Project Gunrunner

I didn't say that you did. How did you miss this?

You have repeatedly quoted OTHER people's words in this thread. Some of them, quite outlandish. Now, when prompted to use your OWN words to support a conspiracy you claim to agree with, all you can come up with is broad aspersions, ie no specificity. Get it?

You put forth a conspiracy that you cannot even begin to support, and yet you seem to have bought into it hook-line-and-sinker. I fear your critical thinking has eluded you.

 

Anyone who doubts that Future Federal Firearms Restrictions are not on the horizon is foolish.

 

Wrong. Since you have included this particular accusation under the guise of "fact", you are therefor obliged to be accurate. Unfortunately for you, this is NOT accurate. While those three DID make claims as to the origins of guns in Mexico, they did NOT use that claim as a means to push for an "assault weapons" ban as you said. You made that one up.... Fact.

ALL of them, eh? ALL of the gun dealers are honest and none of them have knowingly supplied this gun trafficking apart from this program?

Please, spare me the sanctimony.

Oh really? "fiercely anti-gun rights people", eh? Nice appeal to emotion, there fella.

You have made an allegation of somebody supposedly lying, so you will, of course not want to be accused of the same with your accusation, right?.......... Where exactly did they vote to "overturn that ruling"? Hmmm? If you cannot produce this, will you have been lying in your accusation?

I see. One plus one equals one thousand, eh?

Amazing. None of what you have laid out can be said to support your conclusion that this administration is either "corrupt" OR that they intend to "undermine our Constitutional rights", and yet there we are. You claim an evil intent, so ipso facto it must be so.

Amazing divergence from logic that.

Wow! You really believe this nonsense, don't you?

No, I believe what the evidence shows, friend. I'll leave the believing "what you want" entirely up to you. It is clear that you believe only what your ideology demands.

 

It doesn't take much critical thinking to see what has been happening.

 

Napolitano Grilled Over ‘Fast and Furious,’ Likens Hearing to Cross Examination:

House Republicans on Wednesday turned their sharp questioning over "Operation Fast and Furious" toward Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who acknowledged her agents were twice told to "stand down" in deference to what she called a "very troublesome" operation.

Napolitano, at one point likening the questioning to a cross-examination, said repeatedly she only learned of "Fast and Furious" after Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed in December. She emphasized the operation, conceived and run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, "was an ATF operation," under the auspices of the Justice Department, not her department.

Still, during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, outspoken Republicans wanted to know why she didn't press for more answers in the wake of Terry's death, and they called on her to meet more regularly with her Justice Department counterparts, suggesting more frequent discussions could help prevent incidents like Terry's murder.

Napolitano said she has never spoken with Attorney General Eric Holder about "Fast and Furious," a revelation Republicans strongly criticized.

"There needs to be better communication, so somebody can say, 'Whoa! This is a crazy idea, you're giving guns to drug smugglers that are going to come back and be used?" said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.

Holder, however, has said he was not aware of "Fast and Furious" -- or at least its controversial details -- until after concerns were raised publicly. And, in a letter to lawmakers three weeks ago, he said that while "some senior officials" within the department knew of an operation called "Fast and Furious," they "were not advised of the unacceptable operational tactics being used in it."

Nevertheless, on Wednesday, Napolitano said one reason she hasn't spoken to Holder directly about "Fast and Furious" is that the Justice Department's inspector general is currently engaged in an investigation into the matter, and she said she wouldn't know details about "Fast and Furious" because it "was an ATF operation."

Napolitano warned lawmakers not to "rush to judgment here," but she said there "will be lessons learned from this, and there very well may be changes in the field as a result of this."

Launched in late 2009, "Fast and Furious" hoped to target major gun-runners in Arizona by following gun purchasers to senior-level officials within Mexican cartels. But high-powered weapons tied to the investigation ended up at crime scenes in Mexico and the United States, including that of Terry's murder.

On Wednesday, Republicans tried to use their questioning of Napolitano, a former U.S attorney in Arizona, to bolster allegations that Justice Department officials knew details of "Fast and Furious" early on. Republicans have noted that, starting in at least March 2010, officials within the Justice Department's criminal division approved wiretaps as part of the investigation.

During a lengthy back-and-forth, Napolitano acknowledged that wiretap applications are approved by the Justice Department and include a "summary" or "narrative" of the case. But when Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., tried to suggest it was "disingenuous" for the Justice Department to say officials didn't know about "Fast and Furious," Napolitano balked.

"Someone at the Department of Justice had to know about 'Fast and Furious' for the [wiretaps] to ever have been approved, correct?" Gowdy asked Napolitano. "If there were [wiretaps] approved in 'Fast and Furious' -- and there were -- the Department of Justice would had to have known about it, correct?"

Napolitano wouldn't comment, telling lawmakers she would "leave that for your own investigation."

Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is leading a congressional investigation into "Fast and Furious." Republicans and Democrats have increasingly become divided over the direction of the probe.

Issa told Napolitano he believes an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent assigned to a "Fast and Furious" task force "likely was very aware that there was gun-walking going on."

Napolitano said, with thousands of agents engaging in hundreds of operations under the DHS umbrella each day, information from "an agent assigned somewhere about some matter would not net necessarily come to ICE headquarters, much less DHS headquarters."

Napolitano said that, since Issa launched his own investigation into "Fast and Furious," she has learned about two incidents in which ICE agents were told to "stand down" on their own investigations so ATF agents could continue with parts of "Fast and Furious."

The incidents, in November and December 2009, spurred a meeting between ICE, an ATF official, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Emory Hurley, who led the "Fast and Furious" prosecution team. At the meeting, Hurley requested that ICE coordinate with ATF before taking any enforcement actions against targets that might be associated with "Fast and Furious," Fox News was told.

As Napolitano put it, ICE was told "the ATF operation would take precedence." She said she is not aware of any other incidents where ICE ceased investigating at the behest of ATF.

Meanwhile, Issa pressed Napolitano on why she didn't ask more questions about "Fast and Furious" in the three months after she learned of Terry's death, before Holder asked the Justice Department's inspector general to investigate.

"Aren't you ... furious that the Justice Department -- not ATF -- the Justice Department withheld from you the knowledge of 'Fast and Furious' during this entire period of time, including one in which you had an agent dead?" Issa asked.

Napolitano said everyone "should be outraged" at Terry's death.

"The first thing is to recognize who actually killed him, and that our No. 1 priority was to make sure the shooters were found," she said. "As quickly as I could get to Arizona after his death, I met with the FBI, their agents in charge. I met with the [prosecutor] who was going to conduct that investigation, and that was my number one concern, that those responsible for the shooting death of Agent Terry were brought to justice. And that's what I was being kept apprised of."

The chairman of the committee that welcomed Napolitano Wednesday, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, is calling for a special counsel to look into questions surrounding "Fast and Furious."

After the hearing, Issa and Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, distributed a letter they sent to Holder, looking for answers into the murder of ICE agent Jaime Zapata in Mexico early this year. In particular, they are seeking information on any surveillance conducted on suspects in the case and wondering why action wasn’t taken against suspects during what the lawmakers view as at least two opportunities.

In a statement to news outlets, Issa and Grassley said they're concerned tactics "similar" to those of "Fast and Furious" could have played a role in Zapata's death.

Source

 

You get out of it what you put into it, friend. If you don't apply critical thought to your positions as you have here, then the result is you are left with weak and emotional conspiracies. Perhaps good enough for yourself, but many here aspire for more than that.

 

No, Danct; YOU are wrong, and I made up NOTHING. Eric Holder specifically used the 90% figure AND called for a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban. That is a FACT, not the nonsense you just posted; but I have no doubt you'll ignore that fact as you ignore all other facts inconvenient to your arrogant viewpoint. You can accuse me of falsehood all you want, but it doesn't hide your own lack of honesty.

No one is better at sanctimony than you. Much was made of "rogue dealers" on the southwestern border supplying guns to the cartels, with specific dealers being named as "problem dealers"... ALL of which later proved to have cooperated with the BATFE only to receive demonization and defamation in response. So, again, the sanctimony proves to be yours.

Nope. Just a statement of fact.

Read the dissenting opinions in McDonald, Danct. Sotomayor's vote specifically is clearly outlined therein.

I am stating my opinion AND I specifically noted that it was my opinion and I laid out my reasons for feeling as I do. Oh, and I have a First Amendment right to state my opinion whether you like it or not, and you don't know jack about logic.

Yes, actually I do; along with a large number of law enforcement officers serving in border areas. You can call it "nonsense" if you'd like; after all, "nonsense" is the term I use to define pretty much everything you write as well and we're each entitled to our opinions.

That is your opinion, Danct; not fact. You have demonstrated to my satisfaction that it is you who is far more ideology driven than I.

 

Ayuh,.... Couldn't have said it better myself,...

Danct thinks highly of herself,...
The rest of Us know better...

 

Truth IS important, friend. You claimed that

"Political leaders, from Holder to Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama himself, all made claims insinuating that "90 percent" of guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico came from the United States as an argument for stricter gun laws, including a new so-called "assault weapon" ban."
​

Remember? Your claim was that those three persons specifically used this "90 %" number to make an argument for stricter gun laws INCLUDING a new assault weapons ban. This claim by you was made under the guise of "fact". Remember? Certainly, if it were indeed "fact" then it would be a simple matter for you to validate these facts. You have not done so, because you know your claims are false. You might find a quote by Holder concerning assault weapons, but it predates the 'Fast-and-Furious' program, so there you go. Get to work...... FACT.

More vague generalities from you again. Your Black/White thinking trips you up when you assume absolutes that do not exist.

Look, facts are based on evidence. Merriam Webster says: "a question of fact hinges on evidence". Therefor, if there are Presidential appointees that are "fiercely" "anti-gun", then where is the evidence?

Sorry, the burden of proof is all yours. If you can show where she voted to "overturn Heller" in that dissent, then be honest and show it. Anything less is very disappointing. While you're at it, you can show me how 'McDonald' was anything but an attempt to build on 'Heller'. I don't recall any vote to "overturn Heller".

If you can't support your so-called "facts", then they aren't "facts". Simple. The irony is in that you accused the Justice of "lying" and then made up an imaginary vote intended to "overturn Heller". How do you square this contradiction?

Then your "opinion" cannot be said to be the result of critical thinking, because your conclusion is not based on facts or logic.

Remember that you had stated:

"They wanted to see violence explode in Mexico, and for that violence to directly threaten the public safety of Americans, all in hopes that it would enable them to take the gloves off and to push for a comprehensive assault upon the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms."​

What an amazing conspiracy you've concocted there, fella.

 

You just have to open your eyes and accept the scandal that has been unfolding in front of us.

 

You can chase that windmill all you want, but until you have solid and verifiable evidence that shows your conspiracy, then you're just on a witch hunt. Simple, really. Thus far we have evidence of gross incompetence, but NO evidence of nefarious motivations that you wish to pin on them. Good luck with that.

 

Thanks, Danct - I'll remember that when I step into the voting both next fall. The Justice Dept. under Obama wasn't malicious, they were just grossly incompetent...

 

It will come out. Someone will be hanged.


You just love sugar-coating things, don't ya?

 

FACT: Things happened exactly as I said, your dishonest and self-righteous denials notwithstanding. To whit: Barack Obama said, AND I QUOTE:

"A demand for these drugs in the United States is what is helping to keep these cartels in business. This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border."

During an interview on CBS’ "Early Show", Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said: "We have to recognize and accept that the demand for drugs from the United States drives them north, and the guns that are used by the drug cartels against the police and the military, 90 percent of them come from America."

The 90 percent figure was similarly cited by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) during a congressional hearing on the subject. Durbin said: "According to ATF [the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], more than 90 percent of the guns seized after raids or shootings in Mexico have been traced right here to the United States of America." Feinstein added: "It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico used to shoot judges, police officers, mayors, kidnap innocent people and do terrible things come from the United States, and I think we must put a stop to that."

Read those again, Danct. No mention of "90% traced". No, they flatly stated that MORE THAN 90 PERCENT OF THE GUNS SEIZED IN MEXICO CAME FROM THE UNITED STATES.

On February 26th responding to a reporter's question on weapons' regulations, AG Eric Holder said, "Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons. I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum."

Yes, the quote by Holder is from 2009... the same year ATF ramped up Fast and Furious! Coincidence? I think not; but I'm sure you'll dismiss any connection because you are incapable of admitting that you are not only wrong but dishonest to your core.

Are you !#$%^ serious?? Just look at the records of Obama, of Holder, of Rahm Emmanuel.... Every (*)(*)(*)(*)ed one of them has a long history of supporting extremist gun control! All your posturing and snide dismissals don't change that fact! Who the Hell are you trying to kid?? You clearly are incapable of honest assessment or debate on this issue!

Well, an awful lot of people, including many in law enforcement and the political arena, have come to the same conclusion. Dismiss it all you want, you lying sack of excrement; your lack of integrity on this issue is now well documented.

 

Interesting twist. Have you seen ANY evidence that this program was run by the Justice Dept? [for you knee-jerk reactors out there, please understand the difference between a program being run by a branch of the Justice Dept and a program being run directly BY the Justice Dept.]

 

Ah, then your position is based on want and not evidence. A position that is glaringly lacking in critical thought.

What an irrational thing to say. I have done nothing but follow the evidence, and not succumb to wild speculations as you have. I fail to see how that is "sugar-coating" anything. If you have evidence of your nefarious conspiracy, then produce it. Until then, you're on a witch hunt, pure and simple.

 

Be very careful making accusations against me about my honesty, friend. If you can show where I have lied, then produce my quotes and show how my statement was both false AND that I knew it to be false. Anything short of that is simply a smear on my good name. A low brow tactic worthy of other forums and not this one.

Now then, you have offered, not only a quote by our President as to this matter, but quotes by others as well. I would have preferred the source of those quotes so I could substantiate them. I'm curious why you would not do so. I will have to therefor assume they are suspect until you source them (many here have used bogus quotes). Even if this particular quote were accurate, it does NOT make the claim that your argument stated. Namely that he (Obama) made the claim "as an argument for stricter gun laws, including a new so-called "assault weapon" ban.". As anyone can plainly see, he made NO mention of "assault weapons" OR any stricter gun laws. All of your angry bluster will not change this.

Conclusion: your "claim" is NOT a FACT.

Let's see if your evidence gets any better....

Here you now have Sec Clinton making a 90% claim, but NOTHING about stricter gun laws NOR any desires as to a new "assault weapons ban". A glaring omission from somebody who claimed that

"Political leaders, from Holder to Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama himself, all made claims insinuating that "90 percent" of guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico came from the United States as an argument for stricter gun laws, including a new so-called "assault weapon" ban."​

Until you can make this connection, you're so-called "FACT" is nothing more than a fart in church. Unnecessary and unwelcome.

Moving the goalposts won't help your argument friend. Your original argument wasn't about whether or not government officials misstated the facts. Nope, it was LINKING this 90% claims to the pushing for stronger gun laws INCLUDING a new assault weapons ban. You have conveniently forgotten this pesky little FACT.

Why?

Let's taker your conspiracy step by step to open your argument to critical thought, shall we?

Fact #1) Holder expressed a desire at the beginning of Obama's term to reinstate the AWB. Something the majority of Americans were in favor of at that time.
Fact #2) There is NO evidence that shows he had ANY detailed knowledge of the Fast-and-Furious program at that time.
Fact #3) Holder's claim made NO reference to any 90% thus leaving your link terribly broken.
Fact#5) His belief that a new AWB could have benefit has since been substantiated by a recent study. (only worthy of note because you are very concerned about honesty in others)


You have taken all of these disparate facts and joined them into an imagined conspiracy that cannot be logically formulated. I think you've let your ideology get in the way of your critical thinking on this.

Once again, be very careful about making rude and baseless personal accusations.

Angry bluster and personal attacks are no replacement for real facts and logic, friend. Just SAYING that somebody is "fiercely anti-gun" does not make it so. Simple really. Can you show that the personal positions of these people have any different views on guns than the plurality of Americans? You seem to long on emotional rants and very short on FACTS.

I'll let your insolence slide this one post, friend. Apparently the facts of the matter have hit a nerve in your values. I'll report any future personal attacks though. They are utterly unnecessary and juvenile, frankly.

Now then, you claim that law enforcement agree with your position, but fail to accept that there are many other law enforcement that disagree. At the same time, you claim that YOUR politicians that agree with your assessments are honest and upstanding while politicians that disagree are automatically having ulterior and nefarious motives. Hardly a sound position, but it's your choice.

 

What's your position? This is some kind of oversight or mistake?

Just open your eyes and connect the dots.

 

Spare me your self-righteous pseudo-threatening little tirade, Danct. You have no honesty and no integrity, and as such are no longer worthy of acknowledgement.

Bovine excrement. The one moving the goalposts is you, not me. The fact that governmental officials LIED (they did not "misstate the facts") was part of my argument. You have tried, again and again, to whitewash that "pesky little FACT" away time and time again, and your reasons for doing so are quite obvious: you are a gun control advocate who wants to protect the President that is your best hope for seeing your agenda enacted.

Once again, spare me your hypocrisy and your dishonesty.

You wouldn't know a fact if it walked up and bit you in the ass, Danct. Your irrationality is well documented. Heck, you've even claimed that the Violence Policy Center isn't an extremist organization. Telling, that. You are fiercely anti-gun yourself, so as far as you're concerned anyone with a nutball gun-hating agenda is perfectly rational to you.

 

Danct is able to use evidence and logic to construct valid argument. Your personal attacks only describe that you haven't been able to do likewise.

 

Nice diversion.

You still can't support your wild conspiracy eh?

Oh, THAT's compelling. I suppose that by YOUR logic, I could claim that Martians are amongst us, and when you protest and ask for my proof, I'll just ask you to "open your eyes".

Amazingly weak argument you have there friend. Are you old enough to be in this forum?

 

And yet you DO persist nonetheless. Interesting contradiction.

I have found that the ones here who most freely accuse others of "lying" with NO substantiations, are the ones who most often are dishonest themselves. Is this the case with you? In my previous post, I asked you support your charge. Based on the fact that not only did you NOT do so, but you decided to delete that part of my post entirely, causes one to wonder more about your own honor than my own.

In your previous post you followed this same tactic by deleting a part of my post where I had exposed a glaring hole in your argument. I suppose you thought that by ignoring this flaw, that it somehow would not exist. I'll leave it for others to decide if this was dishonest of you. I had posted:

"If you can show where she [Justice Sotomayer] voted to "overturn Heller" in that dissent, then be honest and show it. Anything less is very disappointing. While you're at it, you can show me how 'McDonald' was anything but an attempt to build on 'Heller'. I don't recall any vote to "overturn Heller".

If you can't support your so-called "facts", then they aren't "facts". Simple. The irony is in that you accused the Justice of "lying" and then made up an imaginary vote intended to "overturn Heller". How do you square this contradiction?"
​

Not only did you delete this part of my post, but you failed to honorably respond, or even answer my question to you. You can still explain your contradiction......





Now in THIS post by yourself, you have once again chosen to avoid another part of your argument that I exposed for you. Yep, you once again deleted that part of my post where I said:

"Now then, you have offered, not only a quote by our President as to this matter, but quotes by others as well. I would have preferred the source of those quotes so I could substantiate them. I'm curious why you would not do so. I will have to therefor assume they are suspect until you source them (many here have used bogus quotes). Even if this particular quote were accurate, it does NOT make the claim that your argument stated. Namely that he (Obama) made the claim "as an argument for stricter gun laws, including a new so-called "assault weapon" ban.". As anyone can plainly see, he made NO mention of "assault weapons" OR any stricter gun laws. All of your angry bluster will not change this.

Conclusion: your "claim" is NOT a FACT."
​

and then you deleted this:

"Here you now have Sec Clinton making a 90% claim, but NOTHING about stricter gun laws NOR any desires as to a new "assault weapons ban". A glaring omission from somebody who claimed that

"Political leaders, from Holder to Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama himself, all made claims insinuating that "90 percent" of guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico came from the United States as an argument for stricter gun laws, including a new so-called "assault weapon" ban."​

​

Until you can make this connection, you're so-called "FACT" is nothing more than a fart in church. Unnecessary and unwelcome."
​

In conclusion, you apparently feel that by making personal attacks and making baseless charges that you cannot verify,.. all full of bluster, anger and false indignation, that you can somehow fake your way through a weak and indefensible position. Unfortunately for you, we can all see through this schoolyard foot-stomping for what it really is.

 

Now I'm afraid you're coming across as somewhat shrill and paranoid.

It's ironic that you are accusing ME of lying when you yourself have made such a glaring error. Let me quote for you your original statement on this:

"Political leaders, from Holder to Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama himself, all made claims insinuating that "90 percent" of guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico came from the United States as an argument for stricter gun laws, including a new so-called "assault weapon" ban."
​

Noteworthy is the the fact that nowhere in your quote did you say ANYTHING about Holder, Obama or Clinton lying. The focus of your quote was in the supposed pushing by these officials for not only stricter gun laws, but also "a new so-called "assault weapon" ban", as you stated.

I'm sorry that your so-called "facts" haven't measured up, but for you to persist with falsehoods now about what you have previously said only compounds your problem and calls into question your own veracity in my humble opinion. NONE of the officials you've named have said what you have CLAIMED that they have said as to this. This is very ironic in that the place that you made this claim is where you made the bold claim that this was a FACT. Remember? You started your manifesto with this:

"In the end, the facts are clear:"
​

Leading the uninitiated to believe that your claim was factual when it clearly was not. Pity.

Oh shame on you, friend. Have some pride. You cut out the heart of what I was saying. It just so happens that I was directly exposing your argument in the deleted section, so you deleted it, did not (or COULD not) respond to it and instead chose to make more baseless personal attacks against me. Your hole IS getting deeper now. Here is what I said:

"Let's taker your conspiracy step by step to open your argument to critical thought, shall we?

Fact #1) Holder expressed a desire at the beginning of Obama's term to reinstate the AWB. Something the majority of Americans were in favor of at that time.
Fact #2) There is NO evidence that shows he had ANY detailed knowledge of the Fast-and-Furious program at that time.
Fact #3) Holder's claim made NO reference to any 90% thus leaving your link terribly broken.
Fact#5) His belief that a new AWB could have benefit has since been substantiated by a recent study. (only worthy of note because you are very concerned about honesty in others)


You have taken all of these disparate facts and joined them into an imagined conspiracy that cannot be logically formulated. I think you've let your ideology get in the way of your critical thinking on this."
​

A glaring omission on your part, friend. Try not to make this worse than it already is.

Sigh,........ more angry personal attacks. I'd hoped you could do better.

Once again, angry bluster and personal attacks are no replacement for real facts and logic, friend. Just SAYING that somebody is "fiercely anti-gun" does not make it so. Simple really. Can you show that the personal positions of these people have any different views on guns than the plurality of Americans? You seem to be long on emotional rants and very short on FACTS.

Game,.. Set,.. Match!

 

Of course I don't personally have the evidence, but it certainly looks like one.

So what is it? An oversight? A mistake? Bush's fault?

Tell me, in your opinion, what was the purpose of "Fast & Furious"/"Project Gunrunner"?

They just may be!

 

This is from the White House website - an April 16th, 2009 joint press conference with President Barack Obama, and President Felipe Calderon of Mexico --

President Obama - "Now, having said that, I think none of us are under any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy. And so, what we've focused on is how we can improve our enforcement of existing laws, because even under current law, trafficking illegal firearms, sending them across a border, is illegal. That's something that we can stop.

And so our focus is to work with Secretary Napolitano, Attorney General Holder, our entire Homeland Security team, ATF, border security, everybody who is involved in this, to coordinate with our counterparts in Mexico to significantly ramp up our enforcement of existing laws. And in fact, I've asked Eric Holder to do a complete review of how our enforcement operations are currently working and make sure that we're cutting down on the loopholes that are resulting in some of these drug trafficking problems."

later President Calderon says -

"But there are many, many things that we can definitely move forward in. For example, in armament, it is not only a matter of seeing whether we can change the legislation on assault weapons -- we have already said what our position is -- but we might also be able to see whether they can apply existing legislation in Mexico and the United States on armament. For example, in Mexico it's a matter of enforcement, with the Export Control Act, for example -- this is in the United States -- I'm sorry -- prohibits the export of weapons to those countries where those weapons are prohibited.

And that is the case of Mexico. If we actually comply with the U.S. law -- or rather if everybody complies with the U.S. law that prohibits the sale of these weapons and their export to Mexico, we can move a great deal forward."

All they had to do was enforce the existing laws - not let people break them and see what happens next...