“If Congressional Republicans are really intent on getting to the bottom of an ill-conceived sting operation along the border by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives,” nytimes.com opines, “they should call President Felipe Calderón of Mexico as an expert witness.” So far, so good. I would really like to hear what the Felipe has to say about the ATF’s Project Gunrunner and Operation Fast and Furious. Under oath. For example, did any part of the Mexican government have any knowledge of Uncle Sam’s anti-gun running gun running misegos? Where do the Mexican drug cartels get the majority of their weapons, including fully automatic rifles, grenades and grenade launchers? The Times and I have different ideas of what FC’s testimony might reveal, apparently . . .

Mr. Calderón has the data showing that the tens of thousands of weapons seized from the Mexican drug cartels in the last four years mostly came from the United States. Three out of five of those guns were battlefield weapons that were outlawed here until the assault weapons ban was allowed to lapse in 2004. To help him stop the bloody mayhem, he is pleading with Washington to re-enact the ban and impose other needed controls.

I’ll spot the Times the “right” to call modern sporting home defense black long guns “assault rifles.” But labeling them “battlefield weapons” is the worst type of gun control agit-prop. ARs are not military weapons. Although we know for a fact that the Mexican drug cartels are using, guess what? Fully automatic military weapons. I wonder where they got those from? Bob’s Gun Store? I don’t think so.

Nor does anyone with half a brain and even the smallest interest in the truth about the drug cartels’ arsenal. I know! How about we call NY gun grabber Senator Chuck Schumer to the witness stand and ask him what he knows about [his friends at] Bushmaster’s full-auto rifle sales to the Mexican government and the controls that prevent these guns from falling into cartel hands? Or the lack thereof.

Anyway, have the Gray Lady’s editorialists even glanced at the pie chart IDing the source of cartel guns [below]? God knows TTAG readers have. And anyone else who’s been briefed about the facts of the matter. Which raises an interesting question: is The New York Times throughly corrupt, blinded by ideology or just fucking stupid? To which the only possible answer is yes.

According to the Times, the ATF’s extra-legal stingless sting op isn’t the real problem. Nope. It’s gun-clinging Republicans. So, how to frame the ATF’s increasingly obvious malfeasance? Gently . . .

That [the supposed role of U.S. gun laws in arming Mexican drug cartels] is the last thing Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican, wants to hear. He and Senator Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, issued a report last week castigating the A.T.F. for an operation in which federal agents, hoping to track guns to Mexican cartels, monitored but did not stop gun sales to people suspected of obtaining weapons for those criminal groups. Two of the American-sold guns showed up at the scene of a fatal shooting of an American border patrol agent in Arizona last year.

The guns didn’t “show up” in the Star Trek transporter sense of the word. A federal agency allowed – maybe even encouraged – these rifles to be sold to criminals, who then used at least one to murder an American law enforcement official. Not to mention dozens of Mexicans including a lawyer whose torture video was posted on YouTube by a cartel.

What exactly is the Times’s problem with the Congressional investigation into the actions of a federal agency that armed drug thugs that killed a U.S. Border Patrol Agent? What should they be doing?

The Justice Department has ordered an investigation, and it must be candid in assessing what happened.

Congress needs to be candid about how loophole-ridden laws have created a huge market for assault weapons, which end up in Mexico. At a hearing, Mr. Issa insisted, “We’re not here to talk about proposed gun legislation.” Federal officials in February sought authority to require gun dealers to report bulk sales of assault rifles only to have it blocked by a provision in the Republican budget. A responsible Congress would re-enact the assault weapons ban, outlaw uncontrolled gun-show sales and reform regulations that allow corrupt dealers to stay in business.

WTF? Would those ATF gun registry laws have stopped the ATF from selling guns to gun smugglers? And would those corrupt gun dealers be the same gun dealers that alerted the ATF to gun smugglers; the gun dealers that the ATF then pressured into selling guns to gun smugglers who used them to kill a U.S. Border Patrol Agent? And what do gun shows have to do with ANY of this?

Agent Terry’s family deserves better than this mealy-mouthed misdirection. And it’s official now: the New York Times is a joke. Only I’m not laughing. At least the Times will fade into irrelevance as the free market thrusts their lies into the limelight. The ATF needs to be forcibly (albeit legally) dismantled by We the People, lest more innocent lives are put at risk by what is clearly a rogue agency that turned into a criminal conspiracy.

Shame on all of them.

19 Responses to ATF Death Watch 18: New York Times on Gunwalker: “Lalalalalalalalalalalalala”

    • Oh, don’t think they haven’t looked at the evidence. This isn’t a case of willful ignorance. It’s a case of water-carrying for an administration with whom they’re ideologically sympathetic. They can’t have this blow up into a huge scandal that goes above ATF-head level. That would be terribly inconvenient.

      So instead they’re shucking and jiving and implying it’s all Bush’s fault for letting the assault weapons ban lapse. And gun shows! Remember the gun shows! Look, a squirrel!

  1. I think they post that shit on purpose, not by ignorance. Their boy’s ass is hanging in the breeze these days and the MSM is circling the wagons (even further) to cover for him.

    What’s most disturbing when I read this is that ninety-some percent of that rag’s readers will never know everything in the story is either an outright lie or some degree thereof.

  2. It’d be great to own fully automatic military weaponry, actually – and I’m eagerly waiting for the day the ATF and related legislation drop dead in unison.

  3. I think the People’s Daily (Official Newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party) is a more reliable source of news then the New York Times.

    Now that Magoo has the party line I expect him to start commenting on Gunwalker.

  4. Here’s one that’ll pop your corn…A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, means that WE ARE THE MILITIA, right? So wouldn’t it follow then that since we’re all, by definition, in the militia, we should have unrestricted access to military weapons?

    I’m only half-joking here. As I read the Constitution, “shall not be infringed” is pretty clear. It would have only been clearer if they’d said “shall make no law to infringe upon.” In the 1700s, I think if you’d told the People, “yeah, you have the right to bear arms, but we need to keep the large-caliber guns away from you. Military only, you know. Those things can be dangerous in the wrong hands,” you’d have had another Revolution on your hands. Where in that amendment does it say that we can have weapons, but not full-auto weapons? I am fully aware that the Supremes have ruled that it’s okay to have some ‘common-sense’ restrictions, notably on full-auto weapons. But you see where “reasonable” has gotten us. It only takes a couple of old farts to die off, and all of a sudden “reasonable” looks like you’ll be restricted to muzzle-loaders and cap guns.

    I’m not advocating the repeal of all restrictive laws. But I sure don’t see anything constitutional about any of ’em.

    • Maybe you’re not advocating it, but I am. I agree with the principle of some of the restrictions some people have on their use of firearms. But they’re all unconstitutional, and until the 2nd amendment is amended to allow for some of those restrictions, they should be repealed.

    • Brad is correct. If you want to have strict interpretation of the Second Amendment then the only weapons that are constitutionally protected are infantry weapons used by the US military, i.e, the M16/M-4, the Remington SPS 700 Tactical in 308, the Barrett 50 Cal BMG and the Beretta M-9. And despite what Magoo thinks (does he think?) The “militia” in 18th century terms means that the Government can conscript you into the armed forces of the United States. The Second Amendment is not about target shooting or hunting, it’s about making the citizen proficient in the use of arms so he can defend the nation.

      • Here’s the difference between my conception of American militia and yours: a historian would recognize mine. Yours is made up by knuckleheads. We can’t have a real conversation on the subject because you won’t educate yourself.

        • Instead of making statements please cite your sources. Failure to do so is an indication of ignorance not superiority.

        • Follow up:

          Magoo:

          Here is the language in the Virginia State Constitution which reflects the intent of the Constitutional Convention on the role and constitution of the Militia:

          “That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

          The Militia is the body the people who can be called by the state for military service. It is not surprising that the Second Amendment language is similar to the Virginia Militia clause since they both were probably written by James Madison. To restate the point the concept and use of the militia is the framers expression of the right to conscript citizens into military service.

          The Black Hawk War is a practical application of the militia principle. the Federal Govenment called up the Militia in Illinois and Wisconsin to suppress the Black Hawk tribes. Service was not an option. Today we call that the draft.

    • Brad, I don’t think the point is worth debating anymore. The Supreme Court has spoken (see Heller and McDonald Cases). Despite the relatively clear wording of the 2nd Amendment, they disagreed with your argument. Since the law is whatever they say it is, its pretty much a done deal. Sure, it is possible that a future court could change their mind about the issue, but that possibility seems remote at best, at least in our lifetime.

      • Joe, I agree with you. But I pointed out this dichotomy, largely because what many people overlook is that, even though we have rights spelled-out in our Constitution, it’s up to the lawmakers to respect those rights, and the courts to prevent the legislators from stepping on them. If everyone (tacitly) agrees that a fundamental right needs a little ‘limiting,’ (as did the Supremes, when they okay’d so-called “common sense, reasonable restrictions”), there’s little any of us can do about it.

        Frankly, I’m not sure why a private citizen would need grenades, a couple of RPGs and some Stinger misiles. But then again, look to Afghanistan in the 1980s – their militia made good use of the Stingers our CIA supplied to them, in their fight against the USSR. So while the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was to insure that private citizens would have access to guns in order to come to the defense of their communities and fell0w-citizens, as a practical mater, we’re never gonna have the firepower to be able to stand up to our own military, should some rogue administration decide to turn it against us. (In that case, our best hope is that our servicemen and women do the right thing, and vote with their consciences.)

  5. Brad Kozak says: “Here’s one that’ll pop your corn…A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, means that WE ARE THE MILITIA, right? So wouldn’t it follow then that since we’re all, by definition, in the militia, we should have unrestricted access to military weapons?”

    If only you could find one Federal judge, Supreme Court Justice, or reputable constitutional authority that would agree with you.

    • At the risk of feeding the Tr0ll, Magoo, take a look at the exchange above, between me and Joe Grine (in fairness, my reply to his comment was posted after your comment above). I’m fully aware of the court’s near-universal position on this. I was pointing out the irony in that. You know…irony. It’s like “goldy” and “bronzy,” but less precious. (And more ferrous.)

      (As a side note, don’t break your leg, should you ever decide to come down off your high horse. We value your comments here at TTAG. We couldn’t afford to hire someone willing to bait our readers with the knee-jerk efficiency that you do, and you do it for free.

    • Magoo, if you look a little deeper than you seem willing to do, you’d find that many respected constitutional scholars indeed hold the position that We The People are the militia and by logical extension do indeed have the right to possess modern military grade weapons. Perhaps you should try reading some of the law review articles by Sandy Levinson, Randy Barnett, David Hardy, Dave Kopel, Akhil Reed Amar and a host of others. Start with Levinson’s “The Embarrassing Second Amendment” and go from there. Now don’t go all loopy on me bringing up VX and nukes. But all kinds of ordnance would rightly fall into the citizen’s rightful arsenal so long as proper safeguards and rational regulations are applied. As an example; it probably wouldn’t be wise for a teenager to have a stash of RPG 7’s in the family broom closet. However, a responsible and trained adult with a similar stash, kept in a properly constructed and safeguarded magazine, following proper and well established guidelines for the storage of explosive ordnance, would certainly pass constitutional muster. Joe Huffman’s Boomershoot enterprise is a perfect example.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *