I'm surprised it took this long

[sirs]

During a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing today on Capitol Hill, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, who is facing pressure surrounding his role in the Obama Justice Department’s Operation Fast and Furious, asked for more gun control and blamed law abiding gun shop owners for violence in Mexico.

Breuer declared that nearly 70 percent of guns found in Mexico come from the United States, a figure that has been disproven by the National Rifle Association, FactCheck.org, PolitiFact and by Senator Charles Grassley’s office multiple times.  Also during testimony, Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein pushed for more gun control and Breuer expressed his agreement with her statements that American gun laws are too “lax” and therefore result it more violent crime.

Feinstein asked Breuer if he thought a reporting measure for long gun rifles would be helpful to ATF. Breuer answered yes. Remember, the Department of Justice has already circumvented Congress by requiring the sale of multiple long gun rifles in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas be reported to the ATF. These new regulations were implemented in early July 2011:

The international expansion and increased violence of transnational criminal networks pose a significant threat to the United States.  Federal, state and foreign law enforcement agencies have determined that certain types of semi-automatic rifles – greater than .22 caliber and with the ability to accept a detachable magazine – are highly sought after by dangerous drug trafficking organizations and frequently recovered at violent crime scenes near the Southwest Border.  This new reporting measure -- tailored to focus only on multiple sales of these types of rifles to the same person within a five-day period -- will improve the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to detect and disrupt the illegal weapons trafficking networks responsible for diverting firearms from lawful commerce to criminals and criminal organizations.  These targeted information requests will occur in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas to help confront the problem of illegal gun trafficking into Mexico and along the Southwest Border.
“The problem is, anybody can walk in [to a gun shop] and buy anything,” Feinstein said.

This comment by Feinstein was particularly disappointing considering during Operation Fast and Furious law abiding gun shop owners expressed deep discomfort with selling massive amounts of high powered weapons to known drug cartel straw purchasers, yet ATF officials told them to do so anyway, saying they would be “serving their country” by helping ATF in the operation.

Breuer said the number one tool he needs is to know when guns are purchased, essentially what can be interpreted as a national reporting measure. What Breuer and Feinstein are missing is this: The Obama Justice Department in partnership with ATF is the largest American supplier of weapons to Mexican drug cartels through Operation Fast and Furious; not law abiding gun shops. See Obama DOJ Gave Cartel Enough Guns to Arm a Marine Regiment.

Also, Breuer tried to claim that when Operation Fast and Furious came to light publically in Spring 2011 through media reports, ATF officials “made it clear” they don’t condone walking guns. Not true, in fact William Newell, ATF Special Agent in Charge of the Phoenix Field Division at the time Operation Fast and Furious was implemented (he has since been promoted to a cushy position in Washington D.C.) and carried out, wouldn’t rule out the idea of conducting another program like Fast and Furious in the future when asked during Congressional testimony in July 2011.

As I wrote in July after a House Oversight Hearing about Fast and Furious:

Former ATF Special Agent in Charge William Newell would not condemn Operation Fast and Furious and allowing guns to walk into Mexico during testimony and questioning. In fact, Newell went so far as to say he was unaware of guns walking into Mexico, despite internal emails showing he did know. Newell admitted the agency made mistakes but would not admit the program was a bad idea and exposed that he was in communication with a member of the White House national security team. His testimony also conflicted with previous testimony given by Special Agent John Dodson of the Phoenix Field Division who said on June 15, “Allowing loads of weapons that we knew to be destined for criminals, this was the plan. It was so mandated.”

“At no time in our strategy was it to allow guns to be taken to Mexico,” Newell said, adding that at no time did his agency allow guns to walk.

“You’re entitled to your opinion, not your own facts,” Issa responded.

Yesterday Breuer came out publically to admit he had made a “mistake” by not telling Attorney General Eric Holder about gun walking that occurred under the Bush Administration through Operation Wide Receiver, saying essentially he should have sounded a warning about gun walking when it started to occur during Fast and Furious, but he remained silent. It is important to point out that under Wide Receiver, there was an effort to track 300 weapons in collaboration with the Mexican Government. Under Operation Fast and Furious, there was no effort to track 2,000 guns that were purposely walked in to Mexico and the Mexican Government was left in the dark about the operation. Today during testimony, Breuer said he, “Didn’t draw the connection,” between the tactics used in the two separate programs, which is hard to believe.

Breuer’s testimony and statements about “not making connections” between two separate but similar gunwalking programs and his claim he never told Attorney General Holder about his concerns or Fast and Furious at all, raise new questions.

Why is Breuer coming out with these revelations now? The House Oversight Committee Investigation into Fast and Furious has been going on for months, yet Breuer all the sudden regrets not sounding the alarm about the dangers of gunwalking when Operation Fast and Furious started in the Fall of 2009? While claiming he never told Attorney General Eric Holder about the program? Although Breuer claims he personally never told Holder about the tactics being used in Fast and Furious, five detailed memos about the lethal program dated July and August 2010 were addressed directly to Holder. Despite Breuer’s testimony, the question of “who authorized Fast and Furious,” remains unanswered.

 "The American people—and especially the family of murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry—deserve answers from the Justice Department about why they claim they didn’t know gunwalking was occurring in Operation Fast and Furious when the department’s fingerprints are all over it," Senator Grassley said during the hearing.

It looks like someone, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, is falling on a sword, and that sword happens to be Eric Holder’s.

[sirs]

and on a related 2nd amendment issue....leave it to the folks at MSNBC.  How dare people try to defend themselves
-----------------------------------------------------

MSNBC Host: Why Should People Have Guns When We Have Cops

As I always say, you can be a victim, or not, the choice is yours.

Yesterday, Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright of South Carolina told women during a news conference to obtain their concealed weapons permit in order to better protect themselves from rapists and criminals in the area.

The sheriff of Spartanburg County, S.C., turned a news conference about an attempted rape in his community into an extended rant Monday in which he slammed a criminal justice system preferred by "liberals" for failing to keep the repeat-offender suspect behind bars -- and implored the women in his community to pack heat for self-protection.

"I want you to get a concealed weapons permit," Sheriff Chuck Wright said at the Monday news conference, as reported by TV station WYFF. "Don't get Mace. Get a firearm."

The sheriff alleged that a 46-year-old man named Walter Lance abducted a woman while she was walking her dog Sunday afternoon and attempted to rape her.

Lance was arrested and charged with kidnapping, first-degree criminal sexual conduct and grand larceny, the Spartanburg Herald-Journal reported.

In the news conference, Wright said Lance had been convicted of 20 crimes dating back to 1983, including disorderly conduct, domestic violence, assault and battery with intent to kill, and resisting arrest, among others.

"Now if anybody sitting in this room had been charged with any of that stuff, they'd probably be finding a tall oak tree and a short rope for us," Wright said.

"I can tell you that our form of justice is not making it," he stated. "This fellow that has been charged numerous times for crimes against women and crime in society ... he's been in jail more times than I have, and I'm the dad-blame [guy] over the jail over there. And he seems to get out quicker than I can get out. And I am aggravated.

"I've had liberals call me and tell me, 'The chain gang is not going to work.' Well, let me inform you that your form of justice isn't working either."

Wright suggested that the women of Spartanburg carry their weapons in fanny packs. "You can conceal a small pistol in them," he said. "They got one called The Judge that shoots a .45 or a .410 shell. You ain't got to be accurate. You just have to get close."

This Sheriff should be applauded and is absolutely correct in his suggestions. Yes, law enforcement is an important piece of society however, ultimately it is up to the individual to protect themselves, in particular women because they are biologically weaker than men and easy targets for assault.

However, unsurprisingly MSNBC fill-in host Craig Melvin seems to be more worried about the fate of potential rapists, rather than the safety of women. During an interview with Sheriff Wright today, Melvin suggested law enforcement should be the only necessary protection for women and society against criminals. At the beginning of the interview, Melvin asked:

Sheriff, if law enforcement is charged with protecting the public, then, then, then why should that not be sufficient? Why should folks have to go out and get guns and arm themselves if we've got cops?

To which Wright responded:

We can't be everywhere, and we are a fool if we tell everybody that we can take care of all of our problems.

Later in the interview Melvin has the audacity to suggest a woman defending herself against rape is "implying guilt rather than innocence."

Melvin: If women are shooting potential attackers, aren't they presuming guilt before innocence? What if a woman kills an attacker? Isn't that opening another whole legal can of worms?

Sheriff Wright: Well, it's easy to fix that. Just don't attack a woman.... I know that this is controversial, but I do believe that people who believe in the Second Amendment and believe that they should arm themselves have a right to do so, as long as they're trained properly.

Melvin was also shocked to learn the Sheriff suggested women use a .45 calibur handgun to get the job done. What did he think the Sheriff was going to suggest? Spitballs? A rubber band gun?

Here is a reality check for Craig Melvin: The most violent cities in the country, Chicago, Detroit, New York City, all have extremely strict gun laws.

Being armed is a deterrent to criminals, plain and simple. If criminals know there is potential to get shot, they think twice about attacking you.

Women have every right to protect themselves against rape, murder or other violent crimes by carrying a concealed weapon and yes, if they are attacked, have the right (in most states anyway) to shoot their attacker in self-defense.

It is obvious Melvin has never done a single ounce of research about concealed carry. Women can't wait around to find out the intentions of an attacker; women who do that end up dead in a ditch somewhere. His implied sympathy for rapists and his idea that women shouldn't defend themselves because they might "kill their attacker," is pathetic.

As the saying goes: When seconds count, the cops are minutes away.

[sirs]

"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."

The rule:

“The international expansion and increased violence of transnational criminal networks pose a significant threat to the United States.  Federal, state and foreign law enforcement agencies have determined that certain types of semi-automatic rifles – greater than .22 caliber and with the ability to accept a detachable magazine – are highly sought after by dangerous drug trafficking organizations and frequently recovered at violent crime scenes near the Southwest Border.  This new reporting measure -- tailored to focus only on multiple sales of these types of rifles to the same person within a five-day period -- will improve the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to detect and disrupt the illegal weapons trafficking networks responsible for diverting firearms from lawful commerce to criminals and criminal organizations.  These targeted information requests will occur in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas to help confront the problem of illegal gun trafficking into Mexico and along the Southwest Border.”

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.

Meanwhile, Rep. Darrell Issa and Senator Charles Grassley continue their investigation of Operation Fast and Furious and have requested detailed communications records, including emails, memos, briefing papers and handwritten notes from and between senior DOJ officials in two letters sent to Attorney General Eric Holder yesterday. Records referring to large firearms trafficking within the Phoenix ATF office have also been requested. This information must be provided by July 18 at noon:

As our investigation into Operation Fast and Furious has progressed, we have learned that senior officals at the Department of Justice, including Senate-confirmed political appointees, were unquestionably aware of the implementation of this reckless program. Therefore, it is necessary to review commncations between and among these senior officials. As such, please provide all records relating to communications between and among the following individuals regarding Operation Fast and Furious:

1- David Ogden, Former Deputy Attorney General
2- Gary Grindler, Office of the Attorney General and Former Acting Deputy Attorney General
3- James Cole, Deputy Attorney General (editors note: Cole issued the new reporting rules for border state gun shops Monday)
4- Lanny Breuer, Assistant Attorney General
5- Kenneth Blanco, Deputy Assistant Attorney General
6- Jason Weinstein, Deputy Assistant Attorney General
7- John Keeney, Deputy Assistant Attorney General
8- Matt Axelrod, Associate Deputy Attorney General
9- Ed Siskel, Former Associate Deputy Attorney General
10- Brad Smith, Office of the Deputy Attorney General
11- Kevin Carwile, Section Chief, Capital Case Unit
12- Joseph Cooley, Criminal Fraud Section

Commentary

[sirs]

Democrats to Introduce Gun Control Legislation

Democrat Representatives Maloney, Cummings and McCarthy, all members of the Minority on the House Oversight Committee chaired by Republican Congressman Issa, plan to hold a press conference tomorrow to announce new gun control anti-gun trafficking legislation in light of Operation Fast and Furious. The "Stop Gun Trafficking and Strengthen Law Enforcement Act," is designed to "keep high powered firearms out of the hands of dangerous criminals, including Mexican drug cartels."

U.S. Representatives Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY), Elijah E. Cummings (D-MD), ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) will join other members and a leading law enforcement organization for an event Friday, July 15th, 11:00 a.m. at the House Triangle to introduce the “Stop Gun Trafficking and Strengthen Law Enforcement Act,” which establishes a dedicated firearms trafficking statute to empower law enforcement to keep high-powered firearms out of the hands of dangerous criminals, including Mexican drug cartels.

So let me get this straight, democrats want to punish law abiding Americans and impede on Second Amendment rights with new legislation "to prevent gun trafficking to Mexico," however, aren't willing to focus on the ATF and DOJ's role in deliberately putting high powered firearms into the hands of criminals including Mexican drug cartels? It doesn't matter how many gun control laws we have on the books if the federal government is willing to break them to push a political agenda, however, this is not surprising.

FLASHBACK:

“Allowing loads of weapons that we knew to be destined for criminals, this was the plan. It was so mandated.” –Special Agent John Dodson ATF Phoenix Field Division.

Damning new evidence from Capitol Hill shows that ATF Directors and Justice Department Officials knew about and encouraged the purposeful trafficking of thousands of weapons across the southern border, despite strong objections from ATF agents. Thousands of innocent lives were taken as the result, including those of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and ICE Agent Jamie Zapata.
The announcement of new legislation comes just a day after Townhall obtained emails showing Operation Fast and Furious was designed to promote gun control and four days after the DOJ Deputy Attorney General James Cole, who is under investigation for his involvement in the scandal, released new reporting requirements for multiple sales of certain semi-automatic rifles.

Interesting in how the scandal & the Government incopotence is being mutated into a need for more gun control.  Imagine that

[BSB]

Unless you're highly trained in the use of deadly force you shouldn't be allowed to carry a firearm period. Unless, of course, you're heading to the field looking for pheasants, deer, or Canadian Communists.

I'll amend that.  If you live within a population center that has more than one Canadian Communist per 10,000 people you can carry a firearm, but for offensive purposes only.


BSB

[sirs]

The 2nd amendment and the Supreme Court would disagree with the former

[Plane]

     The "Judge " series of pistols are intended for short range and short duration incidents of violence. Their inspiration was the violent incident in Atlanta when an accused felon attacked a baliff took his gun and shot his way out.

    The suggestion is that a judge should have one of these with him when he is on the bench, making himself much less vunerable to becoming a hostage.

     Now a judge on the bench has one or three armed baliffs in the room, but it is still a good idea for the judge himself to be armed in case the baliffs fail?

      How about the rest of the public? Last time I made an urgent call for police the first one to arrive was there in twenty minutes, not bad, better than I would realisticly expect to be a dependable responsie time.

     

http://www.taurususa.com/news-detail.cfm?newsID=38

Capable of chambering both 2.5 inch .410 shotgun shells and .45 Colt ammunition, this amazing 5-shot combo gun is ideal for short distances - where most altercations occur - or longer distances with the .45 LC ammunition.  The rifling has been finely tuned on this small frame revolver to spread the shot pattern at close quarters or to guide the bullet to the target.

All Taurus Judge models include a fiber optic front sight as well as Taurus' ergonomic Ribber Gripsâ.  Additionally, like all Taurus handguns, the unique Taurus Security System® allows users to securely lock the gun using an inconspicuous key-lock.

[sirs]

I can't count the stories I've heard of some mad gunmen, coming into some establishment, be it a diner, store, even a school, were a patron or a faculty member, either had a CCW and didn't have the weapon on them when the shooting started, because of the laws that prohibited them from having it in that partciular venue, or did legally have a CCW, but thought better to leave it locked in their vehicle or at home, and people fell dying or dead around them, as the gunmen's carnage took its 90 seconds needed to fatally shoot scores of folks, above and beyond those he merely wounded

Can you imagine the heartache that CCW owner would then have to carry with them, knowing what they could have prevented.  And I can't even emagine the absolute teror a woman would have, not being able to defend themselves with lethal force if necessary, when confronted with a rapist

Apparently some people can, and simply dismiss it..........for the greater good?

[BSB]

Well, the 2nd Amendment was written around what, 600 B.C.? They didn't have 6 shot revolvers that fired factory .44 magnum rounds back then. As for the Supreme Court, things change.

I do think any women who works around Herman Cain, the pervert, should be able to pack iron though.

BSB

[BSB]

Sirs >>I can't count the number of stories I've heard of some mad gunmen.........<<

Come on, you act like it's an everyday experience. That's the NRA's line. I've been around a lot longer than you and it's a rare occurrence where some nut-job commits a multiplicity of homicides at one location in the way you're talking about. Very rare. And further, that's the price you're going to have to be willing to pay in a society that allows gun sales to the untrained public.

Respect for a firearm, the judgement needed to know when to show it, when to use it, how to use it (do you have a shot, don't have a shot, type of shot, head shot, body shot, and so forth), etc., etc., only comes with a lot of training and a lot of experience.


BSB

[sirs]

Well, the 2nd Amendment was written around what, 600 B.C.? They didn't have 6 shot revolvers that fired factory .44 magnum rounds back then. As for the Supreme Court, things change.

Well, considering that the founders put in place, back in 600BC the method of amending the Constitution, in the current time frame of here and now, and the current here and now Supreme Court has also ruled that our our relic of a parchment indeed applies to the here and now. .44 magnums included, I'd say you're shooting blanks

[sirs]

Sirs >>I can't count the number of stories I've heard of some mad gunmen.........<<

Come on, you act like it's an everyday experience.

Never said that, or implied such.  Nor have I made it as if this only occurs in multiple murders.  A lone street, 3 thugs, 1 woman.  The FACT remains it has happened many a time, and the points you're trying to minimize, remain

Respect is absolutely paramount, and never have I said the contrary.  Training yes.  Experience....? I for one pray no one has to be put in such a situation.  But if they are, that's when the training and respect, take over

[BSB]

Sirs >>Training yes. Experience...?<<

Why do you think they call Seal Team Six the "old mans club"? It takes age to gain experience necessary. Now obviously the average American, no matter how well trained he might be, will never be able to match those guys in terms of experience, but you get my point. You have to have some experience in order to have something to analyze and improve on.

Why do you think these people you referred to, with the correct license and weapon, got caught in these situations without their firearm? Because they're not so sure they ever want to actually use it. Taking a life isn't an easy thing to do regardless of the justification for it. Most people don't want to have a thing to do with it. You have to be able to control your emotions, act in accordance with events as they're unfolding, know when to hold back, when to get aggressive, etc., etc. How many cops, as well trained as they should have been, pulled the trigger when they shouldn't have? More than you want to think about.

Look, Sirs, I understand your points. I'm a life time member of the NRA because I don't want anyone telling me I can't own a gun if I want to. And I've owned lots of them. But I understand the problems that can arise from having a large percentage of the population feeling as I do, but lacking in the training and experience I have had. Before you carry a weapon for the reason of possibly using it to exert deadly force, you should do some serious thinking about it. Very serious thinking. And I highly doubt that many, if not most, gun owners do that. Know why? They don't have enough experience to ask themselves the right questions.

Oh, one more thing. Am I being a bit of a hypocrite on this saying it's ok for me to carry, but not others? Maybe, but that doesn't make me wrong.

BSB

[sirs]

You see, we're not too far apart on this, in that we both demand respect in oning and handing a firearm, we both expect training in the use of a firearm, and we both grasp the lethal consequences that can be associated with one. 

That said, we're not seal team six.  We're not training to take out usama and expect to be shot at.  We're not training to take out Somali pirates on the stern of a moving naval vessel.  This is merely pro-active self defense, with what the constitution also supports, that of the right to bear arms. 

Now, the 2nd amendent wasn't so vague as to be a general self defense use, nor was it put in for hunters to feed their families.  It was specific to helping prevent a Government from getting too oppressive.  I don't need to re-address the cooking a frog analogy, as that can be for another time & thread.  Point being, we have that right to own a firearm.  It's in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has ruled on it, just as it has RvW.  So, until someone is stupid enough to demonstrate that they have no business handling a firearm, much less owning one, they have just as much a right in owning a firearm, as you and I do in screaming to high heaven how horrible our Government is, or Bush is, or Obama is, without fear of Government reprisal or consequence. 

Simple as that

[BSB]

Well, I'm not satisfied with my current position, which I just articulated, nor am I satisfied with my old position, which was basically the same as yours. But the problem is as soon as you move in almost any direction you're going too far.

BSB