Free Markets, Free People

Eric Holder suddenly concerned about “illegal firearms”

Mr. Fast and Furious –, whose idiotic operation supposedly (and officially) designed to trace firearm flow in Mexico (there is a very strong case for a political gun control agenda actually driving the operation) has led to one and possibly two deaths of Border Patrolmen — is suddenly concerned about criminals and their access to “illegal firearms”:

The number of officers killed in the line of duty jumped 13 percent in 2011 compared with the year before — and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder condemned the increase as “a devastating and unacceptable trend” that he blamed on illegal firearms.

The number of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty rose to 173 this year, from 153 in 2010, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund announced Wednesday. This year’s figure is 23 percent higher than 122 killed in the line of duty in 2009.

Yes, law enforcement is dangerous work.  Yes, I feel for the families of those officers slain.  This, however is not some sort of record year (see 2001) and in fact, in most years more officers are lost to traffic accidents than to “illegal firearms”. 

Additionally, I’m sure the Mexican law enforcement officers killed by the guns Holder’s department allowed to flow into their country find this concern of his particularly hollow.  Why it could even be considered … wait for it … racist.  I just throw that out there as an example of what some GOP AG would have been hit with by the left had he or she been so stupid as to run an operation like Fast and Furious.  Anyway:

Holder said “too many guns have fallen into the hands of those who are not legally permitted to possess them,” in explaining the increase.

Yes, Mr. Holder, that’s why they are called “criminals”.  In case you haven’t figured it out criminals are scofflaws. Like the criminals you supplied with guns and ammo in Mexico.

Criminals break the law.  So obviously passing laws making it a criminal offense for criminals to possess firearms doesn’t work, huh?  It also is a problem when you just hand them firearms as well.

But, as we’ve surmised,  Fast and Furious was supposed to set up a “better case” for more gun control, right?  And one can assume the stealth premise, soon to be obvious, is the way to keep criminals from getting illegal firearms is to more tightly control them.  That, of course, means more “gun control”, doesn’t it?

“This is a devastating and unacceptable trend. Each of these deaths is a tragic reminder of the threats that law enforcement officers face each day,” Holder in a statement. “I want to assure the family members and loved ones who have mourned the loss of these heroes that we are responding to this year’s increased violence with renewed vigilance and will do everything within our power — and use every tool at our disposal — to keep our police officers safe.”

You mean just like you did for Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, Mr. Holder?

Incompetent political hack.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

31 Responses to Eric Holder suddenly concerned about “illegal firearms”

  • Oh, and it gets worse…

    Obama, in direct defiance of Federal law, has said he will use tax-payer funds to promote gun control if he decides to.

    http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-releases-signing-statement-with-omnibus-i-can-use-taxpayer-money-for-gun-control-ads/

    That was in a “signing statement”…those things he promised not to use, remember?

    • @Ragspierre – Hypocracy only applies to the GOP, silly! Whatever the Lightworker does is a-ok!

  • In any just society, Eric Holder would already have been dragged naked and screaming from his office.

    • @DaleFranks … and Alberto Gonzales was chased from the UAG job by what ? .. the firing of a few AAGs .. at least nobody was killed.
      You have really got to hand it to the Latinos … so able to sacrifice a few hundred Mexicans for .. what ?

      • @Neo_ @DaleFranks That is simply wrong, Dale. I did not need that image in my head! Screaming…FINE.

  • So, the plan is still in operation, the difference is you low life proles found out the administration wanted to use the guns it let loose of to justify the new laws instead of being kept in the dark as you were intended to be.

    The Media isn’t interested in your idea that the Admin did anything illegal, no on in justice ‘lied’ to Congress and well, that’s just the way it’s going to be. The plan goes forward.

    I think that covers it unless Issa slams this fool into a wall, and they press charges on this bastid either for incompetence, ciminal negligence or intent to commit with malice aforethought. Used to be the ‘resonable man’ would be consulted and a resonable man would have realized if you let guns walk out of gun stores into the hands of criminals that SOMEONE was going to be killed with them.

    Course I know it’s just racist of me to suggest that Holder be held culpable either as an incompetent USAG or a responible party

  • Holder is a gangster *and* an ideologue, like most serious socialists. Recall that he was the bagman at Justice for Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich, so Obama knew what he wanted in an AG and went right out and got it. With a Pravda-Izvestia media, however, you just get white noise on a Party-sponsored scandal like Fast and Furious. We have a Soviet-style administration, a Soviet-style media, and a growing Soviet-style population.

    This can never be turned around. The economy might rebound (it’s an election year, you know), but American culture is being eaten away in a vat of postmodern acid. It’s over, in my opinion. I’m happy to hear disagreement on that, but when you get to the gangster state stage, there’s nothing left to work with. Every move is the wrong move, and the next election will just institutionalize the damage.

  • I never thought I would see McQ write a sentence that says guns led to deaths. I assume the point you are trying to make is that the criminals who murdered the Border Patrol agents would have been armed with nunchucks were it not for the firearms provided by the ATF? This entire “scandal” seems to assume that were it not for these 2000 guns, there would be less violent crime in Mexico or at the border. This whole thing is full of irony, beginning with the “guns don’t kill people” crowd yelling that “guns kill people”. Next is the fact that the ATF was criticized for taking down so many illegal gun buyers but never getting to the ultimate buyers (the intent of both Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious). The next is that while most of the 2000 guns in Fast and Furious were not recovered, the same is true of the smaller Wide Receiver operation which lost track of most of the 700 guns they allowed to be illegally purchased, but somehow no scandal on the previous operation. And finally, the conspiracy theories that somehow running this operation was going to aid in promoting gun control regulations and that was it’s intended function all along. The irony of this is giving the government credit for Machiavellian scheming on a grand scale, while at the same time arguing they are too dumb to wipe their own, uh, noses.

    • @CaptinSarcastic “And finally, the conspiracy theories that somehow running this operation was going to aid in promoting gun control regulations and that was it’s intended function all along.”

      Ah, except for the official memos from one ATF member to another that that is precisely what they were after, and prior to that, you’re right, it was just a consipracy theory. Course prior to proof, no one knew Nixon was covering up.

      Need to see your reference on Wide Receiver letting so many walk, I’m unaware of that (and it’s just as stupid, and just as wrong if they did) but would be happy to see the references (not that it will make the current boondoggle any better, but it will at least give me more to be pissy over with GW’s administration and maybe some of those loing career clowns at ATF and Justice can get their chances to retire even if they weren’t hired by Holder and didn’t play in Fast and Furious)

      Would I be suspect if I said it was kinda nice to see you Cap?

      • @looker It’s nice to be missed. I thought I might join the conversation for a awhile, this being an election year and all. I’ll try and keep y’all entertained.
        As to the idea that F&F was set up for the express purpose of creating evidence of the need for new long gun sale regulations as opposed to having been set up for the exact same reasons as it’s predecessor, the Wide Receiver operation, with some in the ATF attempting to use the results ex-post-facto to bolster their long gun arguments is the difference between a conspiracy and SOP. Show me a memo where someone was setting up F&F so they could manufacture support for regulations and you’ll have something, otherwise, this is just a baseless accusation of motivation.
        Operation Wide Receiver was a similar, but smaller program, and they lost the majority of the guns they allowed to walk. More importantly, the new long gun regulation you refer were instituted under the Bush Administration and the Obama administration is not fighting for new regulations, but actually fighting lawsuits by the NRA to keep these regulations place.

        • @CaptinSarcastic no, it appears to be related to Demand Letter 3, a new demand letter only for the border states – Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California -
          It’s intended to highlight multiple sales of specific weapons that we don’t want to call ‘assault’ but by description, would fit that style – detachable magazines, calibers greater than .22 and semi-automatic.
          http://www.ammoland.com/2010/12/21/atf-announces-demand-letters-for-multiple-sales-of-long-guns-in-border-states/

          I admit I’ll be surprised if we ever see memo’s proving the initial intent to restrict, but I wish I thought that was less a function of a coverup in progress than honest mistakes.
          Holder is a shoddy piece of work. A prior speech by the President indicated they were working on gun control ‘off the table’.

    • @CaptinSarcastic Holy pretensions of intelligence!

      Guns don’t kill people. People with murderous intent…armed with the most deadly weapons they can contrive to buy (or be given via tax-payer dollars)…kill people.

      Which is exactly what Holder’s minions did.

      And, if you seriously cannot discern between the Bush-era Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious, nobody here can help you. You are beyond help.

    • @CaptinSarcastic Here’s a link to NRO – since I was looking for something other than say “PrisonPlanet” which I can understand you might give a hairy eyeball look to.

      http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/285196/cbs-links-fast-and-furious-gun-control-robert-verbruggen

      Note – reported by CBS, so we’re not talking Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh here.

    • @CaptinSarcastic <>

      I assume the point you are trying to make is that since the criminals would have been armed anyway, there’s no reason not to sell them the guns?

      See what I did there?

      The actual point, past which you so carefully elide, is that it is a priori wrong to sell guns to criminal gangs without actually ensuring the weapons can be tracked, arrests made, and the weapons recovered.

      At least in Operation Wide Receiver, there was a credible attempt to track the guns, and the Mexican government was directly involved. The tracking attempts failed for various reasons, and the operation was shut down after 450–not 700–guns disappeared.

      • @DaleFranks I did say they lost the majority of the 700 guns in Wide Receiver. not 700 guns. I respect your mathematical skills far more than my own, but I think 450 is a majority of 700. As to whether it could be a good idea to sell the guns, considering that going after the low level buyers is as useful as a method of addressing the problem as put a shot glass under Niagara Falls would be towards damming the Niagara River, I see the valididaty of the program conceptually.

        As to execution, I have no disagreement, both were poorly executed, both included poor communication between the bottom and the top, and neither achieved any success in the stated goal, getting the bosses. But I still cannot help pointing out the irony of gun rights advocates stating with a straight face, that the introduction of more guns into an extremely well armed group actually CAUSED DEATHS. I would think that gun rights advocates (which I consider myself) would have more self respect than to undermine their rhetorical foundation for the opportunity to score some points against a political adversary.

        • @CaptinSarcastic @DaleFranks “…the introduction of more guns into an extremely well armed group actually CAUSED DEATHS.”

          As I’ve observed many times, gradients are powerful things, and can be very instructive.

          Obviously, there was demand for the weaponry provided by the Holder DOJ, else it would not flow…at apparent risk…from supply to narco-terrorist consumer.

          So, we can ask if they were “extremely well armed”.

          We can also observe that millions of people have been killed by individuals with machetes in the last few decades. Should we provide the killers with howitzers? Would it be irrational, if we did, to note that people had been killed by artillery?

        • @Ragspierre @CaptinSarcastic @DaleFranks

          Howdy Cap-

          Guns don’t kill, people do. But it’s kinda wrong that the people killed with guns we supplied them as opposed to whatever weaponry they can get on their own

        • @CaptinSarcastic @DaleFranks Can you please cite any Republicans in Congress, Bush cabinet members, SECDEF, or Bush himself claiming that an astronomically high percentage of guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico were from private US gun dealers?

          No?

          That should explain why people are justifiably suspicious of the Obama administration—who, along with a number of Democrats in Congress, gun control activists, and media lackeys have a very public record of exploiting these false statistics. “One of these items is not like the other.”

          Occam’s razor favors the suspicion that the Obama administration sought to exploit the Gunwalker/Fast & Furious scandal to advance the political cause of gun control, so your attempt to dismiss such an obvious conclusion from the available facts is rather childish.

          Down at the ATF level, of course there is a culture of corruption and ineptness which spans administrations of both parties. Ruby Ridge and the initial raid in Waco happened under Bush 41. For the agents, there is always the incentive to justify their budgets by seeking to create dramatic situations and exaggerate numbers. The same is true of the DEA, whose very existence is predicated on the insanity of prohibition, a veritable war on the freedoms of Americans (including copious numbers of legally innocent bystanders). The War on Drugs is the real culprit for the violence in Mexico and the fact that politicians know this, but continue to promise a “light at the end of the tunnel” is, ethically speaking, akin to a category 5 hurricane in comparison to the Fast & Furious tornado.

          Be that as it may, if you’re going to call yourself the Department of Justice or a federal agent sworn to uphold the US constitution and laws, does it make sense to break those very laws or to cover up such violations and refuse to prosecute those guilty?

        • @CaptinSarcastic @DaleFranks I should also remind you that Bill Clinton (you know, the husband of the current Secretary of State who has been part of the chorus claiming these astronomically high percentages of US guns at Mexican crime scenes) intentionally exploited Waco to push through the scary-looking-gun ban (i.e., “Assault Weapons”). The Obama administration is peppered with former Clinton administration staff, in addition to the even more thuggish crowd from Chicago. Rahm Emanuel, both a Clintonite and a Chi-town political monster advised Obama not to let a crisis go to waste.

          The thing is, in 1994 they lost both houses of Congress in no small part to the AWB, so they know better than to attempt to pass legislation out of the blue. They know they need a pretext. Hence, the frequently mentioned fake statistics which Gunwalker/Fast & Furious just conveniently serves to increase.

    • @CaptinSarcastic

      People do kill people, but when that argument is used against gun control, its in context of denying guns to law abiding citizens.

      There’s no doubt gun control might make a bit harder to get a gun for a criminal. However, because he is guaranteed no measurable resistance from a law abiding citizen, his somewhat more difficult attempts of obtaining a gun is more than compensated.

      In the F&F context, there is no similar offset. Making it easier for the criminals was all upside for the criminals.

  • “Either Holder is dumb as a stump or he is setting himself up to be the most courageous Washington fall guy since G. Gordon Liddy, and since I can’t imagine Eric Holder holding his hand over a fire just to show people how tough he is, I know which way I’m betting.”

    http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2011/12/cheek-of-man-is-unbelievable.html

    Heh. Safe bet.

    • @Ragspierre No, that’s not how these people work. They expect to get away with it, and they probably will. They’ve gotten away with much worse. You don’t, for instance, see the New York Times or even the Wall Street Journal noting the fiscal atrocity that the Senate Democrats haven’t passed a budget in years. And the legislative violence — that’s what it was — used to ram Obamacare down our throats, that has all been relegated to the unmentioned category. That’s the nature of the Soviet media we have here now, and the Soviet regime that’s in power. Holder simply doesn’t think he will be held accountable by anyone, and might even enjoy the opportunity to ruin anyone who tried to do it.

      • @martinmcphillips I hope we are not that far gone, martin. I believe we are equipped, what with the new media, to counter the Mushroom Media.

        If you are correct, we are DOOOOOOMED. I remain optimistic.

        • @Ragspierre We had the new media when Obama was elected. Once that happened all the bets were off. You saw what the Clintons got away with. They pioneered wall-to-wall scandal; they flooded American politics with their abuse of power. Got away with it, in all but the most minor instances. Soviet media. George Bush couldn’t rub his own nose and get away with it. Soviet media. Now we have the Soviet regime that the media elite always wanted and scandal hits that media like a deflated basketball that will not bounce. They’ve perfected non-responsiveness. Holder knows that. Plus, he doesn’t care. If he has any morality at all it’s the morality of a gangster; he’ll be honorable only with his fellow gangsters. He’s a goodfella, which is what Obama wanted for an AG and what he got. Not just a reliable confidant, who could overlook a little bit of political gamesmanship as a loyal cabinet officer, but an arrogant gangster, untoucheable by the media.

        • @Ragspierre We’re also paying the price for George Bush’s non-responsiveness. I defended him, especially his foreign policy, without really getting that he refused to defend himself or his own policies. I think I thought I was just imagining that he wouldn’t defend himself while he was in office. So, while everybody was blaming everything on Bush, I now blame him for one thing: Barack Obama. If you are president for eight years and your real legacy is that you leave a voting public willing to elect a Marxist president, then your leadership was for naught. It was vapor. You flushed your country down a sewer so that you could pretend to be above politics. I blame Bush for Barack Obama.

        • @martinmcphillips I agree, martin, and for more reasons. “Killing capitalism to save it” is certainly one. Others include Medicare Pt. D. Ever allowing “too big to fail” to take hold. No Chile Left Behind. ET-flucking-cetera…!!! I liked W as a guy, and was delighted to vote for him over his Deemocrat opposition, but not because he was my idea of a great choice…just terrific compared to OwlGore and the French guy.

        • @Ragspierre I expected, on the day Bush left office, that he would regain some of his popularity (and he probably has), and that people would begin to see his presidency in a more favorable historical light. I expected to be pretty much in accord with that. But looking back through the lens of Obama has me loathing Bush, and now Cheney as well, but not for the reasons the Left loathes either of them. I see them totally as failed leaders, much the way Pataki was in New York State. And the funny thing is that I’ve really come to detest Laura Bush as well. If I never see another Bush in politics it will be too soon. I can’t stand any of them, and the fact that W. forestalled the hideous Gore and the treacherous Kerry isn’t enough for history. We got worse in the end, because of that rotten leadership.