Letter sent to Obama on UN gun treaty

[McBear]

F&F was not a continuation of Gunrunner. Gunrunner was to "deny, stem the flow, suppress" not facilitate. Gunrunner had much tighter controls than F&F which apparently had no tracing controls in place.

From the ATF fact sheet at the US Embassy in Mexico

Both were to "deny, stem the flow, suppress". They utilized multiple methods. Etrace was, as the bulletin says "a component" of gunrunner. And again, F&F failed due to poor execution and poor management.

My bet, if you look at the players in middle management for gunrunner/f&f you will find the same folks. It is one of the reasons one of the guys was known as "gunwalker" at the hearings.

FYI, I didn't draw my conclusions from the ATF factsheet, I drew them from the House hearing transcripts, both from the House members and the gazillion folks who testified. The timeline is pretty clear.

 

[ladder13]

Kind of like the edited zimmerman 911 tapes, perspective and context can be changed by editing

That said, holder a complete moron and should be removed for other things he has done. This 3+ year old video notwithstanding

What perspective and context was changed?

 

[McBear]

You're telling us the guy in the Holder mask isn't saying what we think he's saying?

@ 0:12 sec there are cuts. There are other cuts in the questions. And at 0:45 Holder says "you had asked me earlier about what regulations might still exist post Heller"...and answered that question.

So, what question did he answer, the one posited on the video or the one "asked earlier"? Context is really important.

 

[ladder13]

Both were to "deny, stem the flow, suppress". They utilized multiple methods. Etrace was, as the bulletin says "a component" of gunrunner. And again, F&F failed due to poor execution and poor management.

My bet, if you look at the players in middle management for gunrunner/f&f you will find the same folks. It is one of the reasons one of the guys was known as "gunwalker" at the hearings.

FYI, I didn't draw my conclusions from the ATF factsheet, I drew them from the House hearing transcripts, both from the House members and the gazillion folks who testified. The timeline is pretty clear.

The House committee chair Issa says the 2 ops were different, I choose to believe him.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Kind of like the edited zimmerman 911 tapes, perspective and context can be changed by editing

How many times does this administration need to say that they want to ban more guns before people believe them?

Here is a classic example of this administration tying international issues and the AWB together.

"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."

Attorney General: Obama to Seek Ban on Semi-Automatic Rifles - YouTube

 

[McBear]

I see it differently. As an example, I think the video linked earlier (AWB Holder) makes quite clear the position of this administration-- ban more guns domestically. That this administration would manipulate the enforcement of an international treaty to meet that end is a reasonable argument Bolton makes, IMO.

I'm curious if you consider making the AWB permanent an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

I am opposed to the AWB but I believe that it would be very possible to implement it to not infringe. The 2nd says our right to bear arms shall not be infringed. I have yet to see it say or interpreted "our right to bear any and all arms that may come along in the future shall not be infringed".

Our 1st Amendment rights are not absolute, there are restrictions. Our 4th Amendment rights have had holes shot in them. Our 5th Amendment rights have suffered with Gitmo. The 6th...Patriot Act has interwoven criminal and military...so, I think that an AWB could be possible and be within the realities of the 21st Century. I wouldn't like it.

 

[ladder13]

How many times does this administration need to say that they want to ban more guns before people believe them?

Here is a classic example of this administration tying international issues and the AWB together.

"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."

Attorney General: Obama to Seek Ban on Semi-Automatic Rifles - YouTube

Aww comeon, he only said a FEW changes. And it was clearly edited.

 

[McBear]

How many times does this administration need to say that they want to ban more guns before people believe them?

Here is a classic example of this administration tying international issues and the AWB together.

"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."

We have a Republican House and a Democratic Senate. THEY make the laws, not the Administration. Note, also, that when the House and Senate were both Democratic, there was zero effort to remove gun rights, and that was in the moment of Fast and Furious. There is a disconnect between "OMG!!! This President is going to do X, Y and Z" and the very factual evidence that exists.

Why?

 

[McBear]

Neither you nor I know what the final draft of the treaty will contain. It hasn't been finalized yet. That is the process that is taking place right now.

To this...twice daily summaries of the meeting.
Summaries from the Arms Trade Treaty Diplomatic Conference 2-27 July 2012 | IANSA - the global movement against gun violence




I absolutely do not trust the UN, nor do I trust the State Department under Clinton and Obama to refuse to sign a Ty that could possibly infringe on our rights.

Do you know just how many treaties and agreements the US and the UN have signed as partners over the last 67 years through liberal and conservative administrations?

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

We have a Republican House and a Democratic Senate. THEY make the laws, not the Administration. Note, also, that when the House and Senate were both Democratic, there was zero effort to remove gun rights, and that was in the moment of Fast and Furious. There is a disconnect between "OMG!!! This President is going to do X, Y and Z" and the very factual evidence that exists.

Why?

The first two years were consumed with healthcare and the economy. No way were they going to start a gun control fight. A handful of gun-grabbers in Congress tried to exploit the shooting of Congresswoman Gifford in early 2011 but that quickly faded. That this administration and their gun-grabbing pals in Congress have failed to get a gun control agenda rolling isn't evidence of anything but lack of opportunity and timing. Read this short piece and you'll see... it's just not the right time yet.
Shooting Prompts New Debate On Gun Magazine Ban : NPR

Armed with an international arms treaty and a new term, the 'why' may become all too apparent, too late.

This administration has gone on record time and time again stating that they want to ban guns, and have even gone so far as to connect domestic gun bans with international gun trafficking. Are you really suggesting that it's all out of context? C'mon.. is there missing footage at the end of every clip saying "Just Kidding"?

 

[McBear]

The House committee chair Issa says the 2 ops were different, I choose to believe him.

Yet many say Issa is being totally political on this case so he may be accurate and he may be spinning for political gain. My guess is it is somewhere in that fuzzy gray area in the middle.

 

[McBear]

The first two years were consumed with healthcare and the economy. No way were they going to start a gun control fight. A handful of gun-grabbers in Congress tried to exploit the shooting of Congresswoman Gifford in early 2011 but that quickly faded. That this administration and their gun-grabbing pals in Congress have failed to get a gun control agenda rolling isn't evidence of anything but lack of opportunity and timing. Read this short piece and you'll see... it's just not the right time yet.
Shooting Prompts New Debate On Gun Magazine Ban : NPR

Armed with an international arms treaty and a new term, the 'why' may become all too apparent, too late.

This administration has gone on record time and time again stating that they want to ban guns, and have even gone so far as to connect domestic gun bans with international gun trafficking. Are you really suggesting that it's all out of context? C'mon.. is there missing footage at the end of every clip saying "Just Kidding"?

Again...no administration can "grab guns". That requires Congress. And as you so nicely pointed out, even after Giffords there was no momentum to do anything. That is because there just isn't a cabal of folks wanting to change gun rights.

Apparently many folks on the right believe that there are no gun owners that are liberal and secondly that ALL liberals want to change gun rights. A bunch of the folks on farms where I shoot, all liberals would find that odd. So would those in Harlan who are fourth generation Democrat. So would my Democratic Congresscritter.

As I pointed out to my friend who is heading down South to be production manager for an AR15 clone company...he takes a friend base that includes shooters from the gay and lesbian community, leftwing Christians, Democratic lobbyists and even a female gun toting EPA lawyer [and if that isn't a interesting picture].

The point of that tangent...There is just not the tsunami of interest in crashing the beach for gun control. There are a few vocal folks, some with blogs, some with TV coverage but they are, like the Green Party, a small voice of the left. The right has similar cousins that they put up with but that don't speak for the party. Nor do they wag the dog.

 

[ladder13]

Yet many say Issa is being totally political on this case so he may be accurate and he may be spinning for political gain.

All wackos from the left........again, I choose Issa's version.

 

[redlevel]

McB, you discount all the concerns we raise out of hand. Obama, Holder, and the Clintons have been given a bad rap. They have never had an anti-gun thought in their lives. Even though gun control has been on the Democrats' agenda for 70 years now, we are judging them wrongly. The UN is just a great big benign bunch of friendly internationalists who only have the best interests of all the peoples of the world at heart.

In fact, you haven't addressed any of the questions that have been raised, other than to declare them groundless.

You have a condescending attitude. If we were only reasonable and willing to listen to the facts, we would see that you are right. You are bright, educated, informed, and correct. The rest of us, we who dare question the motives of those we have been given ample reason to distrust, are simple-minded, dull, and misled.

There are a great many of us who are educated, informed, and aware of national and international politics who just ain't buying what you are selling.

 

[McBear]

All wackos from the left........again, I choose Issa's version.

Would it be right to say only wackos on the right believe Issa's version?

 

[McBear]

McB, you discount all the concerns we raise out of hand. Obama, Holder, and the Clintons have been given a bad rap. They have never had an anti-gun thought in their lives. Even though gun control has been on the Democrats' agenda for 70 years now, we are judging them wrongly. The UN is just a great big benign bunch of friendly internationalists who only have the best interests of all the peoples of the world at heart.

In fact, you haven't addressed any of the questions that have been raised, other than to declare them groundless.

You have a condescending attitude. If we were only reasonable and willing to listen to the facts, we would see that you are right. You are bright, educated, informed, and correct. The rest of us, we who dare question the motives of those we have been given ample reason to distrust, are simple-minded, dull, and misled.

There are a great many of us who are educated, informed, and aware of national and international politics who just ain't buying what you are selling.

I don't discount concerns out of hand. What i do is weigh them and look at the actual facts that are on the table. I don't look at speculation. It has no weight.

Sorry that you believe that I am "selling". I am looking at a set of facts as I see them. I look at what has been said and what has actually been done. Not what has been speculated or what has been spun.

Let me use this example from YOUR post. You said...
"McB, you discount all the concerns we raise out of hand. Obama, Holder, and the Clintons have been given a bad rap. They have never had an anti-gun thought in their lives. Even though gun control has been on the Democrats' agenda for 70 years now, we are judging them wrongly. The UN is just a great big benign bunch of friendly internationalists who only have the best interests of all the peoples of the world at heart."

• At no point have I said they have never had an anti gun thought in their lives.
  
• You say Dems have had an anti gun agenda for 70 years yet today [well, tomorrow] I can buy everything from a snubbie to a Barrett 50cal with my debit card. I can buy as much ammo as will fit on my pallets and the ONLY limits I have would be a fully auto AR15 and frankly ammo costs would limit me quicker than ATF.
  
• I never once said the UN has the best interests of all the peoples of the world at heart. I DID SAY that there is specific language that does not allow ATT to affect internal US gun issues.

I don't listen to lobbyists. I don't listen to blogs that roll the same rumors again and again, year after year. I don't read chain emails of rumors. I rely on facts. It's the way I was trained. Go back to some of the posts that I addressed and see if some of the things that I addressed meet that criteria.


Yes, there are folks on here that are well informed. I really enjoy talking to them. But like on any forum there are also folks who are kneejerk. That's the life of fora. Some deal in facts, some...not so much. And when there are multifaceted conversations, all of those come out. And that is what helps everyone learn. I am no different in that respect. I learn much.

I am not asking you to buy what I sell...that's your decision. But also, don't ignore what I write just because you don't agree with it. Everyone learns in a conversation.

 

[McBear]

In fact, you haven't addressed any of the questions that have been raised, other than to declare them groundless.

Oh, and go back and read what I have written. I have done nothing but address questions that have been raised, though with answers, opinions and links with which you may or may not agree.

 

[ladder13]

Would it be right to say only wackos on the right believe Issa's version?

No one who believes Issa's version would be who I consider right wing. DONE with the Holder thing, his and his boss's stance is pretty obvious to fair minded folk.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

@ 0:12 sec there are cuts. There are other cuts in the questions. And at 0:45 Holder says "you had asked me earlier about what regulations might still exist post Heller"...and answered that question.

So, what question did he answer, the one posited on the video or the one "asked earlier"? Context is really important.

Video editing or not, what is the purpose of pretending there could be a context issue? Even a casual observer of this administration should know they have time and time again made it perfectly clear their commitment to reinstate the AWB. Why not just acknowledge that the man said what he said and has so repeatedly, and reflects this administration's commitment to reinstating the AWB?

 

[McBear]

Video editing or not, what is the purpose of pretending there could be a context issue? Even a casual observer of this administration should know they have time and time again made it perfectly clear their commitment to reinstate the AWB. Why not just acknowledge that the man said what he said and has so repeatedly, and reflects this administration's commitment to reinstating the AWB?

I have not denied he said it. I have questioned the editing of the 1:06 clip where he answered a different question than that which preceded the answer. I would have liked to have the entire flow of conversation to better view the context. Was he speaking in abstract, in terms of what law he thought still stood or what he wanted to do.

Words v Deeds. That is important to me.

What one says in political rhetoric is one thing. It's great to wind up the supporters [no matter the political persuasion] with words that tout goals or philosophies. EVERY presidential candidate since Henry Clay has laced oratory with sweeping promises.

Now to deeds. At no point has any of this administration [or the Democratic members of Congress done a single thing to execute the AWB or gun control. Will they? Evidence has shown NO. What evidence? From 2009-2012 we have seen Giffords and Fast and Furious and high profile mass shootings from Alabama to California to Carthage, North Carolina to Binghamton, NY to Manchester, CT to Ft Hood. All of these gave politicos ammunition to start swaying the public opinion if they had wanted to try. But they did not. ZERO.