The Theory That F&F Was a Pretext for Gun Control

CBS News has a piece that lends credence to what is being portrayed by the water carrying media as a wild-eyed paranoid conspiracy theory:

“Bill – can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.”

Of course, evidence that they used Fast and Furious to make the case for the multi-sale reporting requirement is not evidence that the entire purpose of the operation was to gin up support for gun control. It’s hard for me to see why they’d request wiretaps if the sole purpose was driving up trace numbers. I think when all is said and done, we’ll discover that driving trace numbers from Mexico was just the icing on the cake. If I had to take a wild eyed guess on what the President is hiding, it’s probably evidence of perjury, and it wouldn’t surprise me if there’s a some talk about how the higher trace numbers will just provide more evidence to support gun control efforts, whether the multi-sale requirement or a new assault weapons ban. Was the purpose of F&F only to make a case for gun control? Who knows. It wouldn’t surprise me, but I also wouldn’t be surprised to find out that this literally was an underpants gnome strategy of an investigation.

  1. Let straw purchasers traffic lots of gun to Mexico.
  2. ???
  3. Take down cartel kingpins!

I mean, it’s ridiculous, but it’s also Government. But if all this was is a botched operation, the politically sensible thing to do would be to throw a few people under the bus and come clean about it. This was obviously something bigger, or none of the coverup makes sense. But what is the White House hiding? It’s hard for me to understand how people on the left aren’t interested in that question. If this was still the Bush Administration, I’d sure as hell be curious, and would want answers.

6 thoughts on “The Theory That F&F Was a Pretext for Gun Control”

  1. It’s hard for me to understand how people on the left aren’t interested in that question. If this was still the Bush Administration, I’d sure as hell be curious, and would want answers.

    Ah, but you’re not a blinkered, rabid partisan.

  2. The first thought that comes to mind is the fact that the Cartels are considered “revolutionary forces in open rebellion” by the Mexican government. Leaving the question of “who” open for the moment:

    Arming the Cartels without so much as an act of Congress is at least an act of war against a friendly state. And if I remember a law class I sat in on 62 years ago, it could be treason. In a civilized society, either would get you an up close and personal introduction to a hangman.

    Now, returning to the who – we have a government full of people whose primary operating directive is CYA. But just as the person who has the legal responsibility for an automobile accident is the last person with a clear opportunity to prevent the accident; the person responsible for the many ATF “operations” is the highest ranking official of the United States government who had a clear opportunity to stop those “operations.”

    By choosing to exert “executive privilege” to protect “someone,” Obama has tacitly admitted that official is Barack Hussein Obama. Something the Mexican media has begun to pick up on.


  3. Markie Marxist sez: “F&F is pretty simple, really. We didn’t have enough gun violence to advance our gun ban agenda, it wasn’t going anywhere, so we put our big, fat, governmental thumb on the scale and upped the violence by pouring guns into already violent Mexico. The results were as predictable as pouring gasoline on a fire. Pretty slick, huh? Of course, we got to sit back and blame it all on the private sector and the need for more gun control. Heads, we Marxists win; tails, private gun owners lose. Funny how that works out for us! Ha! Ha!”

  4. The undisputed facts are that the guns were sold to straw buyers in large numbers and then not traced, nor was Mexico informed. That puts the lie to “Tracking to some kingpin”. There was NOTHING at ALL in place to track the guns until they showed up at a murder scene. At the same time we have Obama’s “under the radar” comment to Sarah Brady, all the news with the “90% of the guns in mexico are from the US” horse-crap. There’s no doubt in my mind that the entire purpose of F&F was to gin up political support for a gun ban, there’s just no other logical purpose. It cannot be a “Botched” sting, when there was no tracking in place. Occam’s razor.

    Obama and Holder HAD to be in on the idea. That’s what they are covering up, conspiracy against rights, murder, trafficking arms to known criminals. Why did O decide to go the executive privilege route? Either he’s incompetent, because EP does not cover those communications, or he’s up to his jug ears in it, and somewhere in that pile of stuff is the proof he originated the idea or was complicit in it. Looking at both O and Holder’s past, do you honestly think they wouldn’t do it if they thought they’d get away with it?

  5. For all the turf of different agencies that this op crossed over, I suspect Hillary, Napolitano, and a lot of higer-ups working for Obama have fingerprints on it. Kevin O’Reilly didn’t ask for his assignment in Iraq.

    Whether Obama was in on it all the way or not, full disclosure may take down so many of his senior advisors and fixers he will, in sentient minds, either be complicit or indolent to the point of being a danger to himself and the country. His reelection chances will slim down further.

    He’d rather be elected and aid/abet serial felonies by those working for him, than see real justice done. It’s the Chicago way. And, after all, its’s not like he would see any of the families of the dead Mexicans or US agents at a fund raiser or in the market. Omelets require broken eggs.

Comments are closed.