Guns

The Long War on Guns

|

"In a paramilitary-style operation, government agents invaded the neighborhood of Mr. and Mrs. Elmer Tungren," the vignette reads. "A four-block area was sealed off, the neighborhood evacuated, and the Tungren home surrounded. Some of the agents ransacked their home, while others stood over the Tungrens with automatic rifles."

As John D. Lewis Jr. wrote in "American Gestapo," the cover story of reason's April 1980 issue, the couple was wrongly thought to have violated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) regulations at a time—1978—when the agency was trying to transition from targeting bootleggers to enforcing gun control laws. The ATF's toolbox included entrapment, unsavory informants, and vague regulations, all tactics familiar among the numerous armed agencies operating in the United States today.

In 1993, an ATF siege of the Branch Davidian complex in Waco, Texas, ended with a fire that killed all 76 people inside, a low point for the bureau that nevertheless didn't lead to any significant reconsideration of its powers. Lewis wrote of ATF agents in the 1970s setting up stings involving fake "prohibited persons" and "straw runners." More recently, in this decade, the ATF found itself again embroiled in controversy over a botched operation, known as "Fast and Furious," in which it lost track of weapons as they made their way into the hands of Mexican drug lords.

Today the bureau's underlying role as the arbiter and enforcer of vague but expansive federal gun laws too remains unchanged. Earlier this year, the bureau proposed a ban on the M855 "green tip" bullet, popular ammo for the popular AR-15 rifle, calling it an "armor-piercing" bullet, which it isn't. The ATF received tens of thousands of comments, mostly negative, during the public input portion of the policy making process, ultimately leading the agency to withdraw the proposal.

The ATF started as an Internal Revenue Service spinoff that supplemented its arrests of moonshiners with arrests of firearm handlers. In 1980, Lewis reported that the bureau was more interested in justifying its existence by producing offenses such as paperwork violations than in preventing guns from being used in violent crimes. Today the agency has evolved into offering services and resources to police departments in increasingly common joint local/state/federal law enforcement operations.

NEXT: Watch the First-Ever Greg Gutfeld Show on Fox News Tonite at 10 PM ET

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. And now comes the paranoid delusions and conspiracy theories about the govt confiscating your guns. Look, if you like your guns, you can keep your guns. Period. Has the govt ever lied to you about that before?

    1. if you like your guns, you can keep your guns. Period.

      Your *ammo*, OTOH ….

    2. We shall see about all that..

      1. “American women are 11 times more likely to be shot and killed than women in other developed countries,” the group argues.

        Yes, far better they are stoned, stabbed, and hung than shot.

        1. Progressives, mental gymnastic gold medalists.

        2. That argument does not work. Murder rates are significantly higher in the US than in other OECD countries, regardless of method.

          1. And yet Russia is double ours.

            1. Russia is not in OECD.

              1. Russia is still a developed country.

                1. That’s questionable. Their economy is utterly dependent on petroleum exports, and corruption is rampant. If it weren’t for the leftover Soviet military technology they’d be Saudi Arabia with fur hats.

                  1. That is a staggeringly ignorant statement. You must be a liberal.

              2. I know. Just a comment.

          2. Murder rates in the UK only cover crimes where the outcome is a conviction for the charge of murder. People there who die of other causes – manslaughter, crimes that are pled down to assault, etc. – do not get counted as murder.

            1. They under report, we over report. It is almost impossible to make a meaningful comparison. Most people who try to make comparisons have no understanding of the data.

          3. It’s “culture”

            Which is a codeword for…

            1. Arf arf arf!!

            2. Petri dish?

          4. That argument does not work. Murder rates are significantly higher in the US than in other OECD countries, regardless of method.

            The article I’m quoting is complaining about *gun* deaths of women – not deaths of women in general. So, yes, it does work – these people are not concerned when a woman is ‘honor’ killed by being taken out back and strangled/stabbed/beaten to death, only that she’s been shot.

          5. Goosnarl

            IIRC th murder rate in my state is slightly less than the UK. And the violent crime rate is an order of magnitude less. Yet we have a greater than 50% gun ownership rate and are “shall issue” trending towards constitutional carry. Only one state is safer (per the above criteria) and that state is constitutional carry.

        3. Yes, far better they are stoned, stabbed, and hung than shot.

          No need to be transphobic, bro.

        4. “Would it make you feel any better little girl if they was pushed outta windows?”- Archie Bunker

      2. “…zeroing in on polices that would keep guns away from the mentally ill and domestic abusers.

        The Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is looking to revive a rule proposed way back in 1998 that would block domestic abusers from owning guns.”

        Are they going to try and exempt cops from this again? Fuck. Them.

      3. “Congressional efforts to expand background checks and keep guns away from dangerous people have failed in recent years, but the legislative defeats won’t stop the Justice Department from regulating.”

        Government in a nutshell.

    3. Because no other government has confiscated firearms before. And there aren’t any forces in this country wanting to do the same here.

      1. See? The paranoids have already started to show up.

    4. Well, New York did, didn’t they? Perhaps an outlier.

      1. Don’t forget NOLA after Katrina. It’s outliers all the way down.

        1. Yes, another outlier. There must be a million of those.

    5. Oh, you’re MEAN. Poor proggies, that you mock them so.

      I’d say fuck ’em, but I’m picky who I do that with.

      1. “If you don’t TRUST the pussy, then why are you FUCKING the pussy?!”

        1. You have to ask?

          1. Nature has cruelly denied me the fun of getting a blowjob, I point out.

            Also, it wasn’t me asking. OH OH OHHHHHH.

            1. Nature has cruelly denied me the fun of getting a blowjob, I point out.

              In exchange, you get the ability to have multiple orgasms. The problem here is?

              1. The hell I do. It isn’t universal.

                I was friggin’ robbed, yo.

                1. I’m sorry. I’ve heard of it, but never thought it was real. I’m sorry. I don’t know what else to say.

                    1. RIP Sam Kinison. I liked his appearance on “Married with Children”.

                      0:30 – That’s beer?!?

            2. “Nature has cruelly denied me the fun of getting a blow job..”

              Whut? Are you female?

              It seems we need to have a talk. There are some things I should explain.

    6. Wha about all the new Regulations the DOJ, ATF and other agencies are about to impose? The Obama Administration and the left have given up on draconian gun control laws and instead have opted to use regulatory power to disqualify as many people as possible from legally owning one. Under the new rules, a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence would be a bar to owning a gun. Right now it has to be a felony conviction. The mental health prohibition is being expanded to include anyone who sees a psychiatrist or psychologist on a regular basis. People dealing with job related stress, grief or other short term issues, but no actual mental health concern would be barred. The transfer of a gun as part of an estate is to be closely regulated as well. Not paranoia, but reality..

  2. A two year investigation by our favorite think tank, Center for American Progressive, wants to dissolve the ATF and have the FBI take over its role. Even a broken clock is right once a day.

    1. They’re wrong about this. The FBI is much better at sweeping their misdeeds under the rug. A useless office like the ATF doesn’t need the extra cover.

      1. We pay for this useless office. FBI already runs NICS, so an integration between the two would save billions.

          1. Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

        1. save billions? You poor deluded fool.. The first thing the FBI would do is lobby congress for a 200% budget increase to effective merge both departments, integrate senior ATF personnel, provide “additional training and resources”, establish new policy for seamless integration, and fund the acquisition of more hookers and blow and expand further outside of their established mandate…

          1. Not to mention the frantic positioning as career bureaucrats in the two hierarchies vie to be the winner getting the better job instead of the loser getting canned. At least one deputy director scandal will “rock” the housewives on the View.

            1. ” as career bureaucrats in the two hierarchies vie to be the winner getting the better job instead of the loser getting hired on at the same salary to do work the winner is already doing.”
              FTFY

          2. One time conversion costs versus recurring costs. Did you sleep through economics?

            But let’s take your proposal. We need to retain an agency that is currently a self-licking ice cream cone with a budget of 1.2 billions dollars a year in order to secure our gun rights because shifting the role to a semi-competent agency, who already manages the criminal background check system, with an overall lower cost to taxpayers would somehow erode our gun rights to the point of confiscation?

            Jim Sensenbrenner over a year ago had legislation to eliminate the ATF and have the FBI take over its role. So team red says it’s a good idea, but now since team blue says it’s a good idea then it’s a bad idea?

            1. Why can’t we just stop at “Eliminate the ATF” and be done with it?

              1. Exactly – let’s recognize that the ATF does *nothing* useful and instead of combining it with another agency, giving that agency something even more useless to do that fake up terrorists, just close it down.

                Consider it a trial run for the DEA.

                1. boom goes the dynamite.

            2. “One time conversion costs versus recurring costs. Did you sleep through economics?

              Two things here..
              1. How is merging the responsibilities of two different bureaucracies a “one shot deal”?
              2. Do you actually think that AFSCME and SEIU would sit idle while 2/3rds of a bureaucracy workforce were canned for redundancy? Would stand by while the poor overworked and underfunded FBI took on the new responsibilities of the BATFE? Do you think there’s any political will to find out?
              When has a bureaucracy ever increased in size and authority, while retaining it’s original budget? Or mandate? Did you sleep through the last 40+ years?

              1. “But let’s take your proposal. We need to retain an agency that is currently a self-licking ice cream cone with a budget of 1.2 billions dollars a year in order to secure our gun rights because shifting the role to a semi-competent agency, who already manages the criminal background check system, with an overall lower cost to taxpayers would somehow erode our gun rights to the point of confiscation?”

                You start by assuming that I somehow prefer “fiery car crash” to “Pancreatic cancer”, I want neither. We are both utopian on that point. The one and only redeeming feature to the BATFE if it’s consistently weak, incompetent, leaderless, and outright infamous reputation as chronic fuck-ups. They fold like a card table under pressure, and scurry back to their dog house. The FBI stands in stark contrast to that.

                “Jim Sensenbrenner over a year ago had legislation to eliminate the ATF and have the FBI take over its role. So team red says it’s a good idea, but now since team blue says it’s a good idea then it’s a bad idea?”

                I’d love to see the BATFE go, but an even more powerful FBI should be feared..

              2. Reducing duplicate departments nets an overall cost savings. Were did I say retain original budget? Nice strawman you got there.

                The original mandate of the ATF has already been extended way beyond what it was intended. And you know why? Because it a fucking self-licking ice cream cone. It’s a perpetually motion machine will no other purpose. It could hardly be any worst under the FBI.

                Are you really that scared of the unions with republican control of the house, senate, and 2/3 of the governorships? If anything it would be easier then ever.

                Your rant has NRA fear-mongering written all over it since the ATF is their whipping boy. Well fuck the NRA, it’s the SAF you should be supporting. If it wasn’t for the SAF we wouldn’t have Heller or McDonald.

                1. So you made up a connection to the NRA, then acted like your concocted bullshit pulled out of thin air was an agreed-upon premise by both sides?

                  The fuck.

                2. “Reducing duplicate departments nets an overall cost savings.”
                  Assumes facts not entered into evidence. The cost effective FBIATFE is the vision, the bloated and useless fusion experiment DHS is the reality.
                  .
                  “Were did I say retain original budget?”
                  Fair enough, how much budget expansion do you project? For how long. Plant some goalposts for me.
                  .
                  “The original mandate of the ATF has already been extended way beyond what it was intended.”
                  And the FBIATFE won’t continue that proud tradition? The prosecution rests..

                  1. “And you know why? Because it a fucking self-licking ice cream cone. It’s a perpetually motion machine will no other purpose. It could hardly be any worst under the FBI.”
                    But merging them will be a cost effective improvement? Do you base that on the stellar, proven track record of the FBI pertaining to transparency? Asset forfeiture theft? 1st, 2nd, 4th, 10th Amendment protections? Data collection? Protection of journalistic integrity? Use your imagination, and think about the endless resources the FBI has at their disposal, and compare that to the BATFE. The ATF pales in comparison…

                    1. “Are you really that scared of the unions with republican control of the house, senate, and 2/3 of the governorships? If anything it would be easier then ever.
                      Yeah, the republicans have a proven track record of standing up to federal bureaucracy, and public sector unions. The EPA are quaking in their boots, and they’re going to close the Union exemption loopholes in Obamacare.. any day now..
                      .
                      “Your rant has NRA fear-mongering written all over it since the ATF is their whipping boy. Well fuck the NRA, it’s the SAF you should be supporting. If it wasn’t for the SAF we wouldn’t have Heller or McDonald.”
                      I’m well aware of the NRA’s attempts to sabotage Heller, because they feared the bench was potentially unfavorable, if that is what you were addressing. I never promoted them in my posts. Neither the SAF nor NRA are germane to my point. I loathe the BATFE, I dislike the FBI intensely.. but, they’re the devils I know… the FBIATFE is the devil I don’t know.. and neither do you.

                    2. Law enforcement activities are duplicated across both agencies. At the most the BATFEs only function outside of law enforcement is inspections, and of course making rulings out of thin air without judicial or legislative input.

                      The FBI doesn’t have to justify its existence by running entrapment operations in Milwaukee and loosing a select fire weapon in the process. Fast and Furious? Do you think the FBI would sell weapons to drug cartels who are immediately going to turn around and shoot back at them?

                      It’s not very libertarian to demand a smaller government then continue to spend 1.2 billion on the worthless inept BATFE because it “may” suck more if responsibility fell under the FBI.

      2. If I could be sure that the FBI would try to absorb the ATF, I might favor the idea. The ATF is so jam packed with fuckups, screwballs, and cowboys that they might poison the FBI to the point of destroying that painfully manufactured pristine reputation.

        Sadly, I think the FBI is too smart to accept that poison pill.

    2. I agree with completely eliminating the ATF and transferring any responsibility for that function to the FBI. All positions should be eliminated as well. It’s employees should not be tranferred to the FBI nor should additional positions within the FBI be created for that function. They can perform those functions within the scope of interstate violent crime investigations. I would do the same thing with the DEA. Both agencies have been completely out of control for decades. We would be much better off without them.

      1. Not gonna happen due to the mass firings that would be necessary. I wouldn’t want a bunch of unemployed ATF agents roaming the streets, either.

        The way to kill a big federal agency is with a hiring freeze, letting attrition downsize it to the point where it can be safely cut. This would of course take years/decades, and require that the executive never want to use said agency to punish his enemies and reward his friends during that time. So it has its own obstacles.

        1. Give the fuckers 18 month’s severence and kick their ass out the door. Still cheaper in the long run.

          1. You could just give them all lifelong pensions, and it would probably still be cheaper..

      2. The one function of the ATF that currently has no overlap with the FBI is the routine inspection of military weapons and ammo owned by defense corporations. ATF inspectors come in now and then to count and make sure the companies haven’t let employees walk off with that stuff, which kind of makes sense. It’s a pretty mundane function and certainly wouldn’t require law enforcement training, just some diligence with paperwork and the ability to identify weapons by sight.

        I think it’s funny that at work we refer to our locked weapons area as “the ATF room” due to that agency’s requirements for us to have said room. When I go in there I think “Where’s all the alcohol and tobacco? I feel gypped!”

        1. great handle

    3. Terrible idea DB, the FBI is much better at propaganda.

      1. Were they the ones who made those cool coloring books for the Black Panthers, or was that a different hive?

    4. I thought a broken clock was right twice a day? Hmmmm.

  3. Early this morning I created something for those of you offbeat mofos that are into trippy visual bullshit. Slightly suggestive image so likely not best viewed if you are at the office. And if you hate it and want to stab it through your screen I suggest that this can be a perfectly normal response to trippy visual bullshit. http://imgur.com/YwY9BE8

    1. Whoa!

    2. kinda take it or leave it….

    3. That’s pretty sweet AC

    4. Good morning! Your lines are compelling.

    5. I think I see Cthulhu in there.

    6. Have you been smoking your moldy old H.P. Lovecraft books?

      1. Good book paper is way too thick for rolling paper. Acid drops, on the other hand…

      2. I appreciate the kind word, bruthas.

      3. Have you been smoking your moldy old H.P. Lovecraft books?

        Don’t smoke H. P. Lovecraft books. Read them and love them.

        1. I would smoke Lovecraft’s brain. Bitch to find, tho.

          1. I can’t imagine the high one might get from smoking Lovecraft’s brain.

            1. I can. Maybe that’s my problem.

              1. I’m drunk. Which isn’t a problem right now, but might be tomorrow morning.

                1. Drink heavily three times weekly for six months never mixing more than 3 different types of booze and augmenting this poisonous assault of awesomeness on your mind and body with late night hydration and tons of healthy eating and tomorrow morning will be just fine except for a bit of drowsiness.

                  1. Fingers crossed. I’ve been a little light on drinking water this evening, but it’s time to fix that.

                    1. As a firm user of all sorts of mentality restructuring substances hydration is a wonderful thang.

                    2. I added Nuun to my water. It helps when I’m working in the yard or out hiking in an area without mosquitoes.

                    3. Hmmm… what is this interesting? Nuun. OK. Very diggable.

  4. And just remember- they will never stop. And that is why you all should never stop stockpiling. After this fucking ATF attempt to ban ammo, I went out and bought THOUSANDS of rounds – and now realize I was right to do it. Now the government thugs and authoritarian bureaucrats don’t scare me. When the SHTF, I will have my ammo and magazines.
    This shit stores, guys. Be prepared.

    1. That is absolutely correct. And that is why we should never agree to any compromise or give an inch. Today’s compromise is tomorrow’s loophole that must be closed. They will not stop until every form of private gun ownership is illegal and the government has confiscated every gun it possibly can. I have long stopped pretending there is any point in trying to accommodate these people.

      1. Word up, my brotha.

    2. Excellent way to dry up the supply of ammo again and make it difficult for new people to get into gun ownership.

      1. I’m sure you were planning on “getting into gun ownership” right now, too, weren’t you , you little liberal fag.

        Fuck off, slaver.

        Excellent way to make a completely irrelevant argument. Do you know how the free market works? The only private sector endeavor Obammy has EVER done successfully is be the greatest gun and ammo salesman in HISTORY! SEVEN YEARS RUNNING, fag….

        1. We just went through several hundred posts about the wrong choice of slur.

          Pro tip: Go with cunt. Save us the effort.

        2. You misunderstand me, along with a great many other things in life, it would seem.

          1. Oh, I highly doubt that. My money is on time proving you to be exactly the mendacious cunt you seem at first blush.

      2. Goosnarl

        The big ammo buy has been occurring by the government using tax dollars. A few prepper types aren’t the problem.

  5. I think DEA still edges ATF out for “Most Actively Evil” agency, but I’d lose my house before I’d work for either of them in any capacity.

    1. I don’t know. DEA is bigger I believe. Are we talking total evil or evil per employee?

    2. I don’t know. DEA is bigger I believe. Are we talking total evil or evil per employee?

      1. The whole war on drugs is truly evil. My personal favorites are Parallel Construction and the persecution of pain management doctors. I want all of them to die in agony for that.

  6. My buddy’s step-sister makes $63 hourly on the internet . She has been unemployed for 10 months but last month her payment was $19497 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    read more ?????????? http://www.BuzzReport20.com

  7. The cognitive dissonance of “progressives” is displayed most prominently in the gun debate. The same people who openly advocate the confiscation of guns (like they did in peaceful, enlightened, utopian Europe) will, in the very next breath, laugh off the notion that anyone would ever dream of taking away a single firearm. It’s maddening.

    1. It is not dissonance so much as them projecting and thinking everyone is as stupid as they are. They honestly think people are dumb enough to believe them when they say they don’t want to confiscate guns.

      1. Eh, I think its more that they can’t imagine any right thinking person believes differently than they do. The people who are calling for all guns to be banned and the ones laughing at the idea that anyone on their side would do such a thing are different people. A lot of what holds liberals together is the ability to ignore the stuff their allies say that they don’t agree with.

    2. There’s 2 classes of proglodytes. The ones at the top, who know it’s all only a way for them to gain more power and exert more control over the unwashed masses.

      The 2nd class, at the bottom, are the true believers, the useful idiots who actually believe that some sort of global utopia is achievable if only the ‘right’ people are given enough power. Even when the boot of an all powerful government is grinding their face into the mud in which they grind out a meager subsistence, they will still believe.

      1. I wouldn’t stop at 2.

        I think you’ve got the core hierarchy correct, but are skipping over the ‘middle tier’ of people who want to gain power by serving the political class. the ‘entrenched bureaucrat’/name-brand academics rather than the actual Progressive Firebrand pol.

        There’s a class of Academics/Think tankers/Lobbyists/Activists who provide the people at the top with a toolbox of Bullshit Rhetoric and Piles of Money in order to either gain academic power-status, a good position at the government teat, or simply the opportunity to give footrubs to those in power… like Ezra Klein or Sydney Blumenthal.

        Are they ‘useful idiots’ too? i think these people are a mix of the “true believer/useful idiot” and the craven, self-interested pol = they know when they’re lying, but they think its ok because its for the ‘greater good’. the idiots are too stupid to know when they’re lying. The political class understands lying to be the essence of their being and the means by which power is gained.

        1. And of course, all supported by the mass of low-information Democratic voters.

        2. Any of the lower class progs will cheerfully join that middle tour, but most of them will never get the opportunity to be a chosen one. That’s always going to be reserved for the politically connected or a few lucky ones who are able to back stab and claw their way in.

          I would say that most proggies adhere to a very strong form of deontology.

          1. tier, not tour

            1. I liked tour. I just noticed your textual misstep but I enjoy textual missteps. No one posts, writes, texts ‘middle tour’. The ‘middle’ is a ‘tour’ of sorts on the tier but nonetheless a movement, an evolution. Tier implies solidification. Tour implies movement which defines class-pathing on the social constructs.

      2. In this case there is one more class – the knee-jerk hoplophobe who simply wants all those icky guns to go away. To them there is no price being paid, no right being eroded. However it has to happen they will agree since they don’t own any guns and figure there will be no down side for themselves.

    3. Don’t forget: 1) “Only the police should have guns!” along with 2) “The police are trigger-happy racists out to exterminate young black men!”

    4. Why maddening? They’re just lying again. They always lie. They lie unthriftily, because it is their nature and not from need. The days when decent, thoughtful, and truthful people could be core Progressives vanished when it became clear to anybody who would look what WWII German had been, and what the USSR was. once you understand that, everything else falls into place.

      They are the same tired old apologists for evil that claimed the Slaveowners were concerned with the best interests of the slaves, or that the Aristocracy was better suited to run the country that the commons. They. Want. Power.

      And they have no especial qualifications for holding it. They are not particularly smart, kindly, moral, ethical, or nice. Nor are they particularly efficient, effective, or strong. They want power, but they don’t want to earn it.

      Guillotine bait, the lot of ’em.

  8. The ATF’s toolbox included entrapment, unsavory informants, and vague regulations.

    Entrapment… which led to a woman being shot by an agent of the state while she held her baby.

    1. To be fair, shooting unarmed women down in their doorways didn’t play well in the court of public opinion, soo.. they just started burning their houses down with all inside, and arresting the few survivors. Problem solved!

      1. What’s crucial to remember, especially in the context of this discussion about merging ATF and FBI, is that the ATF may have started the mess in Waco, but the fire was the FBI finishing it.

      2. What’s crucial to remember, especially in the context of this discussion about merging ATF and FBI, is that the ATF may have started the mess in Waco, but the fire was the FBI finishing it.

  9. In other Gestapo news, Seattle just vants you to obey!

    Bad news, Seattle smokers. The city has decided not to fine you $27 if they catch you puffing away on a cigarette in a city park.

    Why is this bad news? Because they’re replacing the fines with something more painful: Lectures.

    By now everyone’s probably heard that Seattle will ban smoking in its parks. This strikes me as no big deal either way. There’s no epidemic of smokers causing a cloudy health hazard in the parks. But likewise smokers are used to being asked to move along. If parks are now off-limits, everyone will adapt just fine.

    But reader T.F. alerted me to a part of the debate that showcases, again, a “creepiness to the new Seattle,” as he put it. Like me, T.F. doesn’t smoke but has lived here long enough to recall when we were more of a live-and-let-live kind of town. Not in a flamboyant way, of course. But in that staid Scandinavian sensibility of “You mind your business and I’ll mind mine.”

    Now instead of that we have as official city policy something called “de-normalization.”

    http://www.seattletimes.com/se…..oking-ban/

    1. De-normalization, as one researcher described it, is the use of rules to put societal pressure on “those who fail to aspire to a specific preferred image of the future self.”

      Could someone put this into the original German for me?

      1. J?den sind Untermenschen.

      2. Reichskristallnacht

      3. Wir m?ssen die Raucher ausrotten!

      4. Novy Sovetsky Chelovek.

        Well, not exactly German, but still fits.

        1. Very fitting.

    2. Seattle, when you’re losing Danny Westneat…

    3. more petty law enforcement. Just what we need.

  10. Administration preps new gun regulations
    The Justice Department plans to move forward this year with more than a dozen new gun-related regulations, according to list of rules the agency has proposed to enact before the end of the Obama administration….

    …The Justice Department plans to issue new rules expanding criteria for people who do not qualify for gun ownership, according to the recently released Unified Agenda, which is a list of rules that federal agencies are developing….

    1. God, I hate these people

      1. I’m not afraid of them anymore. I’m going to give them what they want. I really wasn’t concerned with my gun rights before Newtown- didn’t give a shit about owning a “black rifle” – but the progs and statists have made it so politically IRRESISTIBLE to me, that I now have a lot of rounds of 223 and am going to just go ahead with my first build. Becuase why not?!? It MUST be a good thing if the authoritarians and statist/utopianists want to ban it. So I am acting on the incentives that they have given me.

        1. So “de-normalization” did not work on you, eh?

          1. Apparently not.

    2. Who needs Congress when you can simply order federal agencies to write regulations? Those Founders were so stupid, saddling us with an entirely unnecessary branch of government!

    3. “The Justice Department plans to issue new rules expanding criteria for people who do not qualify for gun ownership,…”

      Yet another reason not to register Libertarian.

    4. The entire point of Obama’s last-year regulatory push on things like the environment, immigration, guns, etc. is to get Republicans to take very-visible and vocal stands against his bullshit initiatives so that voters will be reminded = “Who’s the ‘enemy’ on these issues?’

      He doesn’t actually aim (or care, in my view) if any of these regulations pass constitutional muster or whether they are ever put in effect. In fact i think he’s thrilled that the immigration enforcement issue has been dragged out in the courts.

      These are the things he wants people to think about = not the Economy, his shitty foreign policy, or how bad the ACA is and how much trouble its causing the average person.

      Its all fucking red meat being tossed out so that people won’t pay attention to his actual track record or the real economic policies of the Dems.

      1. He’s never shown that degree of political savvy. This is the guy who, in a span of 6 years, went from having the biggest electoral mandate since FDR, to losing both houses of Congress and having pretty much everyone in his own party desperately trying not to be associated with him.

        Seems more like he realizes that everyone outside his base hates his guts at this point. So if he’s going to have a legacy, it has to be with his base, so he’s giving them what they want.

        1. “He’s never shown that degree of political savvy.’

          He’s never been in position to “not worry about himself, and just do things for the Party” before.

          And again – none of these Executive Order-style regulatory props are ever going to be “legacy”. They can all be overturned the second a new president comes into office, or be tossed out by courts. They’re just bullshit items to control the news flow and string the Republicans along the chosen narrative-path.

          Also, none of this is very sophisticated. Its boringly obvious.

          1. Not really. The presidency is basically the Democrats’ to lose in every election for the foreseeable future. The only thing keeping us from one-party rule is the fact that the GOP based is disproportionately politically active, so they overwhelm the Dems in midterm elections. Within the next decade the Supreme Court will almost certainly become majority leftist, and will immediately forget about stare decisis.

            You can bet that no Dem president is going to overturn Obama’s executive orders on this issue, and he will go down as the left’s Abraham Lincoln.

            1. ” The presidency is basically the Democrats’ to lose in every election for the foreseeable future”

              based on what?

              I don’t even think Hillary’s going to win. And given that she’s the only person the Dems can even put out there at the moment shows just how shallow their bench is and how dried up and hackneyed their political rhetoric is.

              The “youth” vote that ushered Obama into power is pretty fucking sour on the Hildabeast, and I doubt the “republicans are worse” proposition is going to be a guaranteed election-winner in perpetuity. Really, all it takes is the Stupid Party to stop being quite so monumentally stupid and give people like Rand, Walker, etc. more support and the mainstream left is going to be shoved back into their academic cloisters to rethink exactly why their Progressive Utopia seems farther away than ever.

              1. Well, Hillary’s still beating every declared Republican candidate in the polls, even with all the bad press she’s gotten.

                If you look at the electoral college map, all the Dem candidate has to do is win all the blue states plus Florida. This is only going to get more pronounced as time goes on…. and once Texas becomes Hispanic enough to turn blue, it’s ballgame.

                1. “Well, Hillary’s still beating every declared Republican candidate in the polls”

                  you think “polls” at this point represent anything more than name-recognition?

                  I’m not much convinced by arguments re: electoral college demographic shifts-in-perpetuity either. “hispanics” aren’t born registered Democrats and won’t necessarily stay that way. As i already pointed out = i don’t see much in the way of the “next generation” of Democratic leaders sitting on the sidelines, much less a Latino Obama second-coming.

                  in any case, we shall see. the only thing that’s certainly stupid at this point is any certainty about political inevitability. demography isn’t destiny in every single dimension.

                2. Wait until she has to actually answer questions. 5 months ago oddsmakers had Hillary above a 2 to 1 favorite against the presidential field(-215). Today she is +105, meaning you’ll get even money plus a little extra. I like to look at where the money goes. She’s dropped significantly. I’d take the field and cash in, it’s not looking good for her.

                  1. That’s because her stranglehold on the Dem nomination is getting more precarious. If you prefer Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley, or Michelle Obama as president, that’s good news.

                    1. “That’s because her stranglehold on the Dem nomination is getting more precarious…”

                      A) this is in direct contradiction to your claim that all “foreseeable elections are Dems to lose”

                      ” If you prefer Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley, or Michelle Obama as president, that’s good news”

                      B) This doesn’t even make any sense. Bernie & Martin don’t have the pull to fill a Holiday Inn Lounge on a Friday night, and Michelle…

                      If you’re going to troll, try harder.

                    2. this is in direct contradiction to your claim that all “foreseeable elections are Dems to lose”

                      No, it’s not. If Hillary does not get the nomination she is not the Dem whose election it is to lose.

                      You seem a little OOTWRT Dem politics. Sanders gets a shitload of love on the left. As for O’Malley, nobody knew who Bill Clinton was in May 1991.

                      The First Lady could fundraise in a day what Rand Paul gets in a year. There’s a 60% chance she enters the contest if Hillary folds early. Right now all that’s holding her back is fear of Clinton retribution.

                    3. “You seem a little OOTWRT Dem politics”

                      You seem THYHUYA about everything.

                      Sanders, O’Malley have zero chance of winning dick. nomination, election, anything. Its hillary or nothing for the Dems and claiming otherwise is ignorant insanity, but i’m growing less surprised.

                      The more you talk the worse it gets.

                    4. Very well. I have bookmarked this thread and fully intend to remind you, and the rest of the commentariat, of your naive obliviousness when what I predicted comes to pass.

                    5. OH NO NOT THE BOOKMARK

                    6. The First Lady could fundraise in a day what Rand Paul gets in a year. There’s a 60% chance she enters the contest if Hillary folds early. Right now all that’s holding her back is fear of Clinton retribution.

                      You’re describing a very animalistic party, and you *seem* to be doing it in glowing terms.

                      Kind of sickening. So who does run Barter Town?

                  2. Wait until she has to actually answer questions

                    But doesn’t someone have to start, you know, asking questions?

              2. and I doubt the “republicans are worse” proposition is going to be a guaranteed election-winner in perpetuity.

                I have a number of FB friends who seem more devout in this belief than any class of religious fanatic you can come up with. It really is all they have – which just goes to prove Hoffer’s point on the need for demons.

            2. Goddamn, I would love to get some of what you are on…

              1. Meant for the delusional Goose, not Gilmore…

                1. The question is: new troll, or new handle?

    5. “shall not be abridged” is such a tricky phrase. There are layers of meaning there, you know.

      1. In fact, it’s so tricky that your mind keeps wanting to substitute “infringed” for “abridged.”

  11. The furry tasty mammal is already out of the carrying vessel on this issue.

    You wonderfully paranoid bipedals managed to buy enough weaponry to mount an intergalactic invasion the last time you puny leader tried to pull this shit.

    1. And we will again.

      Progtopia policies : resulting in the exact OPPOSITE of the result they seek.

  12. I’m embarrassed to say that I keep forgetting the ATF exists. But I’m sure there’s no overlap: FBI (which now has operations overseas), CIA, DEA, ICE, Marshal Svc, Secret Svc, and – of course – the mother of them all, whose consolidation by a “republican” reaped billions in savings and efficiency: Homeland Security. Here are a few more agencies that spy, investigate, and carry guns:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C…..ted_States

      1. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

        When the shampoo bottle says to rise and repeat, they fucking mean it.

        Commerce clause, bitchez.

        1. Don’t forget mohair!

          During World War II, U.S. soldiers wore uniforms made of wool. Worried that domestic producers could not supply enough for future wars, Congress enacted loan and price support programs for wool and mohair in the National Wool Act of 1954 as part of the 1954 Farm Bill.[8] Despite these subsidies, wool and mohair production declined. The strategic importance declined as well; the US military adopted uniforms made of synthetic fibers, such as dacron, and officially removed wool from the list of strategic materials in 1960.[9] Nevertheless, the U.S. government continued to provide subsidies to mohair producers until 1995, when the subsidies were “eliminated effective with the marketing year ending December 31, 1995”.[8] In The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad[10] Fareed Zakaria points out that the subsidies were reinstated a few years later, due in large part to the lobbying on behalf of the special interests of the subsidy recipients. By 2000, Congress had appropriated $20 million for goat and sheep producers.[11] As of 2002, mohair producers were still able to receive special assistance loans from the U.S. government, after an amendment to eliminate the subsidy was defeated.[12]

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M…..production

          1. All the GOP candidates would do themselves good to campaign against this sort of thing. They could portray themselves as anti-corporate subsidy and challenge Hillary to do the same. Take advantage of a chance to fight negative stereotypes about your party, people.

            1. Yes, I’m sure the Republicans would be willing to take a hard stand in favor of slashing the annual increase in the mohair subsidy budget by 50%.

      2. In all fairness, I think the TVA SWAT team should have a legitamit security role…?

        1. I agree, that one may have more justification than the others.

        2. Their security role should be just that, security guard. No police authority, and certainly no authority whatsoever off TVA property. They detain a trespasser, the local PD handles it just like a trespasser at any privately owned power plant. Anything that requires in depth investigation gets handed to the FBI.

          My pet peeve is the GSA security guards around here that now drive around in vehicles with Police in big letters and Department of Homeland Security in small ones. They don’t provide police services to the general public and shouldn’t have open ended police powers.

          1. You people seriously think TVA should exist at all?

  13. Apologies to Derpetologist-

    Spot The Not: Stupid Question Headlines

    1) Are Bible’s “End Times” In Today’s Headlines?

    2) Could US Fall Victim To Walking Dead-Style Zombie Attack?

    3) Are Question Headlines Too Vague To Use?

    4) Can You Really Raise a Genderless Child?

    5) What if Autism Were Contagious?

    6) Did George W. Bush Create ISIS?

    7) Will Ebola Be The Trigger For Martial Law In The United States?

    1. Didn’t I see #3 on a recent Napolitano essay?

    2. Difficult. I’ll go with 5, on the theory that stupidity is indeed that boundless, but they aren’t saying that specific stupidity out loud yet.

    3. I’m going with 3 since that seems like a joke answer.

      1. I agree: #3.

    4. ON #6, I wouldn’t say that Bush created ISIS, but I would say it’s not totally incorrect to say that the USA created ISIS. In the very least, even if we didnt’ directly create them, we are keeping them well armed and creating power vacuums all over the ME for them to fill. Thanks, Hillary, I’m voting for you because I love ISIS.

      1. The US didn’t create ISIS. They were already there. We just toppled the dictators keeping them in check. We were just doing what Israel wanted: to keep their neighbors in chaos so they won’t attack them.

    5. #2 is the not – only because I had to rephrase this as a question. And only now, I happened to find this at Forbes.

      #1 is from World Net Daily. #3 is from some place called poynter.org. #4 comes to us from our friends at Jezebel. You can see #5 at the Huffington Post. #6 is a New Yorker piece, and #7 is found, in all caps, at onecitizenspeaking.com. It’s as awesome as it sounds.

  14. No self-defense allowed. Period.

    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..ur-rapist/

    1. “Does giving him herpes count?”

      Well played, that man. Well played.

    1. Wow, for a second there i was worried that the Russian Semi-Auto shotguns were going south. Don’t scare me like that! Fuck the mutant deer.

      1. With you on that Gil. Totes was worried about mine. But that thing would keep me alive after the mutant deer come for me…

      2. I have one, and I am in the south. I see no problem here.

  15. up to I looked at the bank draft ov $7829 , I didnt believe that my neighbours mother had been actualy bringing home money in there spare time on-line. . there sisters roommate had bean doing this 4 less than 13 months and a short time ago repaid the loans on there place and purchased a new McLaren F1 . Check This Out

    …………. http://WWW.MONEYKIN.COM

  16. Why are we discussing this now anyway? Isn’t one of those Pauls supposed to be ending the Patriot Act today? What’s the update on that?

    1. The Senate convenes at 4pm, they’ll be done foofing around by 6, The NSA servers, already in the process of shutting down ,will be fully down by 8pm, leaving four hours to spare.

      1. The NSA servers, already in the process of shutting down ,will be fully down by 8pm, leaving four hours to spare.

        I have to be careful when I enjoy the company of Mephistopheles because my sarcasm detector doesn’t work correctly.

        1. It’s a technical thing. They’ve begin shutting down in anticipation but the process can be reversed up until 8pm. After that, it’ll take a couple of days to get them started again.

          1. That’s too fast for government work that doesn’t involve killing people.

            1. I feel I should clarify. I don’t think the NSA will shut a single thing down.

              1. It wouldn’t surprise me or anyone else.

    2. Courtesy of NPR from about 10am today.

        1. The White House also insists that letting the Patriot Act simply expire leaves the country in “uncharted territory.”

          On Friday, the president himself warned that if the act is allowed to expire, a dangerous gap in security could open up. “Heaven forbid we’ve got a problem where we could have prevented a terrorist attack or apprehended someone who is engaged in dangerous activity, but we didn’t do so simply because of inaction in the Senate,” he said.

          During an earlier briefing with reporters, one White House administration official said: “What you’re doing, essentially, is you’re playing national security Russian roulette. That’s a game Congress can play, but we hope they won’t.”

          Apparently there were no charts before October 2001, and there is at least a 1/6 chance of our national security being destroyed if the act is not renewed.

          There is also some video of the president’s comments.

          1. I just love that “uncharted territory” bit. That’s the second most dishonest thing he’s ever said.

            1. But we’ve always had the Patriot Act!

            2. What’s the first? “If you like your plan, you can keep it”? But there are so many others…

              1. With the competition for the top 5 being so brutal, it has to be a biggie. Or, we could just mash some up: “If you like your uncharted territory, we’ll be closing Gitmo very transparently”.

                1. Throw in ‘historic’ or ‘most in history’, and we have a winner.

                2. “If you like your uncharted territory, we’ll be closing Gitmo very transparently”.

                  Well played, SusanM, well played.

              2. What’s the first?

                Something he said twice: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

                1. Yeah, but there are 535 people in Congress who took that oath, and how many weren’t lying? Amash, Paul and Wyden?

                  1. Technically it’s a different oath for Congress, which they get to choose the wording of as it’s not specified in the constitution.

                    1. Does Congress swear to uphold the Constitution? I thought it was their job to test the boundaries, the Supreme Court to interpret that testing, and the President to veto the fuck out of everything that smells of non-enumerated powers?

          2. “Heaven forbid we’ve got a problem where we could have prevented a terrorist attack or apprehended someone who is engaged in dangerous activity, but we didn’t do so simply because of inaction in the Senate,” he said.

            Yeah! What if there were, say, a couple of brothers, who the FBI were warned about, who were preparing to bomb the Boston Marathon? Or what if another pair who they knew about decided to attack a “Draw Muhammad” event?

            1. Someone isn’t going to get his chocolate ration if he keeps talking like that.

              1. Big Brother raised the chocolate ration to 20 grammes per week! ALL HAIL BIG BROTHER!

    3. Presumably the terrorists are amassing at the borders, and possibly under our beds, waiting for the stroke of midnight as they lick their chops in anticipation of the hell they will be able to unleash against us once the Patriot Act expires.

      1. It’s going to be 9/11 times 100!

  17. The law and order chamber is a congested complex of actors that I really fucking struggle at times to comprehend.

    One would think that the right-wingers who embrace a law-burdened society and muscular policing like the fuckface demagogues on Fox would be thrilled when the ATF flexes its authority over the common ‘civilian’- even if the ATF has smudged the edges of ethics ‘a bit’ they are just doing their job of not abdicating the rule of law to the citizen as Reagan’s mouth jizz suggested and spilled- deep into the collective asshole of modern conservatism.

    And on the other hand the left-winger flocks shriek fucking bloody stumps of spewing angst against the brutality-embracing organizations (law enforcement bureaucracies) that utilize the exact labor structure and accompanying lobby power of organized government workers which was designed by leading intellectuals within the progressive construct. Uh, you have a serious fucking problem with violent policing, progressive complainers? Then end the fucking lobby power of police UNIONS. Not gonna happen…

    The fuck is going on here, man?

      1. The usual is a nest of constructs that are riddled with the vacuum of clear comprehension of what these crowds desire for an advanced and open society. Governance through macabre confusion.

    1. “Rules for thee, not for me.”

  18. Sen. Leahy: “There’s no more time for political maneuvering or fear-mongering or scare tactics”. This after he’s spent a while talking about the doom and gloom that awaits if the bill doesn’t pass.

    1. Different times.

      Scare Tactics and Our Surveillance Bill
      By Jay Rockefeller, Patrick Leahy, Silvestre Reyes and John Conyers
      Monday, February 25, 2008

      If President Bush truly believed that the expiration of the Protect America Act caused a danger, he would not have refused our offer of an extension.

      In the remote possibility that a terrorist organization that we have never previously identified emerges, the National Security Agency could use existing authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to track its communications. Since Congress passed FISA in 1978, the court governing the law’s use has approved nearly 23,000 warrant applications and rejected only five. In an emergency, the NSA or FBI can begin surveillance immediately and a FISA court order does not have to be obtained for three days.

      When U.S. agencies provided critical intelligence to our German allies to disrupt a terrorist plot last summer, we relied on FISA authorities.

      Those who say that FISA is outdated do not appreciate the strength of this powerful tool.

      So what’s behind the president’s “sky is falling” rhetoric?

      1. It is clear that he and his Republican allies, desperate to distract attention from the economy and other policy failures, are trying to use this issue to scare the American people into believing that congressional Democrats have left America vulnerable to terrorist attack.

        But if our nation were to suddenly become vulnerable, it would not be because we don’t have sufficient domestic surveillance powers. It would be because the Bush administration has done too little to defeat al-Qaeda, which has reconstituted itself in Pakistan and gained strength throughout the world.

      2. ..Those who say that FISA is outdated do not appreciate the strength of this powerful appeal in abusing this political tool.

        Slightly less disingenuous..

  19. Wein, Weib, und Gesang, aber trinke ich Bier. Es wird nicht so hei? gegessen wie gekocht, da? hoffe ich.

    1. You know who else spoke German…

      1. Dr. Strangelove?

      2. Not me. I only pretend to speak German, as native German speakers figure out pretty quickly when talking to me in German.

  20. Sen. Coats from Indiana going full on fearmongering, doom and gloom if we don’t pass this, and this bill is bad, because we just need to re-pass the sections of the PATRIOT Act, but we really need to make it stronger because really, what do you people have to hide? We’re only monitoring dangerous people, you know.

  21. Sen. Paul is trying to ask Sen. Coats a question, Sen. Coats and McCain are decrying him for daring to do such a thing. Now McCain is asking a softball “question” highighting all the doom and gloom that’s going to happen.

  22. Nice m&p. Been thinking about breaking down and getting a 9. Looking at the Beretta Px4 Compact. Nearby range has one to rent so going to check it out.

    1. If you have the opportunity, check out the CZ-75 Compact. The all-steel design means that it’s pretty heavy, but also that it shoots like a dream.

      1. Cool I will. Thanks.

  23. Sen. Paul going after the Senate, they’re refusing to allow him to speak. Ignoring their own rules.

    1. They’re trying to avert chaos, Andrew. This is no time to insist on following rules.

    2. I just turned it on, and Grassley was fooling around with some weird-ass rules. Finally granted Paul 5 minutes that he apparently previously had.

      HE IS PISSED. He’s basically screaming. He is on fucking fire.

      1. Fuckers. Now they’re going to the playground to have recess.

      2. Note to self: Donate more money to Paul’s campaign. That was a great sequence for him.

        1. Interesting. They’re replaying Dickbag Reid, wearing his sunglasses in the chamber. Reid fully lays the blame for this on McConnell and not at all with Rand.

          It’s great to see all these fuckers scrambling.

          1. Apparently, Weigel tweeted that there are 30 yoots in the gallery wearing Stand With Rand t-shirts. This is evidently in contravention of Senate rules, but no one seems to give a damn.

    3. He ends up fighting the law and winning, and is now going after them all. Screaming about how they should just get a goddamn warrant for this stuff instead of whining about what would happen if the program goes away.

  24. This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps.

    Kerry breaks leg in bicycle crash; ends overseas trip early

    Kerry, 71, was taken by helicopter to Geneva’s main medical center, HUG, after hitting a curb with his bike near Scionzier, France, about 40 kilometers southeast of the Swiss border.

    Right around the time of his fall, a Twitter feed about local driving conditions warned of the danger due to gravel along the pass. But U.S. officials said there was no gravel on the road where the accident occurred. According to the newspaper, some Haute Savoie officials were with Kerry at the time, including the head of the region.

    1. The secretary of state planned to fly back late Sunday aboard a plane with special medical equipment “to ensure he remains comfortable and stable throughout the flight,” Kirby said. “Its use is nothing more than a prudent medical step on the advice of physicians.”

      At US taxpayer expense of course.

    2. Well its too bad he couldn’t squeeze in any Business of State while on his Bike Trip.

    3. The prospect of a lengthy rehabilitation could hamper the nuclear talks and other diplomatic endeavors. Even if Kerry does not need surgery, it was not immediately known when he could fly again after returning to the United States.

      So this might be a good thing?

      1. nuclear talks! gosh, and he had a winery tour planned. Summer Ruined.

        1. I’m a nice guy. I’ll take over the winery tour for him. We wouldn’t want wine wasted on a wastrel.

      2. He can still attend conferences by remote video. It does, however, suck for his entourage.

        1. I’m not going to let you bring me down.

    4. SOSOTUS in a bicycle accident?

      (cripes, how old is that show now?)

  25. Founding Fathers 2.0 initiates with Rand.

    1. The founding fathers passed the Alien and Sedition Act 10 years after the Bill of Rights. Quit smothering their shit in incense and maybe we’ll talk.

      1. Please grasp the essence of metaphor. These grand old daddy’s fathered a collection of documents that would fabricate a country in a fashion unequaled by few civilizations before or after and this in spite of the fucking malodorous bullshit that writhed like snakes with smashed heads in their personal lives.

        I do like dragon-cherry incense, though. Man, mixed with indica the nostrils flip ribeye steaks blackened on rainbow fires.

        1. My personal go-to marinade for a ribeye is bacon drippings, garlic and smoked paprika.

          1. Your tongue is the bomb, hamster.

    1. I’m at a conference reception tonight. Where’s the best place to get updates on how this unfolds (by smartphone)? Twitter? Bat signal??

  26. “The Senate will meet for what’s expected to be a tumultuous debate on the legislation at 4 p.m. Sunday, one minute after the White House will begin the process of shutting down the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of phone records. The bulk-data collection program is just one of a host of surveillance programs set to expire at midnight, although administration officials said authorization would begin to lapse at 8 p.m. if Congress doesn’t act.”
    http://www.marketwatch.com/sto…..5-30?rss=1

    So I see a 1H;15m countdown; right?

  27. I always thought ATF indicated “automatic transmission fluid”.

    But?let’s at least stop with the silly, ego-boosting labels such as ATF “agent” or the even worse “special agent”.

    These people are NOT independent contractors or self-employed entrepreneurs. They are government employees that receive a paycheck just like the greeter at Walmart.

  28. So our modern ATF is born from the “revenuers” trying to perfect the extraction of other people’s money married with the proto-“war on drugs”.

  29. Obama’s “unified agenda” explained in detail here…

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-g…..tive-fiat/

  30. That The Congress (House and Senate) of The United States continues to look on, with benign neglect, regarding the bullshit routines of this Gestapo-Like agency is, in simple but crude terminology, a Rank Fucking Disgrace. There is simply no other way to put it. Oh by the way, the Dept. of Justice cannot escape responsibility for this runaway mobs transgressions either, nor in any way at all can the resident, past or present of The White House. A pox on all the foregoing. That being said, I continue to wonder as to the following: When If Ever Will The American Public Awake And Show It’s Displeasure With The Foregoing?? Indeed, when if ever will the American public awake?

  31. What’s crucial to remember, especially in the context of this discussion about merging ATF and FBI, is that the ATF may have started the mess in Waco, but the fire was the FBI finishing it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.