Where is the Gun-Control Lobby's Outrage over F&F?

[~Trigger~]

Honestly.....where is it? Id really like to know.

Outside of all the other BS political hooplah surrounding this case, there still remains that one confirmed fact...

>The ATF/Govt intentionally sells guns to known criminals, and allows them to be illegally smuggled to Mexican murderers.<

But yet, the VPC and the Brady Campaign have nothing to say about it. No editorial rants, no press conferences, no Million Mom Marches. Nothing. They have said - NOTHING.

So wtf?

I dont get it. F&F goes against everything these groups exist for, and then it goes further and just punches them right in the eye. But, where is their outrage over this? Why do they not feel totally betrayed by this? Why are they silent?

The only thing that they have done at this point, is try to divert attention away from the these very serious crimes...in order to focus more on "the real problem being, our lax gun laws."

So, they are blatantly ignoring the crimes of F&F, in favor of their political agendas.

This proves beyond all measure of any doubt whatsoever, that the Gun-Control groups like the Brady Bunch and the VPC are in-fact, complete frauds. They dont care about gun violence, or its vicitms.

Their purpose is to strip our 2A rights, under the false guise of "preserving public safety." That is the only way to explain their silence.

 

[WeaponsCollector]

March 30 of this year, Sarah and Jim Brady met with Obama at the White House. Afterwards Sarah Brady said Obama told her:
"I just want you to know that we are working on it[gun control], we have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

I think the gun control groups are just angry the process for more gun control came out from "under the radar". If only the gun banners could understand history and know that if they actually got the gun bans they want it could be VERY hazardous to their health and to our country.

 

[~Trigger~]

March 30 of this year, Sarah and Jim Brady met with Obama at the White House. Afterwards Sarah Brady said Obama told her:
"I just want you to know that we are working on it[gun control], we have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

I think the gun control groups are just angry the process for more gun control came out from "under the radar". If only the gun banners could understand history and know that if they actually got the gun bans they want it could be VERY hazardous to their health and to our country.

Perhaps, but as far as this OP is concerned, they are Frauds. They are liars to their own creed.

They try so hard to tug on the strings of the bleeding hearts, about the tragedy of "gun deaths." But yet, when an illegal government operation actually creates a greater threat of "gun deaths," the gun control lobby remains silent.

They are Frauds to their own cause. In light of this, anytime they express concern about public safety...it can only be a complete lie.

 

[WeaponsCollector]

Perhaps, but as far as this OP is concerned, they are Frauds. They are liars to their own creed.

They try so hard to tug on the strings of the bleeding hearts, about the tragedy of "gun deaths." But yet, when an illegal government operation actually creates a greater threat of "gun deaths," the gun control lobby remains silent.

They are Frauds to their own cause. In light of this, anytime they express concern about public safety...it can only be a complete lie.

Gun banners need lots of gun deaths so they can have a good excuse for more gun bans. According to the FBI violent crime and murder rates in America are at all-time lows right now as more and more states allow concealed carry and more Americans are buying guns than ever before. When there are not enough gun deaths, they must at least try to make more. Otherwise everything the gun banners have worked for all these years will go up in gunsmoke and they might have to admit they've been lying all this time.

 

[EL1227]

March 30 of this year, Sarah and Jim Brady met with Obama at the White House. Afterwards Sarah Brady said Obama told her:
"I just want you to know that we are working on it[gun control], we have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

I think the gun control groups are just angry the process for more gun control came out from "under the radar". If only the gun banners could understand history and know that if they actually got the gun bans they want it could be VERY hazardous to their health and to our country.

Something's been sighted on radar!

This administration is attempting more and more to rule by fiat -- and the Fourth Estate has almost zero interest in it.

Gun owners and other patriots might.

 

[Bikebreath]

The media loves the Solyndra scandal, but no boarder agents were killed. I think you see the "man behind the curtain".

 

[Sev89]

Because F&F can no longer be used for what we all know it was originally intended; Tighter restrictions on our rights.

 

[Kiev88cm]

It used to be that the media was the careful watchdog of government, but now the media is a paid political wing of the government. So, I wonder what operations this administration is running that we don't know about. I also see the so called leaks as trial balloons, floated to see if there will be any push-back from those less-than loyal to the presidents agenda.

 

[mudskipper]

Why should gun controlers be upset about F&F?

It was a program designed to help their cause. If they should be upset about anything, it would be that it got exposed.

But even amidst the wreckage of scandal, they'll still try to reach in and pry out a few tired memes and wave them around like a trophy...

 

[~Trigger~]

Why should gun controlers be upset about F&F?

It was a program designed to help their cause. If they should be upset about anything, it would be that it got exposed.

But even amidst the wreckage of scandal, they'll still try to reach in and pry out a few tired memes and wave them around like a trophy...

In essence I do agree with you.

However, even if it was to help their cause in the end, I would think that that particular design, would even cause them a huge deal of concern. And, I would expect them to voice those concerns. Just as theyve done other times for so many other lesser issues.

 

[oldman12]

It works to their favor , murder ,more gun control = citizen control AKA socialism.

 

[MDFF2008]

In essence I do agree with you.

However, even if it was to help their cause in the end, I would think that that particular design, would even cause them a huge deal of concern. And, I would expect them to voice those concerns. Just as theyve done other times for so many other lesser issues.

Fortunately a lot of them believe they are so high up on the moral ground they don't think like this.

 

[mudskipper]

It's not about preventing crime - it's about controling people. That's why it doesn't upset them. Anti's - REAL anti's, not the emotional reactionary types, but the REAL social-engineering types - don't give a damn about crime. Like all educated people, they know that some tiny portion of the population is predisposed to crimminality, and nothing will ever change that. But these people DO provide a ready-made excuse for pushing the TRUE agenda of gun controllers - authoritarian control of the population.

See, if Anti's were truly non-violent, and were advocating real nonviolence, they would insist that the agents of The State (the police) also be disarmed. Because THAT would be morally consistant. No guns for anyone. Period.

But that's not what they want. They want a monopoly of violence. So only the agents of The State (and by extension, they themselves, since they are often alligned politically) can be the only ones with the ability to project power and to use deadly force.

They hate and fear anyone who opposes their ideas, no matter how peacefully and democratically, and want to ensure that their opposition is unarmed, both for reasons of immediate personal safety and perhaps vauge, hazy notions about future methods of a "final solution" to dealing with their enemies. And as long as the pulbic is armed, neither of those desires can be fulfilled.

Make no mistake - THAT is what gun control is really about. See Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and others...

All you need to do is examine the past in order to understand goals of the future. People don't change. If you think otherwise, you are a fool.

 

[MDFF2008]

I met one anti who did believe that the police should be disarmed.

 

[oldman12]

It's not about preventing crime - it's about controling people. That's why it doesn't upset them. Anti's - REAL anti's, not the emotional reactionary types, but the REAL social-engineering types - don't give a damn about crime. Like all educated people, they know that some tiny portion of the population is predisposed to crimminality, and nothing will ever change that. But these people DO provide a ready-made excuse for pushing the TRUE agenda of gun controllers - authoritarian control of the population.

See, if Anti's were truly non-violent, and were advocating real nonviolence, they would insist that the agents of The State (the police) also be disarmed. Because THAT would be morally consistant. No guns for anyone. Period.

But that's not what they want. They want a monopoly of violence. So only the agents of The State (and by extension, they themselves, since they are often alligned politically) can be the only ones with the ability to project power and to use deadly force.

They hate and fear anyone who opposes their ideas, no matter how peacefully and democratically, and want to ensure that their opposition is unarmed, both for reasons of immediate personal safety and perhaps vauge, hazy notions about future methods of a "final solution" to dealing with their enemies. And as long as the pulbic is armed, neither of those desires can be fulfilled.

Make no mistake - THAT is what gun control is really about. See Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and others...

All you need to do is examine the past in order to understand goals of the future. People don't change. If you think otherwise, you are a fool.

That was freaking brilliant.+1