“Officials warn sequester could hinder gun control” The Problem Being…?

 

If this was a purely political blog, I’d run a post entitled “OMG! The Feds Cut Spending! OMG!” I support the sequester with the same fervor that herpetologists support Sofia Hellqvist‘s interest in their legless friends. Speaking of scales, it’s time to face the music. Anything that cuts the federal budget is OK with me, from the Obamaphone program to defense spending. And now we learn that the sequester could cut federal funds spent on “gun control.” As someone who believes there shouldn’t be any gun control laws—zip, zero, none—I couldn’t be happier. Well, I could be if the bill completely defunded the ATF. But I’ll take what they won’t get. Specifically . . .

All sides say they want better enforcement of current gun laws, but law enforcement officials are warning the budget cuts looming at the end of this week would be a major setback to those efforts — and could end up putting more guns in the hands of criminals.

The Obama administration has told Congress that every FBI employee would be furloughed for 14 workdays and nearly $60 million would be cut from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, putting a dent in the government’s ability to investigate and prosecute gun crimes — a top priority in the wake of the December school shootings in Connecticut.

This washingtontimes.com story fills my heart with joy! Can it get any better—other than the complete and utter defeat of the civilian disarmament movement throughout the world? No. Not for now.

David Chipman, a former ATF agent who now works with the gun-control advocacy group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, said the agency doesn’t have extra agents to spare, and said the impact of any cuts would be felt.

“There are twice as many gun dealers as there are post offices, and the ATF is an agency that’s smaller than the Broward County [Fla.] sheriff’s office,” Mr. Chipman said. “There are hundreds of ATF inspectors trying to oversee the conduct of tens of thousands of dealers.

“It’s already an uphill battle. Just the thought that we would have an ATF agent trained to be on the street trying to prevent the next attack, sitting at home because the government can’t pay him to work is just incredible.”

But true! Now if only Chipman [above right] would sit at home and do nothing, instead of collecting Bloomberg bucks as a paid shill for Mayors Against Legal Guns, hobnobbing with celebrities who would deny their fellow Americans their Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. His inactivity would increase the sum of human happiness exponentially.

Oh and the threat that the FBI’s NICS checks would slow from lack of money/personnel isn’t such a big deal. There’s sweet FA to buy now anyway. So it’s as good a time to drain the swamp as any. Better than most.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

86 Responses to “Officials warn sequester could hinder gun control” The Problem Being…?

  1. avatarRuss Bixby says:

    So…

    If some POS gets out of Attica ten years after shooting a 7/11 clerk and is henceforth barred from owning a gun, is that a gun control law or a gun-related subsection of another law?

    Or a rapist? Or someone with a history of extreme violence but who hadn’t previously used a gun – preferring brass knuckles?

    I don’t want such people to have unrestricted access to a salad fork.

    I therefor support gun control, within reason. No, not the myriad laws we have, but some.

    Does anyone here really not? Within reason?

    If we are realistic, that takes a few rounds out of the other side’s clip.

    Russ

    • avatarCasey T says:

      Well, you may do so but what about the idea of having your rights restored? There is so much crap around and I personally believe in rehabilitation. If we do not rehabilitate the criminals and remove their rights permanently, how do you plan for them to not resort to crime again? I believe this is why the recidivism rate is so much higher because criminals are punished forever now.

      • avatarRuss Bixby says:

        Fair enough.

        But barring them for one minute, let alone ’til they’ve demonstrated some serious improvement, is still gun control.

        And I’m none too certain about rapists…

        • avatarJohn Rand says:

          We already have systems for re-enfranchisement. The problem with them is they only selectively return rights. You get some of them back, but not all of them. Primarily, you just get your right to vote back.

          If we’re saying that a person is rehabilitated, then they should be a citizen again, with full rights and responsibilities. If we don’t think they’re able to be a citizen, then they should stay disenfranchised.

          I think this, to some extent, reflects some of the foundational issues with the system. People think that you can “cause no harm” by voting, when in fact it’s probably the most destructive thing a person can do to their nation over their lifetime.

      • avatarRebecca says:

        Spot on! Once someone completes their sentence successfully, then when they go back on the street they should have their rights fully restored. If they then go back before a judge, then that prior conviction should land them a harder sentence.

        We need to stop warehousing the prisoners, too. Rehab has *got* to be part of the process, or it all just becomes a revolving door. Much like now.

        • avatarMichael B. says:

          Rehabilitation doesn’t work. Why? Because you can’t force someone who doesn’t want to change to change.

          There’s also too much profit to be made in the illegal drug trade. Most people aren’t in prison for murder or rape.

          Oh, and your bit about our revolving door justice system has everything to do with the drug war and incarcerating millions on drug charges. Jails and prisons overcrowd and people have to be released. Thus, revolving door justice.

          Less laws, more freedom, less prisoners.

        • avatarDryw says:

          Not to mention the for-profit prison system.

          At this stage, there is exactly zero incentive for the prison system to reduce the number of “customers”. Quite the opposite: prisons are profitable if they stack ‘em as high as possible. I personally feel this is impetus for the continued federal prohibition of marijuana. More offender occupants = greater profit margin. Rotate them back into the system ASAP.

          “Rehabilitation” is a twisted joke. It’s all about the greenbacks.

    • avatarMike C says:

      Hey Russ, it is already illegal for criminals to own guns but they do not follow current laws banning them from owning firearms what makes you think passing or enforcing any new laws will make a difference! By the way the Justice Department has not prosecuted a single straw purchaser (someone who can pass a background check that buys a firearm for someone who can’t) since Obama was elected. A straw purchase has a ten year prison sentence which would discourage this practice if it was actually enforced!

    • avatarChris Mallory says:

      The rapist, the 7/11 robber and the guy who likes using brass knuckles should not be walking the streets period. If a person cannot be trusted with a weapon, then they do not deserve to be free.

      • avatarRuss Bixby says:

        No argument, but they will be. Letting them live a limited life for a while on the outside is better than paying or their incarceration.

        ‘Course, I’d like to see all rapists drawn and quartered, but that’s another discussion…

      • avatarAccur81 says:

        Seriouly? Do you realize how stupid the average jury is? How budget cuts shorten sentences? There are whole host of people who positively, desperately need to be in jail and / or deported. Many are roaming the streets of LA, the south side of Chicago, NYC, etc. If every criminal was in jail, there would be almost zero need for self defense.

    • avataruncommon_sense says:

      Russ,

      You are missing the true problem. Consider your excellent example of a “POS [who] gets out of Attica [prison] ten years after shooting a 7/11 clerk”. If we do NOT trust ex-convicts with firearms, they should still be in prison!

      Think about it. Once an ex-convict is released from prison and walking the streets amongst us, they can easily acquire many items which they can use as weapons to harm good citizens. Options include large rocks, pipes, clubs, knives, etc. etc. etc. And the reality of the situation is that firearms laws do not prevent any ex-convict who really wants a firearm from obtaining one.

      Since firearm laws:
      (a) do nothing to stop criminals,
      (b) harass law abiding citizens, and
      (c) waste limited government and law enforcement resources,
      let’s get rid of them.

      • avatarRuss Bixby says:

        They do help send some of ‘em back, however. Mistakenly, sometimes, but still…

        There was the paper hanger who went legit, and got a gun for self defence not knowing that it was illegal to do so. Then it was stolen and he reported the theft, winding up back in prison.

        A background check would’ve saved him a lot of pain.

        Moral of the above: the world is grey.

        While the gun laws are hardly perfect, some of ‘em are better than would be none at all.

        You are of course free to disagree.

        • avatarKeith says:

          The moral of that story could also be that “going legit” should restore one’s rights.

          Full submission to onerous law is indeed one way not to run afoul of it. However the other, and I believe far better way, is to make it very compact and simple. I have spoken often on these pages about malum in se versus malum prohibitum law. This is the very heart, unless I’m mistaken, of what RF is getting to. If an action, in itself, does no harm, it should not be illegal.

          Using law as harm prevention is just begging for tyranny.

    • avatarJohn in AK says:

      Interestingly enough, you are NOT talking about ‘gun control, but instead ‘people control.’ Laws against convicted violent felons possessing firearms are not controls on an inanimate object–they are controls on the conduct of the human, as are all laws. I am all in favour of any laws that control the actions of violent felons, including laws that cause them to cease to breathe. I am NOT in favour of laws that ‘control guns,’ because the stubborn, earless things will just NOT listen to the spoken command. Try as I might, barking commands at my Glock has not ever caused it to do a darn’ thing.
      If ‘gun laws’, as we mistakenly call them, were effective in controlling the behaviour of violent felons, however, we would not be having this conversation. Sadly, they are not. Therefore, we have to fall back on those silly ‘people control’ laws such as making criminal homicides a bad thing, assault while armed slightly worse than getting a parking ticket, and using a firearm in the commission of another bad thing something that will be treated rather harshly. Enforce THOSE laws, and the ‘gun control’ laws become redundant at best and counter-productive at worst.

    • avatarWLCE says:

      i support letting the marijuana kids out of our jails and prisons and making room and money to lock people like him up like they need to be.

    • avatarpat says:

      Russ, are you assuming that we currently have NO laws or regulations regarding firearms? The question is, do we need more (laws and regulation) than we currently have now AND (more importantly) the ENFORCEMENT of said CURRENT laws and regulations.

    • avatarBarstow Cowboy says:

      Troll.

    • avatarFelix says:

      I used to think it was good to have minimal background checks, but after more thinking, not so much. There are several classes of people who shouldn’t have unrestricted access to guns:

      Violent felons: Most of the guns they use are illegally obtained anyway.

      Mental midgets: They are banned until they commit a crime, or at least do something to get committed by court order.

      Children: Parets should have control of this in the first place.

      I have come round to the thinking that anyone not locked up should be able to buy and have guns. All the background checks are pointless in the real world.

    • avatarJerryboy says:

      first off, the more violent criminals – rapists and muderers – shouldn’t be back out on the streets; they should pay the ultimate price, with a reasonable period of time before execution to prove their innocence, say, five years?

      secondly, there should be much fewer laws which would result in much fewer criminals to begin with. decriminalize marijuana and all other drugs that don’t cause serious health issues, remove ALL gun control legislation, and as many other laws as possible without causing anarchy.

      finally, consider this; removing a person’s natural right to self defense indefinitely is cruel and unusual punishment. you’ve done the crime, and done the time, so when the time ends it should end completely.

  2. avatarLance says:

    Good ATF Gestapo deserves no money anyway.

  3. avatarDisThunder says:

    Buh-buh if they can’t enforce the laws, and they’re going to cut back on the FBI, who’s going to come to my rescue, when I’m hiding in the closest? The good guys are on furlough! Oh Noes!

  4. avatarST says:

    I’m not a major fan of Sequestration, aka “Obamas Secret Defense Spending Cuts.” I’ve looked at a lot of the White Houses’ Impact Statemet reports, and they all sound the same:$19 million out of the DoD, and 1 million from everyone else.

    You want spending cuts? Lets start by shutting down Social Security and Medicare, cold turkey. Bye bye Health & Human Services, and the only Federal LE agency left under my tenure would be the FBI.

    If we can’t make it work after all of those cutbacks-THEN-I’d look at defense. Maybe.

    • avatarRuss Bixby says:

      Kill SS and Medicare and you WILL have an armed insurrection, on the part of the remaining Greatest Generation who’s been paying into it for a very long time.

      Yes, it needs fixing because we’re running out of room in which to breed and blokes are living longer, but not eradication.

      Russ

      • avatarAPBTFan says:

        Insurrection indeed. Kalashnikovs and colostomy bags.

        ST, try to explain to the folks that have paid into SS and Medicare their entire working career why they should simply give it up. How old are you?

        • avatarEvan says:

          It’s not so much that they should give it up, but more so to realize that they got screwed by their government who spent the money that was supposed to go to their social security already. Now that generation is just forcing their grandchildren to pay for them. Their grandchildren will not see one cent of the money they are paying in to the system for social security or medicare. So by saying give us what we paid for, you aren’t punishing government for spending badly, you are just making your grandchildren a bunch of debt slaves. I would rather help out my grandparents personally with finances rather than having it go through a government middleman if that’s what this really is. Mine are all dead though so I see no rationality in that sense either.

    • avatarAir Force TSgt says:

      I agree, ATF is a dinosaur. “important” sections can be Rolled into the FBI delete everything else. The Air Force is already at critical manning levels for nearly all career fields, we can’t cut anymore without decreasing our ability to project air power.

      You can’t kill SS and Medicare outright….but they need a major overhaul. The Ponzi scheme can not sustain itself forever…

      • avatarRuss Bixby says:

        Not really a Ponzi scheme, sir.

        At the outset, it was considered the lesser evil, workable because new payers would exceed payees for at least a few decades.

        Noone could have known that the can would get kicked on down the road for the better part of a century. FDR would be well and truly horrified.

        When he was warned at the time of the long term effects of certain aspects of the New Deal, the first lady was also present and interjected “People don’t eat in the long term. We can fix this up better when the current crisis is past.”

        Then came WWII, FDR died and noone fixed it.

        Guess its gettin’ to be time, eh?

        Russ

        • avatarThomas Paine says:

          yeah, that’s called a ponzi scheme.
          where you take money from new investors to pay the old investors.

        • avatarRuss Bixby says:

          In a Ponzi scheme there is an intent to defraud – its unsustainability is not disclosed to investors.

          This was more like “Pay their retirement, and foist yours off on your kids.”

          Of course, mathematically it’s akin to a Ponzi scheme. I only make the distinction because neither the effect nor the intent were vilainous.

          It was always above board, but of course unsustainable in the long term – just like the oil economy…

          Russ

        • avatarWLCE says:

          “In a Ponzi scheme there is an intent to defraud – its unsustainability is not disclosed to investors.”

          sounds like SS to me. There IS intent to defraud (taking money out out SS to pay for the wars in iraq and afghanistan is also blatant fraud).

          Social safety nets are like communism: they sound really f^cking great on paper but the problem ultimately lies in your ability to pay for it and its ability to sustain “growth”.

          SS is another anachronism founded on the idea of unlimited resources and infinite growth of everything .

        • avatarRuss Bixby says:

          Yeah, I’ll agree that it’s being misused and badly managed.

          I just object to FDR being compared to Ponzi. What he did was the best solution at the time.

          Yes, it needs repair and eventual replacement. However, it’s not evil.

          I also suspect that we’ll not agree on this.

          I wish you well.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          I agree with helping people, but not helping others with the same resources that were forcefully removed from others.

          FDR was…

          yeah. another statist wrapped in a holy veil of historical revisionism.

        • avatarRalph says:

          I just object to FDR being compared to Ponzi.

          If Ponzi was alive, he’d feel the same way.

    • avatarint19h says:

      >> You want spending cuts? Lets start by shutting down Social Security and Medicare, cold turkey.

      Social Security is funded by a dedicated payroll tax that made up 40% of Federal tax income as of 2006. Similarly, Medicare is funded by another dedicated payroll tax. Both programs are actually balanced (for now; this will change in about a decade). If you shut them both down and remove the corresponding taxes, the budget will not be meaningfully affected, since you’ll remove as much income as expenses. If you remove the benefits but keep the taxes, people will rightly ask what those taxes are now paying for.

      Defense, on the other hand, is a bloated pig. US spends more on “defense” then the five following countries combined, and most of it is spent on shooting tents and camels with Hellfires in some desert half a globe away – what does it even have to do with defense per se? Not to mention how ridiculously overpaid most US military programs are for what they deliver (i.e. the country doesn’t even get a proportionally larger stick).

      Oh, but it’s constitutional. So what? There are plenty of idiotic things that are constitutional. It doesn’t make them any less idiotic.

      • avatarST says:

        Once again, the media’s leftist bias has claimed another victim.

        Much like its firearms, the media hates the military as a matter of principle. You’ll never see anything but negative stuff about US military activities and hardware, because suggesting we need a strong military doesn’t fit the leftist agenda. When I served active duty,I worked military finance. Most of the money spent by the DoD goes to maintenance and upkeep of obsolete hardware which honestly should have been junked long , long ago. All the press focuses on is $300 million dollars for the F-35;what they don’t report is that keeping the B52 in service 50 years past its service life is costing us nearly as much money.

        THAT’S where you’re money’s going, Mr Taxpayer. We spend 5 times as much because unlike ourselves, other countries with smaller militaries know when to scrap obsolete hardware.

        Social Security is no different then a Ponzi scheme; thanks the government tampering of the official inflation numbers they’ve been dodging proper cost of living increases for decades. Everyone being paid out right now is being cheated out of their benefits because of that, which naurally defeats the point of the program. So , we are being taxed for a programs which can’t fulfill its mandate. Change the inflation metric to reflect actual economic conditions, and the Federal Government instantly goes into unavoidable insolvency.

        So, if that doesn’t change your mind I can only say this: beware what you wish for. U want defense spending cut to that of Guatemalas? Under this administration you may get that wish:and the consequences along with it.

        • avatarmountocean says:

          I don’t think anyone wants to eliminate our military (except for that standing army fanatic who hasn’t been posting recently). Finally closing obsolete programs like you mentioned is exactly the kind of “Defence Cuts” we need. And since no one has shutterd those legacy relics voluntarily maybe cutting funding will force some generals to finally put their pet museum pieces to rest.

  5. avatarThomas Paine says:

    Sequester Schmequester.

    The damn thing is only 3% of the annual federal budget.

    Wake up people. There’s still 97% to go.

    • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

      Let it burn.

    • avatarPulatso says:

      And that’s the damnable thing about it all. It’s a drop in the bucket. I’ve lost a hell of a lot more than that percentage of my personal purchasing power in the last 6 years, and I’m making almost $10k more today than I did 6 years ago.

    • avatarWLCE says:

      exactly right Thomas Paine.

      have woes about your purchasing power? buy silver. its the best retirement fund available right now (and arguably always has been).

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      “You flint-hearted ogre, you’re just the type to send us back to the dark days of the Clinton Administration, where skeletal wastrels staggered across the wasteland, bitter winds howling and where the living envied the dead.” – Reason.com user Brutus

  6. avatarAlan says:

    They flew that cork sucking lying Chipman into Minnesota to testify. They had him listed as an FBI agent testifying for the last round of bills proposed in the Senate. Representative Andrea Kieffer dressed him down after his speech and asked him if he was still employed by the ATF or a lobbyest. He admitted he is employed by MAIG. Representative Andrea Kieffer then asked Senator Ron Latz for more time to be presented to the opponents and it was granted. The looks on the anti’s faces was priceless.

  7. avatarPascal says:

    Just like many of the gloom and doom “sequester” predictions — the Obama Administration is full of cr**! If they cannot find effing 2% to cut across the board, they are just totally full of sh** — while I applaud this problem, it is just more BS from the useless Obama Administration — when will people see what a total joke of president and administration we have. Seriously FOAD!

    • avatarLeo338 says:

      If only more Americans would see this way we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in. This isn’t even a cut! They are still going to spend something around 3.7 trillion this year! They are going to spend 15% more than they did last year. They are calling this a cut because they wanted to spend 30%+ more than last year and are not stuck with only 15%. +100 on the FOAD.

      • avatarWLCE says:

        “They are calling this a cut because they wanted to spend 30%+ more than last year and are not stuck with only 15%”

        thats exactly the insidious part about this whole ”crisis”.

        The cuts arent to the principle, they’re cuts to the GROWTH itself. Much like the much feared, sky is falling, defense “cuts”.

        anytime obama (or any other politician) talks about “cuts”, take it with a grain of salt and automatically assume its only cuts to the growth.

  8. avatarSixpack70 says:

    Why does it always seem ATF agents are anti-2A? Is there a test they have to take before they can apply?

    Question 1: Do you hate the 2A and do you wish it were abolished? YES or NO

    If YES proceed to instant hire line, if NO you will be indefinitely detained and water boarded. If released a drone will watch you 24/7 armed with a Hellfire missile.

    • avatarPulatso says:

      It’s certainly a top down issue, but jobs regulating firearms aren’t likely to appeal to people who are against firearm regulation.

  9. avatarPascal says:

    Just like many of the gloom and doom “sequester” predictions — the Obama Administration is full of cr**! If they cannot find effing 2% to cut across the board, they are just totally full of sh** — while I applaud this problem, it is just more BS from the useless Obama Administration — when will people see what a total joke of president and administration we have. Seriously FOAD!

    • avatarRuss Bixby says:

      I’ve had this déjà vu before.

      • avatarPascal says:

        Its not me. I have reported this to RF before. I am all for them making some bucks to keep the site going but on my mobile device the new ads make my whole browser refresh everytime the ad flips and on my desktop, I often get a double post if timed correctly with an ad flip. it is a PITA!

        There must be a fix because other site with similar types of ads do not have the browser issues I have here on TTAG.

        • avatarRuss Bixby says:

          I figured it was something like that, and was just being silly.

          My girl says that my sense of humour is akin to a beautiful bird, in that both are pretty fowl.

  10. avatarDaniel Silverman says:

    How about we just take 60 billion from the ATF? Problem solved..

  11. avatarDisThunder says:

    If the ATF needs funds, all they need to do is put a little money into a nice NFA site, make it so you can register and get approval for a suppressor online. Streamline the process a little so it takes… oh, let’s say something crazy like a month, and BAM! We’d be sending them money so fast it’d busting out of their rotten bastard pockets!

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      They’re the government, not a business. They have no incentive to change the way things are because none of them are threatened with losing their jobs for sucking ass.

  12. avatarWLCE says:

    that saying about the shit sandwich is very true and people need to think about it.

    it just sucks knowing you did everything right in life only for those morons, that everybody else elected (who also cannot balance their checkbooks), to tear it all down and make your work essentially in vain.

    The reality is: that which cannot go on forever, simply wont. Its a reality that history has highlighted time and time again only for the next generation to completely ignore it. and this reality bites.

  13. avatarswampsniper says:

    99.99% of American gun dealers would most likely go right on obeying the law if BATF were to vanish overnight.

  14. avatarAPBTFan says:

    By far the biggest waste right now is TSA. Completely shutter those useless idiots as soon as possible. They’ve made it a standard to hire every two-digit IQ reject they can find and if there was ever a ‘government teat’ job it’s TSA. Let them all get a real job.

    DHS is next – it’s a redundant siphon of taxpayer money that never had a reason to be in the first place. It was nothing but an excuse to add thousands more jobs for us to pay for and an excuse to stomp the Constitution even more.

    ATF “might” be viable on the severely slim chance they actually do what they’re supposed to within the confines of the Constitution and sheer decency. If not (most likely scenario) then shut them down and roll ‘em into the FBI.

    We have little choice but to meet payroll on every single unnecessary/redundant government job there is but it might even be cheaper to support those leeches on welfare rather than paying their government wages and benefits. Give them their damn obamaphone for all I care as long as they’re faced with working for a living if they have any sense of shame.

    The fact that I wear 20lbs of tools and slug it out running 6″ conduit in a ditch in 115° Phoenix weather every day in summer means I can look every single one of those slugs in the eye and tell them their job is a sham and they don’t deserve my tax money.

    • avatarWLCE says:

      “They’ve made it a standard to hire every two-digit IQ reject they can find and if there was ever a ‘government teat’ job it’s TSA. Let them all get a real job.”

      LOL TRUTH

      most likely, they would get jobs working at wendys or sonic if not for the TSA.

      it amazes me how obama keeps throwing around the “sequestration will affect jobs” bullshit

      the government is NOT there for a jobs program! good god people.

  15. avatarJim R says:

    This whole sequester business is kabuki theater. The cuts are miniscule compared to what actually NEEDS to be cut from the Federal “budget” (in quotes because we haven’t had an actual budget for years now).

    It is not that big of a deal. They are trying to keep the people panicked. Panicked people are easier to lead, because they don’t think. They act like prey–they react instead of reason. Panicked people just yell “SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING!”. So the powers that be do something. They do the somethings they want to do, and a little bit more of this country dies.

  16. avatarAPBTFan says:

    I’m used to celebrities running stupid stuff out of their mouths but Chris Rock’s gone above and beyond to the point I can’t even stand looking at him. I had one of his stand-up routines on DVD but it’s no longer in my possession because I’ll never be able to watch it again.

    • avatarLucas D. says:

      Yeah, I can remember when he used to make me laugh on purpose. What with his “All must submit to my daddy Obama” bullshit, now he makes me laugh even harder completely by accident.

  17. avatarPaul W. says:

    That’s a really sub-par looking boa constrictor they used in that photo…

  18. avatarBill Frady says:

    I guess the ATF wouldn’t have enough funding to run those smoking hot anti crime programs like Fast and Furious.

  19. avatarJohnnyNRA says:

    ATF “Fast and Furious” Top Gun Trafficking Suspects Were FBI, DEA Informants

    In two days of meetings with congressional investigators over the weekend, Melson said the FBI and DEA kept the ATF “in the dark” about their relationships with the cartel informants. If ATF agents had known of the relationships, the agency might have ended the investigation much earlier, he said.
    http://publicintelligence.net/atf-fast-and-furious-top-gun-trafficking-suspects-were-fbi-dea-informants/

  20. avatarJohnnyNRA says:

    I think the ATF gets unfairly bashed since their job is to enforce the federal firearm laws already in the books. Lets not forget how they ATF agents put their lives on the line to go undercover to prosecute terrorist trying to make bombs, and kill us Americans. Cutting of the supply of weapons that end up in the hands of gangs.

  21. avatarJohnnyNRA says:

    That being said I don’t like or hate the ATF, but only recognize that there is a need for them.

  22. avatarTaco Ninja says:

    I agree that I support no gun laws. You may ask about felons and such being able to get them…to that I say this: If someone is on the street that would be dangerous WITH a gun…that means they are dangerous WITHOUT a gun…which means they have no business being out on the street. Maybe if our prisons were not like luxury resorts with gyms, cable TV, etc. etc. we could afford to keep criminals behind bars. If they are not a threat, let them free and let them have guns…if they are a threat, they rot in prison until that threat passes…

  23. avatarCBI says:

    Hmmm. Sequester. OK, defund the FBI NICS. This bans all commercial gun sales. Be careful what you wish for.

  24. avatarAperson says:

    When a person says the world is not all black and white, that there are shades of grey, that person is simply confused, uniformed or has an agenda.

    Of what benefit is it to the victim to have someone else put in jail? How does that really help things? Putting someone in jail is simply about revenge and profit for the prison-industrial complex, and it makes things worse for the entire culture.

    The solutions are to be found in what is known as private justice. Private justice is the way the unitedstate operated before there were titles such as peace officer.

    A good place to begin finding answers for today is by reading,
    The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality

  25. avatarThe Wiz says:

    The real issue here is that the “sequester” does NOT cut anything. All it does is to reduce the growth of spending in the out years.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.