Politics
Out of context: Reply #15113
- Started
- Last post
- 33,770 Responses
- locustsloth0
Viking wrote:
• Direct Response to LocusWho said "Obama is not using the Operation Gun Runner scandal to pass gun regulation."
• You're either brainwashed or you have no idea what is going on even though the evidence and story is there for your research. Something you seem to avoid.
• Let me break it down for you because it is clear someone has told you what to think.Oh Viking. If you didn't act like such an ass, your behavior could almost be endearing, in a way. Almost.
Here both you've misrepresented my statement and attempted to belittle me, my intelligence and my character, all for the sake of trying to prove your point. More on this later, but lets go back to the matter at hand.My statement was:
"A good idea on paper that went wrong in practice, i guess. Though i don't buy the nypost's conspiracy theory of Obama trying to make a case for gun control" (copy and paste is both a handy and easy to use feature on all computers)
And specifically i was referring to this line, which seemed to sum up the article's (and seemingly, your) position:
"With the Obama administration wedded to the fiction that 90 percent of the guns Mexican cartels use originate here -- they don't -- many suspect that "Fast and Furious" was a backdoor attempt to smear domestic gun aficionados as part of its stealth efforts on gun control by executive fiat."First of all, the 90% figure is not fiction. It may not be a true and whole representation of the crime guns confiscated, it's not some ghost number pulled from the ether. That figure was given by an ATF agent in a congressional hearing as the number of Mexican crime guns that were submitted for tracing. Fact is that it's nearly impossible to accurately account for the origins of ALL the guns that are confiscated. But even by FactCheck.org's calculations, it's around 36%. This is based on data from 2007-2008 when a total of 29000 arms were confiscated, around 11K or which were submitted for tracing. Using the ATF figure of 90% of those submitted for tracing, that's still nearly 10K firearms. Nothing to sneeze at.
(source: http://www.factcheck.org/politic…)So as far as a 'backdoor attempt to smear gun afficianados' it seems the only backdoor attempt is the article's attampt to malign the two things. And you, Viking, provided the key to unlocking this.
The notion that you and the nypost article are proposing is that the 2009 Stimulus funded Operation Fast & Furious was being used, directly, to back up gun control legislation. However, the graph/study that you linked from aidwatchers.org (i'm assuming in an attempt to show how the gov is trying to link gun laws and Mexican gun crime, although the study/paper wasn't from the gov), it uses 2004 as the focal point for it's data as that is when the assault rifle ban was lifted in Arizona and Texas, but not in California, where the ban was kept on a state level. The graph you linked to shows that gun related crime went up in municipalities bordering the states that lifted the ban and stayed relatively flat in CA which kept the ban intact.
2004. With data ending in 2006. A full 3 years before the Stimulus or Fast & Furious. Indeed, 2 years before Obama was even elected. So even if, in some tinfoil hat world, the F&F program WAS for smearing gun rights toters, there is data THAT YOU LINKED TO AS AN EXAMPLE to show a correlation between lack of gun control and gun-related crime in neighboring areas.So let's now talk about the actual reforms Obama is seeking to inact. Quoted form the article, by you:
"all gun shops in four Southwest border states will be required to alert the federal government to frequent buyers of high-powered rifles.
Under the new policy, federal firearms licensees in Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico must report purchases of two or more of some types of rifles by the same person in a five-day span. The requirement applies to purchases of semi-automatic rifles that have detachable magazines and a caliber of greater than .22."Do you really find a problem with this? Please tell me a legitimate reason for one person to buy two or more .22 caliber semiautomatic rifles in a 5 day period. "Because they can and want to" is a bullshit reason. i am tired of people acting like infants, saying that they want to do something simply because a law has been passed saying they can't. Are you fucking 3 yrs old?
In addition, how many frickin ways are there to get around it? Buy a gun on Monday, by Saturday, you are in the clear. If you need that quantity of guns faster than that, you are up to something.
And it's not even that they are prohibited sale. It's that the licensees have to report it. And this is only true for FOUR STATES!!. Oh, yes, Obama is TOTALLY after all our guns. In those states. In five day increments.So here's the thing, Viking. Had you said " i know it's hard to believe, but here's some other facts to back up this possibility" i would have looked at the links and formed an opinion. But you chose for some reason to take backhanded slaps at me for no apparent reason. This makes me think that you're not actually interested in informing people of the things you purport are true. You merely want to make yourself feel like you are one of the few who 'know the truth'. Because any sane person would use rational explainations and cited resources rather than attempt to besmirch my character. My character that you apparently only know from this thread. And have forgotten that i attempted (and somewhat succeeded) in calming the back and forth namecalling by asking cnaps to simply state his position on things rather than citing faults in everything. Also forgotten was how i acknowledged common ground with YOU when you cited your positions.
If you want to feel special and smart by posting theories about how the Man is out to get us, fine. GO right ahead, i'll generally ignore you.
But brother, leave me the fuck out of it.Also, it's 'locust' and 'false'