Project Gunrunner

Ayuh,... Nothing irrational or baseless or imagined position by our President, about it...
Simply examining his history, 'n voting record is considerable PROOF...
Which All of yer ramblings are seriously Lacking...

 

Now you're using circular logic.

Since you seem to be fond of Harvard, consider a review they did on quite a number of studies on this topic. This might open your eyes a little once your nose is out of the gun sites.

Oh, this IS disappointing, 'ona'. Do you really think that nobody will notice your flagrant dodge on this?

Don't let your bias get in the way now, and stop the dodging. Are you in favor of addressing the illegal gun market or not (provided it were done in a Constitutional fashion)? Your refusal to address this only shows a void of reason in your position and implies a lack of logical thinking in your ideology.

Now THAT'S amusing. It looks like you're trying to make the tail wag the dog here. You cite an increase in gun sales by misinformed and paranoid gun owners to validate a false premise that our president is "biased against the Second Amendment". Terrific bit of flawed logic, that.

I "got" that you are resorting to nothing more than fear-mongering. I suppose by YOUR standards, John Ashcroft and Chuck Heston were "anti-gun".

Do you have anything substantial to offer us?

 

An expected narrow-minded response from you, Bondo.

Good work.

OK, good. Now we're getting somewhere. You profess to require "PROOF", which for you is progress, so please help us with the "PROOF" that shows "our current Administration's attack on our Second Amendment rights" as 'onalandline' stated, and which I was responding to. Show me the PROOF that our President has "attacked" our Second Amendment rights.

Get busy now.

 

Ayuh,... I've seen the Proof, in his voting record, 'n statements...

You go find yer own information...
I'm not your researcher...
Better yet,...
You show Me where he has ever stood up For the 2nd amendment.....

Yer talkin' Trash,.... Undefendable Trash at that.....

 

Oh, that's priceless. You're all about "PROOF" until, that is, you actually have to come up with some that will support your argument. THEN you ask that I find my own. Absolutely priceless.

Beautiful. This rambling rant shows the extent of your logic; If he hasn't been FOR it (in your narrow view that is), then he must be AGAINST it. Just like if you haven't published a support for capping the Horizon well, then you must be against it, I suppose.

By the way, our President, who you claim never supported the 2nd Amendment, signed into law a provision that allows the carrying of firearms in our National Parks.

Guess you missed it.

 

This study may show that an availability of guns may lead to gun deaths. I won't argue there. It's just like coming to the conclusion that the availability of cars will lead to car accidents.

What the study does not address is all of the violent crimes that were prevented from the availability of guns to the general public.

Like I said, there are already laws against stealing guns and using guns to commit crimes. Without impacting law-abiding gun owners, how do you suggest we take care of the illegal gun market? Drugs are illegal, yet we have a huge illegal drug market. Criminals no dot follow laws.

Now, you tell me what YOU would do, genius?

Obama's Senatorial record is clearly anti-gun: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_obama.html

On the Second Amendment,
Don’t Believe Obama!: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3991

The Obama Administration supports the UN Small Arms Treaty, which is a back-door to gun control, but cannot be enforced, unless ratified by Congress.

Eric Holder was known as anti-gun from the start: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4243

Sonja Sotomayor and Elana Kagan are anti-gun. Sotomayor voted against over-turning the Chicago gun ban. I believe that Kagan was not confirmed yet.

Obamacare even has provisions for keeping guns away from certain individuals.

Gun sales went up when Obama won the election because of his record. People knew that their gun rights may be at stake under an Obama Administration. This is why sales went up, not because of fear-mongering.

 

Ayuh,... Irronic ain't when a politicain will sign a bill full of what he Wants, even though it contains an amendment he Hates...

Btw,... Onalandline provides the links yer hoping I'd go find for ya...

You've proved absolutely Nothing,...

You loose....

 

You obviously did not peruse the link I gave you because it was not a single "study", but a review of (24) separate studies on guns. I recall you boasting of an imagined glut of evidence showing the benefits of gun ownership, and I showed you no less than (24) that shows the reverse. From Harvard.

More dodging....... Pitiful really.

Do you really think that answering my question with another question is a valid answer? All you need do is answer "yes" or "no". Are you in favor of addressing the illegal gun market or not (provided it were done in a Constitutional fashion)?

I see that you didn't take my advice to get your nose out of the gun sites. Garbage in...garbage out.

Have you forgotten that you said that our President is; "biased against the Second Amendment"? Even though you didn't produce anything that quotes him saying that? Are you even aware that he TAUGHT Constitutional law?

So, let's see if I have your logic right; There was no fear-mongering, even though you yourself linked to a NRA site that did precisely that very thing, and the ironic thing is that none of the 'Chicken Little' hysterics has actually happened. So, we have a situation where a demographic was sold something that never happened and which propelled this gullible demographic to actually go out and buy more guns and ammo.

Looks to me like a CLASSIC case of fear-mongering, friend. Did you buy into the hysteria and stock up on your cache too?

Thought so.

 

Onalandline didn't produce anything that showed our president saying that he was "against the 2nd Amendment", so you're still on the hook, friend. One of his links actually quotes him saying the reverse. It quoted him saying: "I do not object to the lawful use and ownership of firearms", and later: "we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners".

Now get busy and support your paranoia with "PROOF". You know.......... the stuff that you expect from others.

 

There was no comprehensive study in your link. Just some correlations that do not give the big picture. The crime-preventative nature of gun ownership was not addressed, and don't forget the study I showed you from Harvard about gun control NOT being effective.

The only form of gun control that would work, is the complete absence of guns, which will never happen.

I already told you that the illegal gun market has been targeted for decades. Unfortunately, the bad guys are all about illegal.

Now, who is doing the dodging?

Tell me your ideas.

Why would I take the advice of someone that is clearly delusional?

Yeah, and he also said the Constitution was "fundamentally flawed" and a "charter of negative liberties".

You just refuse to accept the facts.

Most reputable organizations, such as the NRA, just present the facts - something you have a hard time with.

Let me recap the FACTS:

Gun control does not work.

The Obama Administration is anti-gun and has a problem with the Second Amendment. They will have a hard time attacking it directly, but will use all other means to chip away at it.

YOU need to open your eyes.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vKfL2ETnF8"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vKfL2ETnF8[/ame]

 

That's untrue, and you should know better. The review by Harvard that I linked to listed no less than (24) studies (you know.....science?). They were all "comprehensive" and you would have known that if you had actually taken the time to peruse them. Your misguided and biased comments shows that you did not.

Once again, untrue. Those studies used controls that allowed for all gun effects. Positive AND negative.

Have a little pride, friend.

No..... In fact that was precisely why I showed you the wealth of studies reviewed by Harvard in my own link; so you might be appraised of the science in its totality.

Reiver has already noted to you the deficiencies of that particular study you have now hung your hat on. I recall that he pointed out to you; "The source is neither primary research (an econometric methodology would be required) or a reasonable review (as it covers very little of the analysis that is available)".

Predictably, you chose to ignore this in favor of blindly following your ideology.

This must be very difficult for you. It would seem to be such a simple question to answer, and yet your ideology is getting in your way. Let's try it again;

Are you in favor of addressing the illegal gun market or not (provided it were done in a Constitutional fashion)?
​

If you are not in favor of it, then have the balls to say so. Conversely, if you are in favor of constraints on the illegal gun market, then have the honesty to say so. Man up.

Ha! says the one who claims that our president is "biased against the Second Amendment", even though your own biased links say otherwise. That's rich.

Source with context please?

Or are you too ashamed because it is from one of your gun sites?

Ha! Now THERE'S a misnomer. You used "reputable" and the "NRA" in the same sentence.

Your own link showed the NRA stirring up the masses which you for one appear to have bought, hook, line and sinker.

So, answer my question, friend. Did you or did you not go out and buy up ammo and guns in response to our last presidential election? You know, the one that was supposed to be the end of the world for gun owners, but was nothing even close?

 

More hysterics I'm afraid. Just look at the title of the video; "Obama to BAN guns, spread this folk...." Amazing bit of fear-mongering there, fella. Nowhere in that biased clip did they even suggest that Obama was going to "ban" guns, and yet there you are..... When facts aren't available, use FEAR. Good work.

You only support my point that this whole thing was sold to a gullible public willing, apparently, to believe almost anything. Has any of the 'Chicken Little' hysteria actually come true?

Thought not.

 

Crime statistics are clearly NOT in your favor no matter how you try to disprove the facts about the ineffectiveness of gun control.

Once again, you can downplay all the studies you and your buddy wish to, but the facts remain the same: Gun control is ineffective.

Yes, and it is already being done, but clearly it is ineffective.

Your turn. What are your ideas?

Clearly Bobo is your man, and you just fail to see him for the way he is. Sorry to burst your bubble.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=79225

and

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr9mLB3yKs"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr9mLB3yKs[/ame]

The facts are the facts, no matter who presents them.

No, I already owned guns.

 

You must have been part of that "gullible public" that bought into "hope & change". How's that working for you?

I have plenty of sources where I get my information. You can believe what you wish, but IMO, the Obama Administration is anti-Second Amendment.

Luckily, there are many groups and organizations out there standing up for the Second Amendment at every turn.

 

What we know about Project Gunrunner:

House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican, is threatening to begin contempt proceedings if the Justice Department doesn’t start providing documents about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) Project Gunrunner and Operation Fast and Furious. But what’s the controversy about? And what could the documents show?

In Project Gunrunner, ATF allowed American guns – including AK-47 assault rifles and military-grade, .50 caliber sniper rifles – to be smuggled into Mexico and sold to drug cartels, with the goal of tracking the weapons after they’ve been used.

The project began during the Bush administration in Laredo, Texas, in 2005 as a trial, morphing into a national program in 2006. The guns were sold and tracked electronically, giving law enforcement agents valuable intelligence on where the weapons went and who had them.

During the Bush years, no guns were allowed to cross the border into Mexico. When President Obama took office in 2009, things changed. Obama’s ATF continued Project Gunrunner, but made a crucial decision to allow guns to be “walked” into Mexico, eventually ending up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

The results, in at least one instance, were tragic. Two AK-47s ATF officials were tracking were found at the scene of U.S. border agent Brian Terry’s murder.

Suspected firearms trafficker Jaime Avila, who bought the two Project Gunrunner AK-47s found at the scene of the murder, was arrested shortly afterwards on gun crimes. But no one has been charged with Terry’s murder.

Controversy erupted after a CBS News investigation unveiled Project Gunrunner publicly, and two GOP lawmakers, Issa and Sen. Chuck Grassley, began investigating.

Previously public documents Issa packaged with the Wednesday letter to ATF show people involved in Project Gunrunner, including the gun stores who participated, were fearful about the impact of allowing such powerful weapons into the hands of criminals, even if they were being tracked.

One key figure is ATF agent David Voth. Voth helped coax reluctant U.S. gun dealers to continue selling thousands of powerful guns as part of Project Gunrunner, assuring them the program would eventually help stop gun trafficking.

But even Voth expressed alarm to superiors. An April 2, 2010 email from Voth to two other ATF officials listed the number of murders over the past several months in Mexico, highlighting the rampant drug violence there.

“Our subjects purchased 359 firearms during the month of March alone, to include numerous Barrett .50 caliber rifles,” Voth wrote, “we have a sense of urgency with regards to this investigation.”

The subpoenaed documents could show who made the fateful decisions to allow assault weapons and military-grade sniper rifles to be “walked” into Mexico.

Issa says given the structure of the Justice Department, the decisions were likely made by top-ranking officials, potentially even Attorney General Eric Holder himself.

Meanwhile, Issa also has document requests pending at the State Department, which could have also played a key role.

ATF is so-far resisting the document demands, saying the information could imperil ongoing criminal investigations. But Issa is threatening contempt proceedings if the administration does not comply and says the objection is spurious.

Source: http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/21/what-we-know-about-project-gunrunner/

 

On the Second Amendment, Don’t Believe Obama:

The presidential primary season is finally over, and it is now time for gun owners to take a careful look at just where nominee Barack Obama stands on issues related to the Second Amendment. During the primaries, Obama tried to hide behind vague statements of support for “sportsmen” or unfounded claims of general support for the right to keep and bear arms.

But his real record, based on votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows that Barack Obama is a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties. Don’t listen to his campaign rhetoric! Look instead to what he has said and done during his entire political career.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia.

FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.

FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.

FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.

FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.

FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month handgun purchase restrictions.

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.

Source: http://www.nraila.org/obama/

 

Interesting bit of transference, there fella. At least TRY to be consistent now. You yourself have "downplayed" no less than twenty four separate studies that I offered you, and you actually have the gall to accuse ME of "downplaying" your one study.

Oh, the hypocrisy.

"Yes" what? Are you stating that "yes" you're for addressing the illegal gun market, or "yes" you're against addressing this illegal market? Stop the weasel wording please.

Clearly, you have a problem with substantiating your positions. It's so very easy to cast aspersions, but another matter entirely to validate them. If you have a quote of him saying that he is against the 2nd Amendment, then post it for us to see, if not, then man up and admit your error. Your link actually showed him (Obama) saying the reverse; "I do not object to the lawful use and ownership of firearms", and later: "we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners".

Let's see you tip-toe around that.

Have some pride, friend. Your link did NOT quote Obama saying that our Constitution was "fundamentally flawed". That's a lie. As to his quote saying; "charter of negative liberties", you left out some very important context. He was pointing out the views of the Warren Court and how they did not break from the "essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers" where they saw the Constitution saying "what the states can't do to you...[and] what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf".

I suppose you think it's appropriate to misquote and distort in order to smear others, but I for one do not see the honor in it. Your choice.

​

 

I can only believe what I see and read. You, on the other hand have nothing but fears and suppositions to bolster your paranoia.

Thanks, but I'll just stick to facts and logic.

 

I've already addressed this hype by the NRA to you.

Thank you for posting it so others can see the lengths the NRA will go. All one need do is look at the very first so-called "FACT" that the NRA offered above to see how they have falsely ascribed a motivation to Obama that borders on the absurd. Could an objective viewer not concede that Obama objected to the nominations of four of the sitting Justices, perhaps because they were (and are) all right wing nominees who have turned out to be activists judges intent on a conservative agenda?

Didn't occur to you, eh? Thought not.

 

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Yes, I am always ready to address illegal aspects, but there are already plenty of laws established to address illegalities concerning guns.

I wish to know how you would address the illegal gun market.

Of course, he never said he was against the Second Amendment. That would be stupid and illegal for him to say that.

His past voting record and his Administration appointments lead one to believe he is not that fond of guns or the individual right to own them.

He clearly has a problem with the Warren Court/Constitution, regarding the redistribution of wealth.

Unfortunately, Obama, and many before him are still operating way outside the bounds of the Constitution.

 

You believe what you wish. I see the writing on the wall.

OK, we'll see how the Obama Administration moves forward on gun control.

 

Your comments are clearly biased toward your liberal views.

Obama just appointed two activist judges that view the Constitution as a living document, and are activists themselves. Thank God the court is still in the favor of Conservatives.

You may hate them, but the NRA facts are just that...facts.

 

First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws

Findings from the Task Force on Community Preventive Services

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eck9p8uErFc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eck9p8uErFc[/ame]