David Codrea:

That leaves one last logical place where a public inquiry could and should be conducted, but Mr. Issa hasn’t shown much interest in following up on things of late, and the Republican leadership hardly seems inclined to encourage him to do so, for reasons we can only speculate.

Put on your hard hat and other PPEs and prepare for a working man’s article.  David takes us on an adventure race down memory lane to rehearse just how bad Fast and Furious really was, now that subject weapons are again in the news.  There are lots of reference links and some technical discussion, but it’s well worth the time.

And take note that even the previously fervent and well-intentioned are disinterested, or worn down, or know that the administration won’t be truthful.  Unfortunately we don’t know, but the sad state of affairs is that people are still perishing at the hands of an administration trying to construct a case for an “assault weapons ban” by rigging the statistics with U.S. weapons.

I also noticed The Washington Post, citing yet another pointy-head academic paper, is still pressing the meme of U.S. weapons flowing South to Mexico as the catalyst for the cartel violence.  Hey, if people don’t know the truth, you can tell them anything you want.  And academics do.  And the main stream media does.

Kurt Hofmann:

Quinn, readers may remember, is an enthusiastic advocate of banning so-called “assault weapons,” being one of those who considers them to be “weapons of war that belong on a battlefield, not on our streets.” He has been, in fact, willing to violate both the U.S. Constitution and the Illinois state constitution to write his own AWB bill, because, he claims, “the proliferation of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines undermines public safety and the right of personal security of every citizen.”

We discussed this in Bilderberg, The New American Century And The Rise Of Intelligence.  It is difficult to achieve the status of arming orders for National Guard troops (it involves training, range qualifications, military approvals, knowledge of rules for the use of force, etc.).  The National Guard sent to the border weren’t under arming orders, and thus they did paperwork and clerical duties.

Kurt’s article made me think once again about the Governor’s threat to use National Guard troops.  Such an action would be both illegal and immoral.  But if he deployed the National Guard to the city to quell violence without arming orders or ammunition for their weapons, he is turning them into sitting ducks.

The Governor can’t win.  If he deploys them with weapons and ammunition he is committing an immoral action against the citizens.  If he deploys them without arming orders, he is being an immoral leader for the troops.  And actually he can win in this scenario.  It’s easy.  Don’t deploy the troops at all because that’s not the proper use of those troops.

And for someone who decries the use of weapons of war on the streets, perhaps he should be a little more concerned about unleashing SWAT teams to terrorize citizens.  “Weapons of war.”  The administration sent them to Mexico because they don’t want us to have them – we aren’t the cartels.  The SWAT teams want them, but they don’t want us to have them.  The Governor is prepared to unleash them in the city to quell violence, but not if it involves innocent citizens protecting themselves.

One could begin to think that this all had to do with a little more than “weapons of war,” this quest to arm certain men and disarm others, no?

Read David and Kurt.