Proof offered for 2nd Amendment-busting intent of Fast & Furious

 By Doug Book, staff writer

 When Jim and Sarah Brady met with Barack Obama on the 30th anniversary of the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan,  they asked the President how he would help to advance their Handgun Control,  Inc  (now the Brady Campaign)  gun control/gun confiscation agenda. Obama’s response:  “I just want you to know that we are working on it.  We have to go through a few processes,  but under the radar.”

 In the seven months since that meeting,  many have suggested Obama’s comment was a dark reference to the criminal Operation Fast and Furious.  After all,  without the courage of ATF whistle blowers,  the murderous and unconstitutional scheme would have probably remained  “under the radar”  even to this day.

 And now some very revealing information has been compiled by blogger Bob Owens to lend further credence to the belief that Fast and Furious had nothing to do with the taking down of Mexican drug cartels and everything to do with subverting the 2nd Amendment rights of the American people.

 Over the years,  a great deal has been learned of the firearm preferences of drug gangs. And strangely enough,  a scant few of the weapons purchased and  “walked”  south of the border by Fast and Furious operatives actually match the weapons-of-choice demands of Mexican cartels,  the guns intended recipients.

 But they DO coincide quite nicely with the types of weapons whose availability American gun grabbers like Barack Obama have been most interested in limiting or doing away with altogether.

 The majority of weapons transferred under Fast and Furious have been semi-automatic rifles of the AK and AR types with a few .50 caliber Barrett  (BMG)  rifles and FN  (Five-SeveN)  pistols thrown in for good measure.

 Over 2000 of these weapons–mainly the AK and AR rifle variants–were walked across the Mexican border during the Operation.

 Yet as popular as these AK and AR rifles are to gun buyers in the United States,  Mexican gangs have virtually NO INTEREST in them at all!  Fully automatic or selective-fire AK rifles are available to cartels on the black market for about $100,  far less than the purchase price of the semi-auto version in US gun stores.

 And as for the AR models,  “…cartels raid armories and buy selective-fire M-16 and M-4 rifles from deserting or corrupt Mexican military members for far less than the semi-auto rifles finding their way to cartels with federal government assistance…”

 The .50 caliber rifle,  though certainly powerful is also heavy,  clumsy and often just a single shot weapon. The big gun may enjoy a certain status among gang members,  but daily use would be difficult at best.

 So why did Operation Fast and Furious offer drug gangs so many firearms they did not want or need?  Because these are the weapons marked for extinction by American gun grabbers throughout the nation.

 From championing the meaningless and ineffective  “assault weapons ban”  which forbade the sale of AK and AR type rifles to claiming that the .50 BMG could bring down a speeding jet,  groups from the Brady Bunch to the far left,  Obama directed Joyce Foundation have worked to criminalize public ownership of these weapons.

 And what better way to advance their agenda than to suddenly have hundreds, perhaps thousands of these guns appear at murder scenes throughout two countries?

 By some estimates as many as 300 people have been killed in order that the gun-banning dreams of the left might be realized. Never has an Administration engaged in a more thoroughly corrupt undertaking. Prison is far too good for this unholy group.

Use this site to contact your Congressional Representative:

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

To read more use this link:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/smoking-gun-most-gunwalker-guns-targets-of-ban-efforts-but-not-wanted-by-cartels/?singlepage=true

Further reading: http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2011/10/ssi-exclusive-prior-knowledge-atf-knew.html

http://www.standupamericaus.org/homeland-security/do-the-right-thing-face-retaliation-doj-whistleblowers/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20127178-10391695/atf-gunwalker-update-eric-holder-to-testify-on-fast-and-furious/

Related posts:  http://www.coachisright.com/attorney-general-holder-eviscerated-by-darrell-issa-for-fast-and-furious-crimes-3/

http://www.coachisright.com/origins-of-fast-and-furious-accidentally-revealed-by-white-house/

  http://www.coachisright.com/armed-citizens-descend-on-gun-banning-new-mexico-mayor/

  http://www.coachisright.com/will-gunwalking-violations-of-the-arms-export-control-act-spell-doom-for-the-regime/

 Have you answered this week’s CiR.com poll?

See Coach on Youtube! Go to the new Coach’s Locker Room page to see and what the Coach has to say on the issues that conservatives care about.

 In this world you may have knowledge or you may have repose, but you may not have both.  What have you done today to deserve to live in America?

 Comments on this or any other coachisright.com essay can be sent by following the posting instructions below.

Be Sociable, Share!

37 thoughts on “Proof offered for 2nd Amendment-busting intent of Fast & Furious”

  1. So… Obama continued a program that Bush started because he thinks if guns are at gun crime scenes he will be able to ban guns because guns are never found at gun crime scenes and this will make people think that criminals use guns so they'll agree that they should be banned?

    Are you sure you're not just stupid and too crazy to notice?

    1. Salvage : Would you care to clarify your comment ? Your run-on sentences made it very difficult to comprehend the direction your message was taking.. And, it appeared as if your last sentence was a direct "slam" at the author, for comments written in the topic article above, with which you did not agree.
      I certainly am NOT the "truth police" around here; and I have made more than my fair share mistakes in posting; but I do my best to remedy mistakes….How about You, do you correct your errors ?
      It is totally asinine and beyond lame for you to assert that simply because a similar, but a more responsible program begun by Bush which actually tracked and reported (and arrests were made) those purchasing American firearms in Mexico; bears ANY LIKENESS or end-goal intent as the Obama/Holder lie-filled fiasco. Your flippin' nuts, friend !
      Regarding what appears to be a slur on the author, please do read the following:
      If, what I have suggested, is true then let me get this across to you as clearly and as briefly as possible…. you show up here once in a blue moon perhaps, and you have not followed the excellent SERIES of articles Doug Book has written on this subject; but you have the "stones" to enter at this time to slam the author ??
      You have obviously mistaken this website for one of your Liberal "Hit and Run" disinformation sites. We don't do that around here friend…. most often, if we don't agree with an article our criticisms are usually phrased in a kindlier fashion, or we do not comment at all.
      Kindly keep your distance from decent folks until you can learn how to behave in forums such as this one..
      If, what I have suggested, is NOT at all what you had meant to say l (in your above post), then please DO reappear and " 'splain yourself Lucy " !
      An apology wouldn't hurt either !

      1. >simply because a similar, but a more responsible program begun by Bush which actually tracked and reported (and arrests were made) those purchasing American firearms in Mexico;

        Awesome.

        1. Salvage : I see that you are every bit the knot-head I suspected you to be. Even when given the opportunity to clarify your position, you still choose to show us that you have nothing but personal opinions and nonsensical responses to offer when you are challenged !

          1. Well the problem is the initial post is nonsense, your response was more of the same so why should I buck the trend?

          2. No sir, your ignorant rejection of a fact-based story is nonsense, just proof of your agenda. You can have your own opinions, you can't have your own facts.
            If you think it is nonsense, do what adults do, and make your fact-based argument. Defend your beliefs.
            Lets see, isn't something found abandoned or junked, without value, called "salvage?"
            Appropriate name for both you and your comments.
            Ron Reale
            realetybytes.com

          3. I don't think you know what fact based means because there aren't any here. Just the paranoid ramblings of wingnuts making rather silly connections. That makes it hard to mount any sort of rebuttal.

            Here is a fact: if the government wanted your stupid guns you wouldn't have your stupid guns. I know you all think you're a pack of Wolverines! but really no.

            Here is another fact: the gun makers love Obama, they call yell he's coming to get your guns! And you go off and buy more. If I were them I'd be making all kinds of sure that Obama wins the next election. Best marketing ever.

          4. The facts are that Bush had a similar program, but never let the guns get out of the country, and used them to make arrests.The fact that you think our weapons of self defense are “stupid”, shows more about your agenda.Gun makers love obama? The guy trying to put them out of business? Really?I stand by my last comment.Ron Realerealetybytes@yahoo.comhttp://realetybytes.comhttp://coachisright.com

          5. No, the guns left the country under Bush too, to be fair however I doubt Bush had much input in that or much of anything.

            And yes! You need miltray grade hardware for self-defense!

            Of course they love Obama, they can use him to get very silly people to buy more of their products, check out gun sales in the last four years, they have spiked quite dramatically without Obama passing any laws to warrant your fears.

            But then again people like you never need a reason to be afraid.

          6. So you would suggest that “people like us” WAIT for gun restricting laws before purchasing more guns? Seem to me this is an example of wise people thinking ahead and the unhinged waiting for others to come and help them. In the face of an enemy of freedom like your pal in the White House, fear is a good thiing.

          7. Ya, that's about it, of course the legislation neve has to happen, the threat is enough to make you run down and buy more.

            It's a bizarre fetish, I can see the point of having a pistol but if you think you need anything like an assault rifle than you should probably move. Unless you like living in fear, which I suppose you do.

          8. The facts are that Bush had a similar program, but never let the guns get out of the country, and used them to make arrests.The fact that you think our weapons of self defense are “stupid”, shows more about your agenda.Gun makers love obama? The guy trying to put them out of business? Really?I stand by my last comment.Ron Realerealetybytes@yahoo.comhttp://realetybytes.comhttp://coachisright.com

          9. salvage,

            Nonsense? Well, I have to disagree. One thing drug cartels have are available funds to purchase those items necessary to advance their business interests. The difference between a fully auto weapon and a semi-auto AK or .223, 5.56 or 9mm AR is night and day. Why should they settle for something inferior? Now if the FBI/ATF had walked M-16s or other auto-weapons across the border, things would be different. But then the Regime couldn't claim that new, tougher gun legislation would make the difference as such weapons aren't available in gun stores and certainly don't figure heavily in crime statistics. I believe Bob Owens' take is a legitimate one. And one thing is certain–there ARE no coincidences with the Obama Regime. The fact that the overwhelming majority of the weapons walked are those which Obama, Holder, Hillary and many others claimed to make up the "90% found at Mexican crime scenes" is far too great a coincidence to be…coincidental.

            As for Wide Receiver, Lanny Breuer and Asst Dep ATTY Gen Jason Weinstein were (in spring of 2010) ready to BURY the story rather than allow the ATF to be disgraced and further discredited! At the time, they were more concerned with covering up for one of their favorite anti-gun, anti gun-ownership Regime agencies than with shoveling more dirt on the Bush Administration! Of course, the F&F story had not yet broken, forcing a change in plans. Please read about this on CiR on Wednesday.

            Thanks for your readership of Coach is Right,

            Doug Book

          10. See the fact you keep saying "regime" is a clue that you are a very silly person who is driven by either paranoia or partisanship.

            Bob Owens is a fool with a website, hardly an authority on anything.

            The gun walking scheme was a stupid idea launched by cowboys with the same mentality that landed America in Iraq. The Obama Administration should be rightly taken to task for allowing it to continue but to try and shoehorn it into your gun grabber paranoia is beyond retarded.

            If the government wanted your guns you would either have no guns or be dead, it's that simple.

          11. Doug and Ron : Your attempts to reason with and to educate the bozo calling himself Salvage; as well as trying to get the the jerk " to "put up or shut up' via a much needed chiding; are as well meaning , but as fruitless as my own attempts. You both made excellent points, but this guy is a loser that needs to be banned from the site.
            Nobody here has time to babysit a liberal malcontent who hasn't got the common sense or decency God gave a grasshopper.

          12. Ron : normally, I would agree with you regarding the banning issue; but not in this instance. I've seen enough of "Salvage's" garbage to understand that he will never give you, me, or anyone else here a comment worth civil discussion or debate You can't figure out any "angles" from him because he gives nothing away. He just takes un-ending, witless pot-shots. But if you think you can learn something from being sniped at by this twit……go ahead Amigo… have at him.

          13. I guess you have ad more experience with him than I. I just abhor the thought of banning, or being banned, for ones comments, which, by the nature of our endeavors, we solicit.I'm sure we've both seem more profane, insulting twits than this, (and I for one, have come to that line myself on one or two occasions!) :-)I guess Reuters banning me for posting a comment on their site with links to true Islamist thinking bothered me a bit! Be well,RonRon Realerealetybytes@yahoo.comhttp://realetybytes.comhttp://coachisright.com

          14. Ron, my friend : knowing some of your history and passion on this web site; I can only say this : to be banned from the politically correct , Obama-controlled, Reuters should be worn as a badge of honor ! Had it been me being banned I could only remark to Reuters that "I've certainly been thrown out of better places than THIS !" Sometimes when we tilt at windmills our lances get trashed in the fray.
            You tried to do what you thought was right, but there's always someone or something more powerful than us, with an agenda of their own, who decides the game rules. Suddenly, you're tagged as a pariah…….Just consider the source, Ron.
            Banning DOES smack of censorship in some instances Ron; but there are also legitimate standards to maintain here, and neither of us would like to see this web site degenerate into the no-holds barred , free-for-all, sniping-contests which all of us have encountered in our surfing adventures.
            You're correct that we have both encountered really snarky and unlikeable characters elsewhere…..I just see no reason why we ought to accept them here. I look at that as simply enabling poor behavior.
            Being censorious is not generally acceptable behavior ; but requiring ALL individuals who post here to follow the same rules of reasonable conduct and content is exercising equal and sound judgement.
            We sometimes disagree amongst ourselves here at CiR, but we don't slash and burn one another because of it, do we ? Same rules apply to visitors.
            No one is being singled out for his/her opinions if we all respect the standards required in expressing those opinions.
            I can understand your concern. While we Do solicit comments….where does one draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable ?
            One rule of thumb is that there is no reason to tolerate unwarranted and unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks simply because a reader doesn't like the content of an article !
            Another rule of thumb would be when, for example, three of us tried to engage this character in legitimate conversation and he refused to come off his snide comments; that ought to be a "deal-breaker" and a dead give-away that he was more interested in playing games than he was with making himself understood.
            And, as I pointed out to him earlier, we have neither the interest, nor the time in this forum to babysit malcontents, (at least not for very long!).

          15. Salvage : So big deal !! You didn't like the initial post OR my responses to you; so what? Is that gonna ruin my day, or bother anyone else around here? Hardly.
            If you cannot or will not explain your objections factually then I have no time for you.
            Take a hike to an " I LOVE OBAMA " site which I would imagine is more to your liking.
            If you had any common sense and could express yourself coherently beyond " I don't like", then you might be worth talking with; since that is NOT the case here, I will leave you to your devices.
            Trust me Jackass, we all have better things to do than cross swords with an opinionated idiot, and a Socialist one at that !

          16. Hellooooo Sweet Puppy !
            And you're still my hero !
            Today, in the frozen North Country, it is snowing and the wind is whipping the trees around and stripping the top layers of snow from roof tops. This would probably be a bad day to snatch up Cato, the Cat from Hell, and introduce him to snow, huh ? Though God knows I'm tempted !
            The work and research you have done on Fast and Furious is very detailed and illuminating as to all the known "players" to date. I have followed most all of the links you have provided as "back-up" The standupamericaus link you provided in your comments to Chark (below), was particularly devastating. Other than the chap which was "suddenly" re-assigned to the Mid-East where he's got to watch his back from both foreign nationals and so-called "friendlies"….I had not stopped to consider the fear for life, limb, family, and property with which these state-side whistle blowers must live every day ! I thank all that is sacred for their bravery.
            What a disgrace this administration and its' agencies have become under Obama ! They've never been fine agencies to begin with … but matters, ethics, and accountability are truly "in the toilet" now.
            You really must be striking some nerves in Liberal corners when obvious stoolies like Salvage drop in to nit-pick !
            Good on 'ya mate !

  2. The story's premise is plausible, but here's an alternative: Many F&F guns apparently DID end up in the hands of Mexican drug criminals. If full auto alternatives were available for $100, it seems likely that the F&F guns were sold to the cartelistas for $100 or less. Logic suggests that the ATF had to be subsidizing the deals with US Taxpayer funds, directly or indirectly (this of course contradicts ATF's pretense that the "walkers" were acting on their own initiative and were being monitored and tracked as part of F&F). Has ATF admitted to doing this? Was ATF authorized by Congress to use federal funds to arm foreign drug cartels?

    1. Chark,

      MANY weapons were purchased with American taxpayers dollars given to paid FBI informants and then transferred to straw purchasers. This is well known. But regardless of price, cartels are not going to purchase weapons they do not want. A FREE pig-in-a-polk is not going to take the place of a fully auto AK, an M-16, etc. But cartels will take free or nearly free weapons and give them to underlings. A handful (or less) of ATF agents did purchase weapons and leave them at drop points for pick-up by cartel members (all at the instruction of their ATF superiors). The "walkers" were certainly NOT acting on their own initiative. Nor were they being monitored by the ATF, ICE, DEA or the FBI! Thousands of guns were walked across the border thanks to the Obama DOJ/FBI in order to give more credence to the 90% of guns at crime scenes originate in the US meme. This lunacy, augmented by the death of Terry finally caused whistle blowers to speak up. (And many have been paying a price for many months.) Read info at the following link. A real eye opener.

      Doug
      http://www.standupamericaus.org/homeland-security

      1. Thanks for the link. Perhaps Cong. Issa and Sen. Grassley are doing this already, but it seems to me that they need to "walk the money" upstream, starting with the straw buyers and "paid informants" (hopefully the ATF whistleblowers can speak to this if they are still alive). Generally, the person approving an expenditure is responsible for knowing what it was for, and this bumps all the way to the top, with a trail of red tape and signatures. There should be records of who exactly approved the disbursements; what accounts the money came from; who put it into each level of budget request at DOJ; who sought the spending authority and appropriations from Congress; and, which committees and which Congressmen and Senators voted to approve it. Desired campaign ad for 2012: "My opponent voted to spend your taxes to supply guns to Mexican drug gangs. But he/she claims not to have actually known what he/she voted for. Is either case acceptable?"

        1. ALL of the purchase money came from the FBI. Robert Mueller testified alongside Janet Napolitano some short time ago and, like the rest of the Regime-regulars, knew NOTHING of Fast and Furious until the death of Brian Terry and subsequent breaking of the story on TV. Remarkable how clueless our "leaders" are, isn't it. Of course, the small problem Mueller and many others have is their attendance at an October, 2009 meeting DETAILING the Fast and Furious Border Operation. Bill Newell, David Ogden (then Deputy Atty Gen) were contributors and the list of attendees reads like a Who's Who of Regime officials and DEPARTMENT higher-ups…FBI, Justice, etc. F&F truly was a MULTI agency operation. This PDF link gives an idea of those in attendance and the redactions with which the Grassley/Issa people have to contend.
          http://pjmedia.com/files/2011/07/attachment-four-

          Thanks again for you interest in F&F and your readership of Coach is Right

          Doug

Comments are closed.