Don't forget Obama on guns

  • Follow Letters

President Obama’s 2008 promise of transparency in his administration has worked out about like everything else he promised. Investigation into his “Fast and Furious” gun-running operation is now being stymied by his attorney general’s stonewalling; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms’ intimidation of whistle blowers; and his own claim of executive privilege. All are obviously intended to delay embarrassing disclosures until after the November election.

As with everything else that has gone wrong, the Obama administration claims it all started with President George W. Bush. The ATF under Bush did attempt a similar operation but quickly abandoned it without losing any significant number of weapons when tracking and recovery proved infeasible.

So why did the Obama administration resurrect the operation without even the vestige of a plan or capability to track or recover several thousand semi-automatic weapons they let walk into Mexico? When ATF field agents found this unbelievable, they questioned higher authority and were told to “let the weapons walk.”

Now, it is transparently obvious that the Obama administration’s intent was to give truth to its lie that the United States is the main source of Mexican drug cartel weaponry. This would justify new U.S. gun control measures that have thus far failed to garner support. Obama was likely alluding to this when he assured Sarah Brady that he was still working on gun control but “under the radar.”

As we now know, his plan went awry when the serial-numbered weapons showed up not by being shipped back to the United States by Mexican authorities for verification of origin, but at many violent crime scenes in Mexico and at least 11 in the United States. And among the hundreds of bodies found at these crime scenes were those of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in Arizona and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Jamie Zapata in Mexico.

Comments (42) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Techfan
6461
Points
Techfan 08/02/12 - 07:16 am
5
12
The AC pushing conspiracy theories from a domestic terrorist?

Good job AC. Nothing like supporting a theory that started with domestic terrorist and all around nutjob, Mike Vanderboegh. Under the current editorial board, this paper is rapidly becoming a joke. Join the birther, print letters that are waaaay out there. While always right wing, previous boards at least seem to have had some intellectual arguments to their positions. Either with an editorial or the letters they choose (I guess they might only get letters from the same people every month, that's why we see the same names every 30 days or so) it's an almost daily diatribe against Obama, that appear to be based on one of those viral emails from your crazy uncle that's always clogging your email account. The paper is going downhill fast.

southernguy08
499
Points
southernguy08 08/02/12 - 07:34 am
0
0
Tech, Tech, Tech
Unpublished

If this was a Republican president, you'd be SCREAMING conspiracy, corruption, and cover up! Amazing what liberals will put up with or ignore if the candidate or sitting politician has a D by his/her political affiliation. Yeah, I'm laughing.

Angie H
4300
Points
Angie H 08/02/12 - 07:51 am
8
3
F4therTime.....don't expect

F4therTime.....don't expect some of the liberal posters here to aknowlege the truth.

TParty
6003
Points
TParty 08/02/12 - 08:28 am
2
5
You know the report came out

You know the report came out recently about Fast and Furious- and the republican lead investigation concluded that it was weak leadership in the ATF that caused the Fast and Furious fiasco. Their own report concluded that Obama had nothing to do with it.

Also, under the Obama administration, no gun rights have been taken away. In fact- we can now carry weapons into state parks, which was something that could not be done prior to Obama.

A lot of tin foil hats around here....

Obama's transparency is a problem - and if we want to beat hims we need to focus on that. Of course, Romney is not helping by keeping everything sealed.... but at least Romney is not running on transparency.

Angie H
4300
Points
Angie H 08/02/12 - 08:53 am
6
2
Angie H
4300
Points
Angie H 08/02/12 - 08:55 am
8
2
I do agree with you, TParty,

I do agree with you, TParty, on the transparency. Except what is Romney keeping sealed? If you are referring to his taxes, he's released the same amount that has been asked of any other candidate.

TParty
6003
Points
TParty 08/02/12 - 09:05 am
1
7
Yeah, tin-foil hats- and your

Yeah, tin-foil hats- and your article you posted just validates my point even more. The writer first off acknowledges he doesn't know what is in the treaty, but assumes that because China has a ban on handguns, obviously that means Obama will make sure it's in the treaty. Then the writer says "The Obama administration is undoubtedly the most hostile administration to gun ownership" and attempts to prove it by linking another article he himself wrote!!

Obama has done nothing with guns. And again- the only changes made at the federal level is that we Americans can now carry guns into state parks. That is an expansion of rights- which is the opposite of being hostile and taking away rights. The opposite.

And yeah- the taxes are a problem for Romney, and flak is not only coming from the left. Even those on the right are saying he needs to be more open. Remember him being booed during debates, when other GOP candidates asked him for openness, and he declined? And I agree. It's messed up I have to show more tax forms to buy a house, but Romney can show less and try to be President?!

But it's not even the taxes being released. Romney rarely does interviews, and he never says what his policies are. No economic plans, no tax plans, no foreign policy plans, nothing!! He is running on "I'm not Obama!" which is not enough.

Angie H
4300
Points
Angie H 08/02/12 - 09:14 am
5
2
Fact: Obama voted to make ALL

Fact: Obama voted to make ALL gun ownership illegal in IL.

Question. How many tax returns would be sufficient to satiate the left? I guarentee you if the releases 4 and they don't find something, they will demand 6....if that doesn't reveal any dirt, they will demand 8......etc. etc.

What's Obama's plan for a balanced budget as he promised? Oh yeah...he and his administration don't pass budgets.

You are right. It IS messed up that you have to show more tax returns to buy a house, just as it is messed up that I have to have an extensive background investigation to work at my job, but the President does not.

Angie H
4300
Points
Angie H 08/02/12 - 09:16 am
4
2
"No economic plan."

"No economic plan."

Hmmmmmmm?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044368750457756284265636266...

Are we going to get into making more false statements again today? Simply stating something as a fact does not make it so.

Angie H
4300
Points
Angie H 08/02/12 - 09:26 am
6
2
Why is a background

Why is a background investigation required to visit the White House, but not to live in it?

Jon Lester
2363
Points
Jon Lester 08/02/12 - 09:58 am
3
3
Two things:

One, as mentioned above, gun rights have actually expanded under the Obama administration, and gun-control advocates are less than happy with the apparent unwillingness to respond to the Aurora shooting with new restrictions.

Two, aside from the fact that no UN treaty can trump our constitution, negotiations for this arms trade treaty were derailed by China, Russia and the United States, which happen to be the world's three largest arms exporters. Care to guess which of those sells the most?

Angie H
4300
Points
Angie H 08/02/12 - 10:06 am
5
2
No UN treaty can trump the

No UN treaty can trump the constitution? Really?

Art. VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…”

So which part of the constitution shall we follow Mr. Lester?

TParty
6003
Points
TParty 08/02/12 - 10:18 am
2
5
Angie H-

I'm glad you're doing more work than Romney, by posting someone else's work on what Romney would do. I was too busy listening to Romney say things like: “What I put out in my plan is a series of principles that allow our economy to grow and at the same time maintain a neutral budget impact. And so I haven’t laid out all the details of how we’re going to deal with each one of the deductions and exemptions.”

TParty
6003
Points
TParty 08/02/12 - 10:28 am
2
2
Oh good! The Treaty of

Oh good! The Treaty of Tripoli says:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

And since Angie brought up Article VI- I can now use this post as standard bearer every time there is a religion debate on here.

Angie H
4300
Points
Angie H 08/02/12 - 10:54 am
5
1
Fine. Go ahead. I never

Fine. Go ahead. I never claimed otherwise. I simply quoted the constitution.

Angie H
4300
Points
Angie H 08/02/12 - 10:55 am
6
1
I'm honered that you value my

I'm honered that you value my words as to make me the standard bearer. Seems you only value my words when you agree with them though.

dichotomy
34411
Points
dichotomy 08/02/12 - 11:05 am
6
2
So what?

So what if Romney has, or has not, paid income taxes for ten years (which I seriously doubt). The point is, did he do anything illegal? I pose to you that if he had, the IRS or some government agency run by Obama appointees would be prosecuting him.

So, even if he has not paid much, or any, income taxes and he did it legally, I don't care. In fact, I applaud anyone who is smart enough to use our overly convoluted tax code to avoid paying the exorbitant, unequal income tax rates that we put on high income earners.

I suspect Romney paid SOME income taxes over the past ten years. Maybe not as much as you would like, but that is your envy vs. his smarts. Anyone who pays more taxes than the law requires is a stupid person and I don't want another stupid person as president.

Ronmey has released all of the tax returns that he is required to release. That's good enough for me.

TParty
6003
Points
TParty 08/02/12 - 11:09 am
2
5
"Fine. Go ahead. I never

"Fine. Go ahead. I never claimed otherwise. I simply quoted the constitution."

It would have been nice to have your support and facts yesterday when people were saying we are Christian nation. Oh well, so it goes.

Angie H
4300
Points
Angie H 08/02/12 - 11:15 am
6
1
I don't remember arguing the

I don't remember arguing the contrary. I can't speak for everyone else. I simply quoted the constitution. That fact was available to you without my help. It's been available since 1787.

TParty
6003
Points
TParty 08/02/12 - 11:22 am
2
6
Because the Treaty of Tripoli

Because the Treaty of Tripoli states we are not a Christian nation, 1797 is the year I needed, but I digress. I just didn't want to bring it up myself- since the far right thinks I'm a liberal for not worshiping Jesus, I follow science, and I don't think Obama is a Muslim that was born in Kenya or some where else not America.

It's better when someone else more on their side brings it up, so thank you.

dichotomy
34411
Points
dichotomy 08/02/12 - 11:32 am
6
3
Obama on Fast and Furious.

Executive priviledge = presidential coverup of decisions made at the highest levels.

This was a plan to create evidence for increased gun control, probably through an Executive Order. Most likely another "assault" weapons ban.

Fast & Furious backfired on them. They got a federal officer killed and a lot of innocent Mexicans killed. Now they look like cats covering up do-do.

rmwhitley
5547
Points
rmwhitley 08/02/12 - 01:25 pm
0
0
democrats=
Unpublished

an enigma wrapped in dirty toilet paper.

burninater
9680
Points
burninater 08/02/12 - 02:31 pm
2
7
Sorry folks, you can't have

Sorry folks, you can't have it both ways. You can't argue endlessly that gun regulations are useless because people, not guns, are the problem, and then expect that people will get worked up about a gun-walking operation. I hate to have to remind people of their own rhetoric, but it's the person(s) that shot Terry and Zapata, not the guns, that are the problem ... Right?

john
1057
Points
john 08/02/12 - 03:23 pm
5
2
weak

thats a stretch burninater. really?

burninater
9680
Points
burninater 08/02/12 - 04:29 pm
2
4
Instant thumbs down, must

Instant thumbs down, must have touched a nerve. I'll try that one again:

I hate to have to remind people of their own rhetoric, but it's the person(s) that shot Terry and Zapata, not the guns, that are the problem ... Right?

KSL
134404
Points
KSL 08/02/12 - 05:49 pm
2
2
Never mind the motive behind

Never mind the motive behind the whole operation, huh burn? It's okay to put guns in the hands of criminals and thugs, knowing they will wind up killing people?

burninater
9680
Points
burninater 08/02/12 - 06:14 pm
2
3
I never said it was okay,

I never said it was okay, KSL. In fact, I believe it was the opposite of okay. But the purchases were legal under our current gun laws. The individuals involved were suspected gun runners, but had not been prosecuted. Fortune magazine reported:

"According to some reports, many agents insisted they were prevented from making arrests because prosecutors were unwilling to engage in what could become a potentially contentious political battle over Second Amendment rights during an election year, particularly given the difficult nature of prosecuting straw buyers, and the weak penalties associated with it, even if successful."

Difficult to prosecute, weak penalties, and politically contentious.

My point is not that this kind of thing is okay. My point is that if someone argues that there should be minimal gun regulations because people, not guns, are the problem, then they have no right to complain when guns are purchased legally and then used to kill people.

I hate to have to remind people of their own rhetoric, but it's the person(s) that shot Terry and Zapata, not the guns, that are the problem ... Right?

KSL
134404
Points
KSL 08/02/12 - 07:51 pm
2
1
Still, I have a problem with

Still, I have a problem with the administration's intent in this operation. And they did not take the precautions that the previous administration took. You can't outlaw everything that a crazy person might decide to use to kill someone else. I don't have a need for an assault weapon. But I do believe there is a need to be able to own guns as citizens. Check out the murder rate in Forsythe County in Georgia. There you are required to own a gun under normal circumstances. Check out Switzerland and gun requirements. Remember that Switzerland has been able to remain neutral during wars. There is an excellent reason.

Gage Creed
17857
Points
Gage Creed 08/02/12 - 08:01 pm
1
1
Someone bump that

Someone bump that poster....the needle is stuck....or is it RAINMAN?

justthefacts
22709
Points
justthefacts 08/02/12 - 08:57 pm
1
1
What?

I live in Forsyth County. What law about owning a gun is KSL referring to.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Georgia to monitor potential Ebola travelers

Georgia is one of six states that will soon begin active monitoring of all travelers from three Ebola-stricken countries in West Africa for the 21 days during which they could develop an infection ...
Search Augusta jobs