Ammo For Sale

« « In DC | Home | #ImBlockedByShannonWatts: Can @shannonrwatts do something so stupid she blocks herself? » »

In Fast and Furious news

Sharyl Attkisson is reviewing the document dump, which shows that, yes, the administration wanted to use the program to push for gun control.

5 Responses to “In Fast and Furious news”

  1. Ron W Says:

    They used to call Ronald Reagan “the Teflon president” and Bill Clinton “slick willy” , but this guy has them beat– with a lot of help from major media.

  2. Lyle Says:

    As if we weren’t 100% sure the minute we first heard about it. As if we didn’t see the stonewalling and tortured explanations for what they were. As if we didn’t know they were going to do this kind of thing before Obama was even sworn in for his first term. As if we never understood what “Fundamentally Transforming America”, “Redistributive Change” and “We need to change our history and our traditions” meant. As if we didn’t understand what “Charter of Negative Rights” meant with regard to the Bill of Rights. As if we could never figure out what a student, and later teacher, of Sol Alinski’s doctrine would do if given the opportunity by deer-in-the-headlights-stupid, and complicit, Republicans and idiot American voters. As if we couldn’t figure out what “We’re going to reward our friends and punish our enemies” might mean. As if we’ve been fucking blind, dumb and stupid since the summer of 2008 (when, by the way, guns and ammo started really flying off the shelves).

    At least I’ve been able to profit from it, speaking purely financially of course.

    “this guy has them beat– with a lot of help from major media.”

    Major media, shill judges, a shill DOJ, a shill IRS, a shill EPA, a shill DHS, a shill DOE, a shill…well you get the point. We now have a criminal government, protecting its criminal president, criminal confiscation and redistribution schemes, and criminal manipulation of the currency and financial markets. I guess they’d have us blame the Jews, or the teabaggers, or anyone else, so long as we don’t blame the Progressive idealogy that’s led to all of this.

  3. mikee Says:

    The Democrat Party is not only the best friend the poor, the Black and the downtrodden citizens of the US ever had, it now also can claim to be the best friend of the victims of drug cartel crime in Mexico.

    Some might argue that with a friend like that, who needs any enemies.

  4. Publicola Says:

    Lyle, “Charter of negative Rights” is an accurate description of our Bill of Rights. Wikipedia gives a decent workout to the topic…

    Gist is Negative Rights require inaction (e.g. don’t take away anyone’s weapons) whereas Positive Rights require action (e.g. give weapons to people that want them). I’d argue that positive Rights aren’t actually Rights at all, but entitlements. Nevertheless Obama got it correct that the Bill of Rights is a charter of Negative Rights. Course he’s trying to change that, as most folks in government have been for a long while…

  5. Seerak Says:

    I’d argue that positive Rights aren’t actually Rights at all, but entitlements.

    Actually, given that “positive rights” entail rights to goods/services, any such “right” imposes unchosen obligations on the provider of those goods/services. *Duties*, in other words, as Kant meant it – an unchosen obligation.

    Cloaking socialistic duty as a type of “right” is part of the intellectual process by which the Left co-opted American liberalism.