If you are anti-guns, or afraid of guns, or just don't like them and don't want them in your house, then this blog is for you.
(It might just change your mind)

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

ATF officials discussed using Fast & Furious to push gun control

New found emails from the ATF now show beyond a doubt that the Fast & Furious project was a manufactured crisis designed to push their illogical and ill conceived anti-gun agenda.  

What's it gonna take to convict these fools?  There are more smoking guns in F&F now than there were immediately after the shootout at the OK corral!

ATF officials discussed using Fast & Furious to push gun control

by Allahpundit

The logical extension of Rahm’s famous remark about never letting a serious crisis go to waste. If a grave problem is an opportunity to push your agenda, imagine how much farther you can push it by making the problem graver.
Another F&F bombshell from CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson:
On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF’s Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:
“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.”
On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as “(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue.” And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: “Bill–well done yesterday… (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case.”



  1. How come nobody can figure this out?

    I’m still not 100% convinced it was a gun control ploy. What’s the bigger picture here?


    • Something big happened here, b/c Holder looks like he’s on the verge of a nervous breakdown.
    • DOJ is clearly engaged in a cover-up of something, which seems to include the following:
    o DOJ higher ups, against the resistance of both FFLs and BAFTE agents, deliberately wanted guns (and other military-style gear) to go to Mexican drug criminals.
    • Guns aren’t all: Level 4 ballistic armor, 40mm grenade launchers and Night Vision Gear (all restricted export items) were supplied as well.
    • Money laundering by federal employees on the behalf of cartels (critical question: one specific cartel?)
    • A couple of cartel members have stated that they were openly purchasing weapons via State Dept (key question: were they from the same cartel?)


    • It wasn’t a sting operation – there was no way to track the guns (other than to pick them up at crime scenes, a method I find dubious).
    • The gun control theory suffers from the same problem– there was not going to be any obvious way to collect the weapons in sufficient numbers to support the propaganda that “US Border FFLs are arming the cartels, we need to clamp down on the guns.”
    • Another problem with the gun control angle is that it ignores the fact that we gave them armor, NVDs, 40mm grenades, etc.

    Are we trying to arm one cartel to counter-balance another?

    A million dollar question for Sheryl Atkinson (of CBS): WAS IT ONE PARTICULAR CARTEL THAT BENEFIT FROM THESE SUPPLIES?

    I think we’re looking at something more like Iran-Contra here. I don’t know enough about the current state of Mexican domestic politics to get much farther, specifically the relationship that the ruling party has with (one or more) cartels.

    That might explain why we cut the Mexican govt out of the picture

  2. I think that’s it. It’s another Iran-Contra.

    Iran-Contra: the US govt illegally sold arms to Iran (which was under embargo) hoping to illicitly fund the Nicaraguan Contras (and maybe facilitate hostage release).

    Same fucking crime here: the US govt wanted to supply arms/gear to a group (or groups) to combat a specific cartel, and can’t do it legally (or, apparently, with the knowledge of the likely corrupt Mexican govt).
    One Theory:

    • US govt recognized that Mexico is becoming “the new Columbia” but is too damned close to the border.
    • It is likely that much of the Mexican govt has been corrupted, just as in Columbia in Pablo Escobar’s time
    • US govt has clandestinely taken sides against the emerging cartel (the one with the most govt influence), arming anyone willing to fight that cartel (including other cartels)
    • US govt cannot legally due this for multiple reasons (national sovereignty issues, US export restriction laws, etc)

    So there you have it. Not gun control – IranContra.

    BTW, Andrew Breibart’s Big Government website has a load of great articles – just go to biggovernment.com and search for “fast and furious”.

    PS, Sec. Clinton is in on this:

    Note that operation wasn’t F&F. Not sure of the timelines, but if this operation was just too damned risky, that would explain why Holder’s DOJ suddenly started letting civilian arms walk.

    Another must-read: