Obama Calls For More Gun Control

[beechguy]

The first problem is those guy are idiots, and none of those things have much to do with the murderers that are actually pulling the trigger. But, it's easy enough to BS people who don't know what they are talking about.

By the way, have you ever bought or old a firearm in the U.S.? Or fired a weapon in the U.S.? For that matter, have you ever even been in the U.S.?

What an articulate argument. Not.

And no, no, yes many times. Does that actually have anything to do with this discussion or are you just going to bleat about how non-Americans are not allowed to talk about it?

Grow up man, it's a discussion, not a pub argument.

No, you are quite welcome to post here, no matter how misinformed you are. It just doesn't seem to match your opinion as to who should post on a topic over in the U.K. Gay Marriage topic, as in posts number 349 & 353, if I remember correctly.

As to my point about the items listed above, do you really think the gang bangers, etc. are going to comply with any of those? Especially, considering the fact that 80-85% of the crimes are with stolen or otherwise illegally obtained firearms.

[F430murci]

It's going round in circles with the gun crowd repeating the tired old mantras of the amendment, cars kill people, axes kill people, etc., and showing complete intransigence when it comes to taking steps to reduce the senseless deaths.

As I've said before, it's as if the gun lobby consider the odd mass murder an acceptable price to pay so they can have their phallus substitutes.

...and the anti-gun nuts are offering new reasons for solving the problem besides banning guns?

Get medical care for mentally disturbed young people and much of this would stop. Madmen have been creating these shootings with inanimate objects yet it is still the gun's fault?

What are your solutions for getting the mental health issue addressed? Given that any thought or is it all about guns?

What about the violent video games this kid grew up addicted to? Any opinions on that or is that something that doesn't compute either?

There is much more to this than the availability of guns and if you don't realize that, then you are sadly adrift in a sea of ignorance.

If you'd bother to read my posts on this subject I have never said that gun control on its own will have the desired effect. And you obviously did not read the Whitehouse recommendations that cover "much more than the availability of guns", so please look in the mirror before you start throwing around charges of ignorance.

The Whitehouse position has been clearly stated: "No single law – or even set of laws – can prevent every act of violence in our country. But the fact that this problem is complex can not be an excuse for inaction."

They have proposed a number of measures that can hardly be called unreasonable:

• Require background checks for all gun sales.
  
• Strengthen the background check system for gun sales.
  
• Pass a new, stronger ban on assault weapons.
  
• Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.
  
• Finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets.
  
• Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime.
  
• End the freeze on gun violence research.
  
• Make our schools safer with new resource officers and counselors, better emergency response plans, and more nurturing school climates.
  
• Ensure quality coverage of mental health treatment, particularly for young people.
  

Now tell me what is so unreasonable about this list that you wouldn't even consider it as a starting point?

The first problem is those guys are idiots and just playing politics, and none of those things have much to do with the murderers that are actually pulling the trigger. But, it's easy enough to BS people who don't know what they are talking about.

By the way, have you ever bought or old a firearm in the U.S.? Or fired a weapon in the U.S.? For that matter, have you ever even been in the U.S.?

What guys are idiots, the guys in the white house? Have you even seen the guys hanging out a Knob Creek machine gun rally or at a Montana Freemen gun rally. I woud take the intellectual prowess of those Ivy league so called "idiots" over that of the Knob Creek boys any day.

I use haha, because these is a lot of levity in these threads and I need levity sometimes in my days. I thank you for that, but hahahahahaha as the thought of relaying upon Knob Creek boys, Monatana Freemen and NRA rally members running this country. School two days a week, no IRS, save on dental coverage because teeth optional and Nascar every day. God bless America.

[beechguy]

As if the Harvard/Ivy League guys have done such a wonderful job these past few years.

[Chicog]

No, you are quite welcome to post here, no matter how misinformed you are. It just doesn't seem to match your opinion as to who should post on a topic over in the U.K. Gay Marriage topic, as in posts number 349 & 353, if I remember correctly.

Funnily enough I was talking to someone with no argument and ingrained prejudice then as well.

If you had read my post, you'll notice that I was objecting to a poster illogically segueing from "I" to "we" in an attempt to bolster their rather feeble argument.

I believe I have made it clear about what I believe in and why. For centuries the act of marriage has been between a man and a women. Simply put we do not want that to change. We see no reason for that to change.

Are you seriously going to try and avoid any serious discussion on this topic by misinterpreting a different one that has little or no relevance?

(Hint: Homosexuals getting married can't kill you, an armed psychopathic homophobe can).

Or are you just trying to be clever?

(Hint: It isn't working).

Edited February 20, 2013 by Chicog

[F430murci]

As if the Harvard/Ivy League guys have done such a wonderful job these past few years.

I generally agree that politicians are compromised. We still have to place ourf faith and belief in something and view things objectively.

I just don't see the bad in the US. I got hit as hard as anyone due to my hobby, flipping and developing real estate in Northwest Florida Panhandle and me being knee deep in securities heavily weighted to CMOS, CDOs and junk bonds.

Things are good now. Market up. Business is booming at my firm. Corporate P/E ratios strong. Housing values coming back and rather strong in my primary residence city. Interest rates down. Tourism is strong and rentals hitting all time peaks now in NW Florida panhandle since BP oil spill. Florida mortgage market still a mess though from robo signing foreclosures getting dismissed and having to be refiled.

I hear very little complaining on the street from small business owners, restruant owners and etc. They are building new convention center and several large new hotels here. Just remodeled my building (six month project). New assoictaes at my firm have been buying and shopping for houses saying good deals, short sales and foreclosures are hard to find.

One of my areasis in securities. I handled a lot of the securities class action and ERISA litigation stemming from market implosion in 2008.

Our economy got killed due to mortage and lending practices emanating from ability to securitize, bundle and resell bad and risky paper, AIG credit swaps and the lovely guarantees by Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie. That destablized our entire banking system and, in fact, banks were insolvent. We almost lost out largest banks across the board and that would have taken the entire world economy down.

Rather than pointing fingers and complaining, people should be dam_n greatful we are at where we are at today. Could have been so much worse. The CMO stuff is almost resolved with the last round of QE. That is really a miracle considering no one even knew how deep the hole (in trillions) was in 2008.

Those Ivy league idiots, as you put it, pulled off the impossible. If they can do that with the financial system, I think they can handle somehting as mundane and simple as gun control.

Edited February 20, 2013 by F430murci

[submaniac]

^^Very out of character that you are discussing your fabulous wealth...you are usually so modest discreet and humble.

Edited February 20, 2013 by submaniac

[F430murci]

^^Very out of character that you are discussing your fabulous wealth...you are usually so modest discreet and humble.

Says more about you than I if you read my wealth into the above.

I am brash, egotistical, hard headed and stubborn. I make no excuses for myself and I have accomplished what I have accomplished because if the way I am. Not my problem if it bothers you.

I, however, will be the first to stop and help you change a tire or lend hand if you need help. I would do that even for submaniac.

[submaniac]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLKiMbC6s2k

[endure]

It's time to get back to the topic please. No more sniping at each other.

[Chicog]

Perhaps one of the pro-gun lobby can answer my question, rather than wandering off on a pointless tangent:

The Whitehouse position has been clearly stated: "No single law – or even set of laws – can prevent every act of violence in our country. But the fact that this problem is complex can not be an excuse for inaction."

They have proposed a number of measures that can hardly be called unreasonable:

1. Require background checks for all gun sales.
   
2. Strengthen the background check system for gun sales.
   
3. Pass a new, stronger ban on assault weapons.
   
4. Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.
   
5. Finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets.
   
6. Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime.
   
7. End the freeze on gun violence research.
   
8. Make our schools safer with new resource officers and counselors, better emergency response plans, and more nurturing school climates.
   
9. Ensure quality coverage of mental health treatment, particularly for young people.
   

Now tell me what is so unreasonable about this list that you wouldn't even consider it as a starting point?

As to Beechguy's comment:

As to my point about the items listed above, do you really think the gang bangers, etc. are going to comply with any of those? Especially, considering the fact that 80-85% of the crimes are with stolen or otherwise illegally obtained firearms.

I've numbered the points above.

Gun control is about preventing gun deaths - it isn't just limited to crimes. Having guns around the house leads to easier suicides and accidental deaths. There were 19,000 gun suicides last year, an 85% success rate. To compare, attempted overdoses resulted in only 2% success rate. Guns make it easy for desperate people to kill themselves, and there is no chance to turn back.

There are also 1,000 or so accidental gun deaths, many involving children.

But going back to Beechguy's point, I would say that numbers 1-7 will have an impact on gang bangers, especially Number 6.

It's frankly a *&%#ing joke that the NRA lobbyists actually managed to get research into Gun Violence blocked lest it reflect negatively on their seeming desire to arm almost every person in America.

The thing that puzzles me the most is that the pro-gun lobby seem to think the millions of people who want tighter gun controls are actually out to do them some harm - when in fact it's patently obvious that increasing numbers of Americans are fed up with its streets and schools being turned into war zones, and are looking to the people they elected to do something about it.

[chuckd]

...and the anti-gun nuts are offering new reasons for solving the problem besides banning guns?

Get medical care for mentally disturbed young people and much of this would stop. Madmen have been creating these shootings with inanimate objects yet it is still the gun's fault?

What are your solutions for getting the mental health issue addressed? Given that any thought or is it all about guns?

What about the violent video games this kid grew up addicted to? Any opinions on that or is that something that doesn't compute either?

There is much more to this than the availability of guns and if you don't realize that, then you are sadly adrift in a sea of ignorance.

If you'd bother to read my posts on this subject I have never said that gun control on its own will have the desired effect. And you obviously did not read the Whitehouse recommendations that cover "much more than the availability of guns", so please look in the mirror before you start throwing around charges of ignorance.

The Whitehouse position has been clearly stated: "No single law – or even set of laws – can prevent every act of violence in our country. But the fact that this problem is complex can not be an excuse for inaction."

They have proposed a number of measures that can hardly be called unreasonable:

• Require background checks for all gun sales.
  
• Strengthen the background check system for gun sales.
  
• Pass a new, stronger ban on assault weapons.
  
• Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.
  
• Finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets.
  
• Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime.
  
• End the freeze on gun violence research.
  
• Make our schools safer with new resource officers and counselors, better emergency response plans, and more nurturing school climates.
  
• Ensure quality coverage of mental health treatment, particularly for young people.
  

Now tell me what is so unreasonable about this list that you wouldn't even consider it as a starting point?

Because of it's omissions...and some of it's features.

I have no problem with increasing background checks, even for gun shows. I would have a problem with a law that says if I, as a private citizen, choose to sell my personal gun to a close friend that a background check would be required.

Looking at your WH list, what exactly is meant by..."Strengthen the background check system for gun sales."? That's about as non-committal a remark as can be made, even by a politician.

Passing a new stronger ban on assault weapons will accomplish little. As has been pointed out to you several times, hammers and blunt instruments have killed more people in the past five years than assault weapons. Assault weapons are nothing more than semi-automatic rifles with a pistol grip. Are they going to ban all semi-automatic weapons? If so how about semi-automatic pistols? Are they next on the WH's list?

Limiting magazines to a 10 round maximum is silly and will accomplish nothing. A skilled shooter can change a 10 round clip in less than 2 seconds. It will have absolutely not one detriment for somebody shooting unarmed citizens.

Finishing the job of getting armor piercing bullets and law enforcement are the same thing. There is already a law against private citizens owning armor piercing rounds and there are plenty of gun control laws on the books that are not being enforced. Maybe this administration should concentrate more on enforcement of existing laws than enacting more new laws that will go unenforced as well.

What does gun violence research accomplish that FBI crime reports overlook? The only thing gun research does is make the researchers richer.

Making our schools safer is endorsed by both myself and the NRA, Put armed guards in the schools. We already have them in federal buildings, airports, shopping malls, etc. Why not make our children safer by giving them armed protection?

Finally the WH talking points get to much (most?) of the problem with an offhand remark about mental health of our young people...without being too specific of course. If this administration wants to pass some new laws, make it a criminal offense for a medical doctor or psychiatrist to NOT report a mentally unbalanced person to the authorities when they are diagnosed. That might stop shooters from Newtown, Aurora, Columbine, etc. You think?

Now on to what's missing from the WH talking points..

How about the entertainment industry with it's violence on TV, movies and video games? Do they not bear some responsibility for having an impact on young, evolving minds with all their violence and needless blood and gore? Try to sell me on the idea that Adam Lanza's moral ethics weren't corrupted at an early age by his addiction to violent games. I won't allow it in my home with a 13 year old step-son. He may not like it but he still doesn't do it at home.

Another thought is how about changing the "Gun Control" debate into a "Gang Control" process. I didn't see anything in the talking points about taking action against gang violence yet it is high on the list of causes of murder and violent crimes. Give the local cops the resources to crack down on gangs of US citizens and illegal immigrants that largely make up the lists of both shooters and victims would go a long way to reducing the murder rate.

How about encouraging small business start-ups in inner cities to lower the unemployment rate for young black Americans? While Obama has done a wonderful (?) job in bringing the unemployment rate down from 7.8% to 7.8% in his four years, the young black unemployment rate is hovering around 28% and the Hispanic at over 18%. Giving these young men some hope for work and a decent future would very likely begin a break-up of the gang culture. Leaving it like it is, or even worsening it, only exacerbates an already bad situation. Nope! Didn't see anything in the WH talking points about that either.

This administration is living up to their former Chief of Staff's famous statement... "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

http://www.ilo.org/w...g--en/index.htm

[Chicog]

Chuck,

I posted the highlights. The report itself goes into far more detail.

You can read it here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf

It's 15 pages, so I thought it best not to post the text in full.

I'd be interested to hear your comments if you have time to read the full text.

Cheers,

Chico

[Chicog]

I'm frankly gobsmacked that the NRA have the senate by the balls enough to block an ATF director for so long!

[OZEMADE]

This entire thread is a massive circle jerk. It's going around in circles with the anti-gun crowd making arguments which are based on a whole lot of people talking out of their butt without knowing what they're talking about.

It's going round in circles with the gun crowd repeating the tired old mantras of the amendment, cars kill people, axes kill people, etc., and showing complete intransigence when it comes to taking steps to reduce the senseless deaths.

As I've said before, it's as if the gun lobby consider the odd mass murder an acceptable price to pay so they can have their phallus substitutes.

...and the anti-gun nuts are offering new reasons for solving the problem besides banning guns?

Get medical care for mentally disturbed young people and much of this would stop. Madmen have been creating these shootings with inanimate objects yet it is still the gun's fault?

What are your solutions for getting the mental health issue addressed? Given that any thought or is it all about guns?

What about the violent video games this kid grew up addicted to? Any opinions on that or is that something that doesn't compute either?

There is much more to this than the availability of guns and if you don't realize that, then you are sadly adrift in a sea of ignorance.

If you'd bother to read my posts on this subject I have never said that gun control on its own will have the desired effect. And you obviously did not read the Whitehouse recommendations that cover "much more than the availability of guns", so please look in the mirror before you start throwing around charges of ignorance.

The Whitehouse position has been clearly stated: "No single law – or even set of laws – can prevent every act of violence in our country. But the fact that this problem is complex can not be an excuse for inaction."

They have proposed a number of measures that can hardly be called unreasonable:

• Require background checks for all gun sales.
  
• Strengthen the background check system for gun sales.
  
• Pass a new, stronger ban on assault weapons.
  
• Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.
  
• Finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets.
  
• Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime.
  
• End the freeze on gun violence research.
  
• Make our schools safer with new resource officers and counselors, better emergency response plans, and more nurturing school climates.
  
• Ensure quality coverage of mental health treatment, particularly for young people.
  

Now tell me what is so unreasonable about this list that you wouldn't even consider it as a starting point?

There is nothing unreasonable about the points you mention. However it will not make any difference to what is happening in the USA today or in the future.

Some 15 years ago, Australians were ordered to hand in all unregistered hand guns and rifles in a buy-back by the OZ government. Most of the points you mentioned were put into place and made law. In reality all the by-back did was get all the outdated and obsolete weapons off the shelves and destroyed, most kept the newer weapons and today in OZ there are more weapons on the streets than before the buy-back. You can now buy any type weapon you can mention on the streets of Australia. There are more shootings today than ever before the buy-back. There are more murders now than before the buy-back.

You can now purchase a handgun from Europe somewhere, and have it mailed to you via Australia Post, the posties and Customs are paid to turn a blind eye. So what chance do you have of gun control in the good old U.S.A. there is too much money at stake there. Mate it's just not gonna happen.

[chuckd]

I'm frankly gobsmacked that the NRA have the senate by the balls enough to block an ATF director for so long!

Errr, ummmm. The NRA has nothing to do with holding up the nomination of the ATF Drector.

It's Obama's Attorney General that is holding up the process by refusing to release documents to the Senate Judiciary Committee..

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grassley threatens to hold up ATF nominee over separate dispute

By Jordy Yager - 01/31/13 04:44 PM ET

The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee is threatening to hold up President Obama’s nominee to be the director of the ATF until the Justice Department forks over documents in an unrelated case.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) wants the Department of Justice to give lawmakers access to 1,200 documents that allegedly detail the agency’s agreement to drop a False Claims Act case against St. Paul, Minn., in exchange for the city ditching an unconnected case before the Supreme Court.

Without the documents, Grassley said he would hold up the nomination of acting Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Director B. Todd Jones, who is also the U.S. attorney for Minnesota. Grassley contends that the Senate must thoroughly examine what role Jones played in the deal with St. Paul.

Read more: http://thehill.com/h...e#ixzz2LVygQXgn

[chuckd]

Chuck,

I posted the highlights. The report itself goes into far more detail.

You can read it here:

http://www.whitehous...e_time_full.pdf

It's 15 pages, so I thought it best not to post the text in full.

I'd be interested to hear your comments if you have time to read the full text.

Cheers,

Chico

Your "report" is nothing more than White House campaign propaganda.

I will read all of it when the my pet spider finishes building his web.

[Scott]

A post with altered quotes has been deleted as well as replies.

The post was totally confusing and difficult to decipher. Do not do this. It is against the forum rules.

[chuckd]

Rather than quote the entire posts, I will take the time to respond to a couple of your points, although I will be wasting my time.

4. This discussion covers the Obama administration and has nothing to do with his predecessors, although I am sure you would like to blame it on Bush.

5. A fresh and objective view on gun control from who? Some university professor that knows little outside the world of academia. Yeah, that's a good thing to do.

6. Armed guards have been required in banks since the 1920's. It has hardly destroyed the minds of little children nearly as much as the current video games.

7. Which massacre shooters were mentally ill?

Aurora shooter http://www.cbsnews.c...efore-shooting/

...in addition...

"Jared Lougher was diagnosed with schizophrenia six months after he went on a shooting spree outside an Arizona shopping center in 2011, killing six people and wounding 13 others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. A judge declared Virgina Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho "mentally ill" two years before he killed 32 people and then turned the gun on himself in 2007. A child psychologist wrote a book 10 years after the Columbine High School massacre that said shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold weren't just bullied before they gunned down 12 classmates and a teacher in 1999; they were mentally ill, too."

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=18001556

I could probably go back as far as Genghis Khan but you still wouldn't believe mental illness can lead to psychos who commit murder.

None of the recent mass murder massacres were by African Americans, although how many African Americans in Chicago have committed multiple murders we will likely never know. Most of them haven't been identified, charged or convicted.

We need to agree to disagree.

Edited February 21, 2013 by chuckd

[Chicog]

ChuckD -> "Your "report" is nothing more than White House campaign propaganda.

I will read all of it when the my pet spider finishes building his web."

------------------------------------------

(Apologies for the manual quoting, but TV appears to be playing up at the moment).

Pointless commenting on something you know nothing about then, isn't it?"

And it's rather disingenuous of you to say "Errr, ummmm. The NRA has nothing to do with holding up the nomination of the ATF Drector.". Are you trying to say you were unaware of...

"In 2006, the NRA successfully lobbied then-House Judiciary Chair James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) to insert a provision into the PATRIOT Act reauthorization requiring the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to be confirmed by the Senate. Since then, the ATF has never had a Senate-confirmed head.

Shortly after the 2006 law took effect, President Bush nominated U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan to head the ATF, but even a Republican presidents choice proved unacceptable to pro-gun lobbyists. The NRA, in particular, accused Sullivan of overly restrictive legal interpretations and overly zealous enforcement activities because, while Sullivan served as Acting Director of ATF, the agency revoked several gun dealers licenses to sell firearms. Sens. David Vitter (R-LA), Larry Craig (R-ID) and Mike Crapo (R-ID) quickly took up the gun lobbys cause, placing a hold on Sullivans nomination until he agreed to comply with the NRAs demands. Sullivan was never confirmed.

The problem only got worse once President Obama took office. Obama did not nominate an ATF Director until Nov. 2010, in no small part because the administration had a tough time even finding a candidate interested in the ATF job because of likely gun-lobby resistance. When Obama finally did nominate Andrew Traver, a 23 year veteran of the ATF and the head of its Chicago office, the gun lobby did not disappoint. Within 24 hours of the Traver nomination, the NRA officially announced its opposition."

Edited February 21, 2013 by Chicog

[chuckd]

 

ChuckD -> "Your "report" is nothing more than White House campaign propaganda.

I will read all of it when the my pet spider finishes building his web."

------------------------------------------

(Apologies for the manual quoting, but TV appears to be playing up at the moment).

Pointless commenting on something you know nothing about then, isn't it?"

And it's rather disingenuous of you to say "Errr, ummmm. The NRA has nothing to do with holding up the nomination of the ATF Drector.". Are you trying to say you were unaware of...

"In 2006, the NRA successfully lobbied then-House Judiciary Chair James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) to insert a provision into the PATRIOT Act reauthorization requiring the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to be confirmed by the Senate. Since then, the ATF has never had a Senate-confirmed head.

Shortly after the 2006 law took effect, President Bush nominated U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan to head the ATF, but even a Republican presidents choice proved unacceptable to pro-gun lobbyists. The NRA, in particular, accused Sullivan of overly restrictive legal interpretations and overly zealous enforcement activities because, while Sullivan served as Acting Director of ATF, the agency revoked several gun dealers licenses to sell firearms. Sens. David Vitter (R-LA), Larry Craig (R-ID) and Mike Crapo (R-ID) quickly took up the gun lobbys cause, placing a hold on Sullivans nomination until he agreed to comply with the NRAs demands. Sullivan was never confirmed.

The problem only got worse once President Obama took office. Obama did not nominate an ATF Director until Nov. 2010, in no small part because the administration had a tough time even finding a candidate interested in the ATF job because of likely gun-lobby resistance. When Obama finally did nominate Andrew Traver, a 23 year veteran of the ATF and the head of its Chicago office, the gun lobby did not disappoint. Within 24 hours of the Traver nomination, the NRA officially announced its opposition."

 

Perhaps you can explain to me what a confirmation hearing in 2006 has to do with this one in 2013. So the NRA is opposed to this nomination. Now provide a link that says the advise and consent of the Senate is being held up on the current nominee due to the NRA.

Different Senators representing different states and both claiming different problems with the nomination of an ATFDirector by different Presidents.

If you can't blame Bush, blame the NRA seems to be today's motto.

You are right about one thing. TV seems to be screwed up tonight.

Edited February 21, 2013 by chuckd

[Scott]

Yes, there are some technical glitches. It's probably a plot by the NRA to throw this thread off course, or maybe it's a plot by the White House.

[submaniac]

Yes, there are some technical glitches. It's probably a plot by the NRA to throw this thread off course, or maybe it's a plot by the White House.

I blame Obama.

[Publicus]

I'm frankly gobsmacked that the NRA have the senate by the balls enough to block an ATF director for so long!

Errr, ummmm. The NRA has nothing to do with holding up the nomination of the ATF Drector.

It's Obama's Attorney General that is holding up the process by refusing to release documents to the Senate Judiciary Committee..

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grassley threatens to hold up ATF nominee over separate dispute

By Jordy Yager - 01/31/13 04:44 PM ET

The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee is threatening to hold up President Obama’s nominee to be the director of the ATF until the Justice Department forks over documents in an unrelated case.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) wants the Department of Justice to give lawmakers access to 1,200 documents that allegedly detail the agency’s agreement to drop a False Claims Act case against St. Paul, Minn., in exchange for the city ditching an unconnected case before the Supreme Court.

Without the documents, Grassley said he would hold up the nomination of acting Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Director B. Todd Jones, who is also the U.S. attorney for Minnesota. Grassley contends that the Senate must thoroughly examine what role Jones played in the deal with St. Paul.

Read more: http://thehill.com/h...e#ixzz2LVygQXgn

Sen Grassley, aged 80, recently voted against the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization which passed the Senate 78 - 22. As one of the 22 losers, the Republican Sen Grassley of Iowa, will run for reelection in 2016 to another Senate term (6 years) when he will be 83. I and many other Americans will be glad to see him put down politically when his time comes - he's already been in Washington far too long.

I used to work as professional staff in the Congress in Washington so I can say that it is a breach of Congressional decorum and custom for a Senator to become involved in the Senate affairs of another state, in this instance Minnesota, which has two capable, respected and experienced Senators of its own - Sen Amy Klobuchar who was reelected last November and Sen Al Franklin who will run for reelection next year. Neither Senator is beefing about Pres Obama's nominee to be Director of the ATFE. Sen Grassley overreaches in his Republican party's neverending efforts to obstruct Pres Obama, who as it happened, won both Minnesota and Iowa comfortably in 2008 and again last November.

St. Paul is the other twin of the twin cities of Minneapolis-St Paul in Minnesota, the state's major metropolitan area. Sens Klobuchar and Franklin, respectively, know their state very well and if they haven't any beef concerning the United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota becoming director of the federal agency, then Sen Chuck Grassley needs to keep his intrusive and obstructionist Iowa Republican party nose out of a state whose electorate he does not need to answer to. Sen Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the body which is examining the credentials of the U.S. Attorney B. Todd Jones, favors a fair and clear Committee Report to the full Senate of Jones to be the first Senate confirmed director of the BAFE.

Gun toting Republican party members across the country hate the agency because it controls not only alcohol and chewing tobacco, but also firearms and explosives - the latter two in particular being things many Republican party members seem unable to accept as exceptionally dangerous and therefore subject to governemnt laws, rules, regulations.

It's a pity and shame on you Sen Grassley. You should chew on that thought for a while.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/chuck-grassley-vawa_n_2735080.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

[chuckd]

Errr, ummmm. The NRA has nothing to do with holding up the nomination of the ATF Drector.

It's Obama's Attorney General that is holding up the process by refusing to release documents to the Senate Judiciary Committee..

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grassley threatens to hold up ATF nominee over separate dispute

By Jordy Yager - 01/31/13 04:44 PM ET

The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee is threatening to hold up President Obamas nominee to be the director of the ATF until the Justice Department forks over documents in an unrelated case.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) wants the Department of Justice to give lawmakers access to 1,200 documents that allegedly detail the agencys agreement to drop a False Claims Act case against St. Paul, Minn., in exchange for the city ditching an unconnected case before the Supreme Court.

Without the documents, Grassley said he would hold up the nomination of acting Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Director B. Todd Jones, who is also the U.S. attorney for Minnesota. Grassley contends that the Senate must thoroughly examine what role Jones played in the deal with St. Paul.

Read more: http://thehill.com/h...e#ixzz2LVygQXgn

Sen Grassley, aged 80, recently voted against the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization which passed the Senate 78 - 22. As one of the 22 losers, the Republican Sen Grassley of Iowa, will run for reelection in 2016 to another Senate term (6 years) when he will be 83. I and many other Americans will be glad to see him put down politically when his time comes - he's already been in Washington far too long.

I used to work as professional staff in the Congress in Washington so I can say that it is a breach of Congressional decorum and custom for a Senator to become involved in the Senate affairs of another state, in this instance Minnesota, which has two capable, respected and experienced Senators of its own - Sen Amy Klobuchar who was reelected last November and Sen Al Franklin who will run for reelection next year. Neither Senator is beefing about Pres Obama's nominee to be Director of the ATFE. Sen Grassley overreaches in his Republican party's neverending efforts to obstruct Pres Obama, who as it happened, won both Minnesota and Iowa comfortably in 2008 and again last November.

St. Paul is the other twin of the twin cities of Minneapolis-St Paul in Minnesota, the state's major metropolitan area. Sens Klobuchar and Franklin, respectively, know their state very well and if they haven't any beef concerning the United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota becoming director of the federal agency, then Sen Chuck Grassley needs to keep his intrusive and obstructionist Iowa Republican party nose out of a state whose electorate he does not need to answer to. Sen Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the body which is examining the credentials of the U.S. Attorney B. Todd Jones, favors a fair and clear Committee Report to the full Senate of Jones to be the first Senate confirmed director of the BAFE.

Gun toting Republican party members across the country hate the agency because it controls not only alcohol and chewing tobacco, but also firearms and explosives - the latter two in particular being things many Republican party members seem unable to accept as exceptionally dangerous and therefore subject to governemnt laws, rules, regulations.

It's a pity and shame on you Sen Grassley. You should chew on that thought for a while.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/chuck-grassley-vawa_n_2735080.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Is that eminently qualified and experienced Minnesota Senator Al Franklin (sic) also known as Al Franken, formerly a comedy writer and performer for Saturday Night Live?

Gun toting Republicans lost some respect for ATF when Fast & Furious was uncovered. Much of your so-called hatred stems from the Obama administration's handling of the Congressional investigation into that little matter.

Edited February 23, 2013 by chuckd

[Chicog]

Gun toting Republicans lost some respect for ATF when Fast & Furious was uncovered. Much of your so-called hatred stems from the Obama administration's handling of the Congressional investigation into that little matter.

I already illustrated above that the Republicans and the NRA castrated the ATF in 2006 and have been hindering its search for a new chief ever since. So I don't think "Fast & Furious" changed their opinion very much at all.

Perhaps if they had had someone reputable in charge and accountable this mess wouldn't have happened.

After all, it's mainly contenders who lean towards gun control that they are afraid of, yet one of those may have been more reluctant to release firearms into the wild.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Chicog

[chuckd]

Gun toting Republicans lost some respect for ATF when Fast & Furious was uncovered. Much of your so-called hatred stems from the Obama administration's handling of the Congressional investigation into that little matter.

I already illustrated above that the Republicans and the NRA castrated the ATF in 2006 and have been hindering its search for a new chief ever since. So I don't think "Fast & Furious" changed their opinion very much at all.

Perhaps if they had had someone reputable in charge and accountable this mess wouldn't have happened.

After all, it's mainly contenders who lean towards gun control that they are afraid of, yet one of those may have been more reluctant to release firearms into the wild.

As pointed out earlier, your 2006 case has nothing to do with 2013. That's just smoke screen.

Perhaps if the White House had not claimed Executive privilege concerning the release of White House correspondence relating to Fast & Furious and had AG Holder been more forthcoming in his testimony, we might even know who was behind it.

Ya' think?

[Chicog]

Gun toting Republicans lost some respect for ATF when Fast & Furious was uncovered. Much of your so-called hatred stems from the Obama administration's handling of the Congressional investigation into that little matter.

I already illustrated above that the Republicans and the NRA castrated the ATF in 2006 and have been hindering its search for a new chief ever since. So I don't think "Fast & Furious" changed their opinion very much at all.

Perhaps if they had had someone reputable in charge and accountable this mess wouldn't have happened.

After all, it's mainly contenders who lean towards gun control that they are afraid of, yet one of those may have been more reluctant to release firearms into the wild.

As pointed out earlier, your 2006 case has nothing to do with 2013. That's just smoke screen.

Huh?

There hasn't been an ATF director since 2006. The NRA/Republicans blocked both Bush and Obama nominees. How can it have had nothing to do with any of the subsequent years?

Notwithstanding the actual fall out of Fast & Furious, I am suggesting that had a proper chief been in there it might not have actually happened.

You don't seriously believe that the Republicans and the NRA liked the ATF until Fast & Furious? If that's the case, why did the NRA buy a law change?

Edited February 23, 2013 by Chicog

[Chicog]

Perhaps if the White House had not claimed Executive privilege concerning the release of White House correspondence relating to Fast & Furious and had AG Holder been more forthcoming in his testimony, we might even know who was behind it.

Just doing a bit of a read up on Fast & Furious.

What a bungled operation this was:

"Licensed dealer Mike Detty of Mad Dawg Global informed the ATF of a suspicious gun purchase that took place in February in Tucson, Arizona. In March he was hired as a confidential informant working with the ATF's Tucson office, part of their Phoenix, Arizona field division.

With the use of surveillance equipment, ATF agents monitored additional sales by Detty to straw purchasers. With assurance from ATF "that Mexican officials would be conducting surveillance or interdictions when guns got to the other side of the border", Detty would sell a total of about 450 guns during the operation. These included AR-15s, semi-automatic AK-pattern rifles, and Colt .38s. The majority of the guns were eventually lost as they moved into Mexico.

As the later DOJ OIG Report documented, coordination of ATF Tucson with the ATF Mexico City Office (MCO) and with Mexican law enforcement had been haphazard. Discussions of getting tracking devices from Raytheon were not followed up. ATF field agents and the cooperating gun dealer had been told by ATF supervisors that the guns were being interdicted before they could reach Mexico, but only 64 of the 474 guns had actually been seized. The kingpin sought by walking the guns, Israel Egurrola-Leon, turned out to be the target of a larger drug case Operation Iron River run by OCDETF. After the operation was ended, several attorneys at the Phoenix USAO who reviewed the cases for prosecution found the cases had been so poorly managed that they were reluctant to bring any of them to trial."

A shambles, I'm sure you'll agree.

Except that this was called "Operation Wide Receiver" and it took place under a Republican administration.

Yet when the Dems do the same thing, the Republicans are up in arms.

Are they ever going to focus on anything but petty point scoring?

[F430murci]

Fast and Furious put how many guns on the street compared to many guns cartels purchase illegal from US each and every month.

The problem in Mexico is if you give weapons to government forces to fight cartels they just end up in hands of cartel. Lines are blurred and most police and federal officers are aligned with one of the many cartels in some form or fashion.

The cartels also have MANPADs, RPGs, Barrett 50s. 5.7s, 50 cal mounted machine guns and whatever they want.

70,000 US weapons confiscated in Mexico in five years. The 2,000 fast and furious weapons have zero impact down there and just something else to politicize by people who really do not even care about the plight of theMexucan people or else they would focus on something that mattered.

[chuckd]

Perhaps if the White House had not claimed Executive privilege concerning the release of White House correspondence relating to Fast & Furious and had AG Holder been more forthcoming in his testimony, we might even know who was behind it.

Just doing a bit of a read up on Fast & Furious.

What a bungled operation this was:

"Licensed dealer Mike Detty of Mad Dawg Global informed the ATF of a suspicious gun purchase that took place in February in Tucson, Arizona. In March he was hired as a confidential informant working with the ATF's Tucson office, part of their Phoenix, Arizona field division.

With the use of surveillance equipment, ATF agents monitored additional sales by Detty to straw purchasers. With assurance from ATF "that Mexican officials would be conducting surveillance or interdictions when guns got to the other side of the border", Detty would sell a total of about 450 guns during the operation. These included AR-15s, semi-automatic AK-pattern rifles, and Colt .38s. The majority of the guns were eventually lost as they moved into Mexico.

As the later DOJ OIG Report documented, coordination of ATF Tucson with the ATF Mexico City Office (MCO) and with Mexican law enforcement had been haphazard. Discussions of getting tracking devices from Raytheon were not followed up. ATF field agents and the cooperating gun dealer had been told by ATF supervisors that the guns were being interdicted before they could reach Mexico, but only 64 of the 474 guns had actually been seized. The kingpin sought by walking the guns, Israel Egurrola-Leon, turned out to be the target of a larger drug case Operation Iron River run by OCDETF. After the operation was ended, several attorneys at the Phoenix USAO who reviewed the cases for prosecution found the cases had been so poorly managed that they were reluctant to bring any of them to trial."

A shambles, I'm sure you'll agree.

Except that this was called "Operation Wide Receiver" and it took place under a Republican administration.

Yet when the Dems do the same thing, the Republicans are up in arms.

Are they ever going to focus on anything but petty point scoring?

Since you read up on Operation Wide Receiver you must also know it was done in coordination with the Mexican government and was halted when some weapons disappeared and they were unable to be tracked. Some 450 weapons had been implanted with electronic tracking devices. When many of the devices malfunctioned, the program was halted in 2007.

In F&F, some 2,000 weapons were allowed to "walk" with no possible way to track them, there was NO coordination with Mexican authorities and, perhaps more importantly, a US Border Patrol Agent was murdered with one of the weapons. In short, F&F was a Viktor Bout style operation run by Erik Holder and his DOJ minions with the US government paying for the 2,000 weapons using straw purchasers.

Holder and Obama have stonewalled the Congressional oversight investigation at every turn.

To a Brit working in the Middle East, these might seem like petty incidents. To any concerned American they are not.

You can't blame Fast & Furious on Bush.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Obama Falsely Claims Fast and Furious Program “Begun Under the Previous Administration”

By Jake Tapper

Sep 21, 2012 11:39am

Asked about the Fast and Furious program at the Univision forum on Thursday, President Obama falsely claimed that the program began under President George W. Bush.

“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,” the president said. “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.”

In actuality, the Fast and Furious program was started in October 2009, nine months into the Obama presidency.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/president-obama-falsely-claims-fast-and-furious-program-begun-under-the-previous-administration/