[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I've never heard anyone outwardly say it, either. I think that anyone who did would quickly realize how ridiculous it sounded. But people aren't even thinking about that. They hear that one of our border patrol agents was killed, or that mass murders were carried out, and that some of the firearms that we let slip through were on the scene, and then they get upset. I'm not going to go digging through the news articles that came out around that time, but I'm fairly certain that there were a few quotes of people saying things like "this could have been prevented" or "this might not have happened" if the operation hadn't taken place. Those statements may represent half-thoughts if people are making them, because I don't see how the other half of that thought could be anything but "the cartels wouldn't have had guns to commit these acts with otherwise." What difference does it make whether people were killed with guns that we had allowed through or that were obtained through other means? The crime would most certainly have occurred regardless.

Agreed.

I'm not sure how this is hypocrisy. It would be hypocrisy if the weapons were banned, but they allowed the sales to take place anyway. They want to ban them, but they're not banned yet. There's no hypocrisy taking place: they're acting within the rules of the law, while desiring to change the law.

The hypocrisy lies in the fact that before the scandal broke the Obama administration was claiming the gun violence in Mexico is the fault of "lax gun laws" in the US, while at the same time they were selling guns to the drug cartels though "Fast and Furious".

That's akin (though not exactly the same) as the Ted Haggard scandal.
He was preaching against homosexuality, demanding gay marriage be banned, and yet at the same time was engaged in sex with a gay male prostitute.

I respect your knowledge in this area, but why did you bring this up? I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make with it.

Sorry, allow me to clarify.
I was pointing out that the machine guns in the hands of the drug cartels are not coming from FFL holders in the US unless ATF is authorizing the straw purchases.
The laws on machine guns and actual assault rifles in the US are very strict and covered under both the NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968.
Therefore, all this talk of banning "assault weapons" is nonsense since what was banned in 1994 were actually semi-automatic civilian firearms not "assault weapons".
No ban on guns will stop the flow of military style weapons into the hands of drug cartels.

When you say "gun control" I think of restricted sales. The article you linked to talks about having gun dealers provide tracing information back to the government when multiple rifles are sold to the same person within a relatively short period of time. There are no restrictions beyond that. While I'm not a fan of giving the government too much information, I don't find myself strongly opposed to the idea of having that particular information go back to the government.

Such a law is useless when ATF is selling the guns to the drug dealers.
Why should law abiding Americans have to go through more hassle when they are not the party responsible for arming the drug gangs?

My guess is that you think that the whole gunwalking operation was a setup to get legislation like this put through. I disagree, and think that the idea for the legislation came afterward. It honestly doesn't matter, though, because there's no proof to show that the intent was one way or another.

Close, but not exactly.
My feeling is that this operation was ordered in an honest attempt to try and track guns back to the drug cartels.
It was the ATF that used it to their advantage in order to try and expand their authority and justify the existence of their agency.
Ultimately, the BATFE is responsible for this which is why it transcends Presidential administrations and even congresses over at least a decade if not more.

Closing what border - the Mexican-American border? What good would that do? The cartels are wreaking havoc and building up their power within Mexico. They are not coming into America with their violence and military-level hardware - at least, not yet. If that starts happening, then yes, locking down the border might be justified. But unless closing the border completely stops the flow of drugs and money, it won't do much to the cartels.

Yes the Mexican-American border.
Without getting into the Mérida Initiative , I think a stronger border policy would make a considerable difference in the flow of drugs and money across the border.
As would ending "Fast and Furious" or any other operation akin to it.

Good luck with the marijuana legalization.

Thank you, we'll need it.