "cosmetic features" of the weapon making it look like the media created term...assault weapon. There is no such thing as an assault weapon.

On the cosmetic thing. You can take a nice chinese SKS in its factory wood stock. It is a nice historic and collectable weapon. No one would ever thing otherwise. But put an aftermarket adjustable stock and a 25/30 round magazine...it is not considered an "assault weapon" and now banned under that bill. The whole thing was laughable and accomplished nothing.

Fully automatics were already made a controlled NFA item back in the 30's, it wasnt until 1968 they created the atf form 4 process to acquire one after paying the $200 dollar tax stamp fee and having an intensive background check. In 1986 a bill was passed that made it illegal to own or manufacture an automatic weapon made after 1986, UNLESS you are an class 3 FFL with an SOT to create such a weapon. Even if you were you cannot sell it to civilians. They can only be made for shop use, or sold to military/law enforcement. By the time the "assault weapon" ban rolled out. It covered nothing that had not already been covered. All it did was make it a little harder to get high capacity magazines. You were only allowed to purchase ones made b4 the ban was created.

Bring up the founding fathers and the constitution on this is pointless. It doesn't matter what they assumed would be created in the future. The founding fathers and the constitution simply point out rights we already have as human beings, and put them in writing on the constitution so they would be known and protected. The idea that so many people have that the founding fathers or the constitution gives us rights is ridiculous. The Bill of Rights is what lists these rights we as human beings have. The remainder of the constitution lists out powers granted to the government, by the people. By granted, it means they can be taken away...by the people.

If you want to go further back (depending on your religion) in the bible, in the book of Luke at 22:36: Jesus said... "...and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." So what now, sure when jesus said that he had no idea there would be an amazing technological advancement creating the....flintlock rifle. He simply knew that at the time, the sword was the best weapon you can have, because often times, your enemy also has one. The weapon simply equalizes the fight, it brings those doing harm to your level.

So explain to me who your enemy is and why you need an SKS with a 30rnd mag on it. Your entire arguement is that you have an invisible enemy that will do harm to you if you don't have the ability to do harm to them.


With your logic we aren't the occupiers in Iraq or Afghanistan, we are only protecting ourselves from people who want to hurt us.


Also, we moved past the ban and were talking of regulations. Do you think gun regulations are bad? Because no where does that article say anything of a ban. I never said we should go back to the time of the assualt rifle ban either. I only said that after it expired in 2004 there has been a dramatic rise in gun violence and indications are the violence is being fueled by American sold guns. Correlation =/= causation and I acknowledge that but I ask, how do you dispute the independently verified accounts of American sold rifles being used for murder in Mexico?

Chapter 20 of the war on drugs being a failure.

Legalize, educate, and viola. Less crime, more tax money.

While I agree with that and about 50% of the country now agrees with that in relation to weed, that isn't the thread. The thread is the role of the goverment in relation to firearms.

[melodramocracy]

Chapter 20 of the war on drugs being a failure.

Legalize, educate, and viola. Less crime, more tax money.

[vaeevictiss]

But not allowing a person to bring a gun into a church or a resturant truly is a responsible thing. Telling a person they must leave their guns at home is not banning or taking away guns so painting anti- C&C laws as the goverment taking their firearms is once again, patently false.

Restaurant - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre
church - http://www.usmayors.org/usmayornewsp...washington.htm

What about those people? oh yea, this type of stuff never happens... While it may not be banning or taking away their guns if they say they have to leave them at home, it preventing those from protecting themselves. They paid with their lives...all because of an illegal law. Why should that person only feel safe at home? I don't see a reason to prevent people from concealed carry anywhere. If they are a law abiding citizen you will never know they have one. You would probably be surprised how many people are carrying around you everyday wherever you go. But when that shit does hit the fan and someone comes in a church or restaurant shooting people, you will be very happy if someone or multiple someones are armed and can respond to the threat instead of cowering and dying on your knees.

Luckily i live in VA, i carry nearly everywhere i go. I almost always have a gun on my hip and another in the center console. Now granted, you don't go looking out for a fight, and if you assume that something bad will happen in a certain area you try to avoid it. But there are times when you cannot. Whether it is a church, restaurant, mall, grocery store, gas station, day care, hospitals...deadly shootings have happened at all these places. Do you want to be the one there thinking "fuck, i wish i didn't have to leave my gun at home" as you watch other people being murdered when you could have prevented it or stopped it from escalations.

Most recently the VA tech shooting yesterday even. I was reading all sorts of feeds and i saw one Twitter post that made me /facepalm..."this is horrible, when will people learn you cant bring guns on campus". Wow...im glad they live in a world where they assume EVERYONE follows the laws and more importantly, morals.

[Davisdoesdallas]

Wait... virgina.. where that guy just killed multiple people yesterday. Now give me evidence that ANYONE pulled out and gun and shot this guy besides the cops. Then your arguement will actually have validity.


Oh wait no one did. I'm sorry but no matter how much time you put into this I don't see the reason to carry a firearm. If someone has a gun and is wasting people suck it, be a man and know you're going to die a hero instead of walking around with a gun where your pecker should be.

[vaeevictiss]

Originally Posted by Davisdoesdallas
So explain to me who your enemy is and why you need an SKS with a 30rnd mag on it.

While i don't have this weapon anymore, i do have several others, about 20 total. I keep them locked in a safe...why do i have them...they are fun. Why else? You probably wouldn't believe that none of those firearms have been used to murder anyone or cause a crime. Yea its crazy because that's what the media says.


Originally Posted by Davisdoesdallas
I only said that after it expired in 2004 there has been a dramatic rise in gun violence and indications are the violence is being fueled by American sold guns.

This isn't even true, there was no skyrocket of violence like the media wants you to believe...there is no reason to. Also, while the ban was active, there was no decrease in gun violence either. Like i said the assault weapon ban didn't really ban any weapons. If we didn't have that ban nothing would have been any different today.

Originally Posted by Davisdoesdallas
While I agree with that and about 50% of the country now agrees with that in relation to weed, that isn't the thread. The thread is the role of the goverment in relation to firearms.

Padding your numbers wont prove your point, you would be very surprised at how many people are opening their eyes and realizing this gun control thing is bullshit. Here's a novel idea, how about prosecuting the people and putting them away for longer...not putting more restrictions on firearms ownership. There is more and more restrictions and gun violence isn't stopping. So obviously something isn't working. Fix the problem where it exists...with the criminal pulling the trigger.

If this F&F isn't a blatant example that the govt IS the one causing this...then i don't think anyone can help you.

Oh wait no one did. I'm sorry but no matter how much time you put into this I don't see the reason to carry a firearm. If someone has a gun and is wasting people suck it, be a man and know you're going to die a hero instead of walking around with a gun where your pecker should be.

lol, way to take life by the horns there and appreciate that heart beating in your chest. Die like a hero, you think that is dying like a hero? how do people like you still exist?


and he killed one person then himself...not multiple.

[Deleted]

Wait... virgina.. where that guy just killed multiple people yesterday. Now give me evidence that ANYONE pulled out and gun and shot this guy besides the cops. Then your arguement will actually have validity.

Virginia Tech is a gun free zone, you're not allowed to carry a consealed weapon there.

And if you want to talk about the constitution you have to admit FACT that the founding fathers never imagined rifles you could fire repeatedly let alone hold the trigger once and fire 30 shots.

I don't think it would've required much imagination of the founding fathers to understand that in the future rifles would probably be able to fire faster and longer. So I think this argument is pretty silly when it comes to assault rifles.