From today's testimony on Fast and Furious

[burf]

and other ATF programs.

"Very few hunters in the United States or sports people and law-abiding people really need to have semiautomatic weapons or long guns." -- Lanny Breuer, 1 November 2011, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism Holds Hearing on Combating International Organized Crime.

How much mileage are the NRA and other guns rights organizations going to get from this statement going into the 2012 elections? It brings to mind Clinton's statement on the NRA being the reason Gore lost in 2000.

Link for testimony: http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoopla Phil]

2. There will be LOTS of mileage over that statement. It shows a total lack of understanding

of the 2A. The 2A has to do with raising a citizen army (the militia). They should have on hand, at home, all the popular tools of like and kind (ie "regulated") as issued to an infantryman.

[PavePusher]

3. Totally beside the point that his statement was demonstrateably false on its face... n/t

[Hoyt]

34. "At home" -- good point. So why do so many here promote guns in public?

[Hoopla Phil]

43. It has to do with that "bear" part of the 2A. Can you please point to

the part in Heller that says ONLY in the home? I can point to the part that says "such as, within the home" but can't seem to find that "only in the home" phrase.

Thanks.

[Deep13]

4. "...semiautomatic weapons or long guns."

So, no one needs rifles or shotguns at all, be they semi-auto, lever, bolt, pump, single-shot or muzzle-loader. Skeet shooters, hunters, ranchers, farmers, target shooters--whatever. Okay, one must define "need" since most of these folks won't starve to death. Still--really? And "law abiding people" presumably include cops and soldiers.

So excluding long guns, which leaves pistols, the only kind anyone needs are revolvers, single-shot models and old-fashioned muzzle-loaders. Because all other pistols--most of them, actually--are semi-autos including many varieties of .22 rimfire hunting and target models. Plus, they are usually cheaper than good revolvers, are more resistant to abuse, are lighter and slimmer and, therefore, more suited to concealed carry. And, unlike revolvers, they are user-serviceable.

What a load of horseshit, and this is Congressional testimony?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tejas]

10. Forgot to read the OP again, eh?

[iverglas]

13. pretending to be ignorant of the language?

"Very few hunters in the United States or sports people and law-abiding people really need to have semiautomatic weapons or long guns."

If you want to pretend that this means:

Very few hunters in the United States or sports people and law-abiding people
really need to have semiautomatic weapons or really need to have long guns.

then you're welcome to make a fool of yourself in public by doing that.

Anyone with two brain cells and basic ability to parse an English sentence can see that it means, and anyone with a single shred of integrity will acknowledge that it means:

"Very few hunters in the United States or sports people and law-abiding people
really need to have semiautomatic weapons or semiautomatic long guns.


Try reading a transcript of your own spoken words some time and see what sense they make. I have to read and make sense of transcripts daily, and if I did it the way you are all pretending to do it here I'd lose that part of my job, because the people whose words I am dealing with would demand it.

(Mind you, in dealing with a report of what a Bloc Québécois MP said in a speech once, I did manage to slip in that fine English idiom "eat our cake and have it too", because I just couldn't resist, but that was a risky one.)

People of integrity do not attempt to portray other people as saying stupid or evil things by disregarding the plain meaning that can be seen by a reasonable person.

No one in their right mind would say that very few hunters really need to have long guns. It's a total nonsense. A child who has watched an Elmer Fudd cartoon knows that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanny_A._Breuer

He's a Democratic/Obama appointee and an experienced criminal lawyer. Which of these makes him a total idiot?

What would possess anyone here to allege that he actually said that hunters don't need long guns?

I know the answer to that one.

If one can't make one's case by candid, straightforward presentation of facts and argument, one just has to find some other way of doing it, eh?



edited to format for clarity

[gejohnston]

14. he is

describing long guns. They are either pistols or long guns. these so call AWBs are rifles. Rifles are long guns. That fact shows he does not know what he is talking about.
as for the point he was trying to make: I really don't care. Just another person pontificating on things they know little or nothing about. Since he has no knowledge on the subject, he has no business telling what I "don't need". In other words, his sentence structure doesn't matter because he is clueless either way.

[iverglas]

17. I'm sorry

but that was incoherent.

Are you claiming that he said hunters do not need long guns?

I sincerely recommend that you think carefully about who will really look the fool before doing that.

[Remmah2]

21. As quoted.

"Very few hunters in the United States or sports people and law-abiding people really need to have semiautomatic weapons or long guns." -- Lanny Breuer, 1 November 2011, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism Holds Hearing on Combating International Organized Crime."

[gejohnston]

29. I am saying

he does not know that all rifles are long guns. and AK-47 is a rifle. All rifles are long guns. I am saying he does not have a fucking clue what he is talking about.

[iverglas]

32. the totally unfounded feelings of superiority on display just gobsmack

They just do.

How come you don't have his job?

he does not know that all rifles are long guns

That statement reflects on you, and not anybody else.

[gejohnston]

47. OK maybe he misspoke

or was confused and stressed. I don't want his fucking job. Either way, it was absurd.
How does that reflect on me? Oh yeah, I forgot. If I am not a sycophant of all things "pro-control" that automatically makes me a "right wing, mysoginist, anti choice, climate science denying, anti intellectual piece of shit."

[gejohnston]

48. one more thing

the totally unfounded feelings of superiority on display just gobsmack

That is very true. It applies to you and a couple of faux intellectuals that wander by once in a while.

[jmg257]

19. I agreed with Iverglas, now I am not so sure..

More from that link:
(re: constructive ways to fight the Mexico/US gun-flow problem)


"BREUER: I do, Senator. Senator, we're talking today about transnational organized crime, and your leadership and the chairman's and other senators shows that information -- information is the tool we need to challenge and defeat organized crime. Today, Senator, we are not even permitted to have ATF receive reports about multiple sales of long guns, of any kind of semiautomatic weapon or the like. So the ATF is unable to get that. Very few hunters in the United States or sports people and law-abiding people really need to have semiautomatic weapons or long guns. So today if I go into a dealership today and I want to buy 50 or 60 semiautomatic weapons, there is nothing that requires that to be in any way notified to ATF...."

That's twice - this guy does seem to be a bit confused about "long guns" and "semiautomatic weapons".
Maybe not though - maybe he is considering them as just another seperate group of arms that aren't reported?...is he just making a point about a group of guns in general?

Hmmm...or could be when he says "long guns" he means 'sniper-type' rifles (or otherwise using the phrase 'long guns' to mean something different then the norm)??

[gejohnston]

31. what is sniper type

you mean the scoped bolt action grandpa uses for deer hunting? You mean deer rifle? That is how propaganda buzz words work. That is why there is no technical definition of "assault weapon" as you understand it.
Long guns includes all rifles and all shotguns not regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

[jmg257]

39. As I said, I am not sure what he meant..he seemed to be using 'long guns'

to mean something besides what I would normally expect. Unfortunately, there IS a technical definition for "assault weapons" - it has been codified - and until it gets re codified to mean something else, it is exactly as I understand it, which I try/need to do as well as possible. FWIW, "Firearm" has been codified to mean some pretty specific items too, despite how I generally understand the term.

'Sniper-type' as I would refer to it would certainly include bolt action rifles (scoped), be a subset of long guns, etc....what HE would mean by that - again I have no idea. They referred to 'sniper rifle' in the testimony, but that was after the quotes being discussed here, and no explanation I recall.

[Katya Mullethov]

50. I wouldnt sweat the details

They can do pretty much whatever they want anyway .

[jmg257]

51. Yep. From watching the video, it seemed almost a mummers farce to get some

fear buzz words out there.."long guns", "semiautomatic weapons", "sniper rifle", '.50 cal.' Seemed eerily familiar to the "assault weapon" farce from '94, including saying how 'sportsman don't need them'.

Obvious push for more support/control whether through registration, reports of multiple sales for these, at the least .

[Katya Mullethov]

52. Do you like a contests ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbl_94geCps

As a drinking game -USE BEER- !!!! It could easily prove lethal .

[burf]

53. Your first stop would be at the liquor store

but you would have to buy it by the pallet!

[Oneka]

56. Did Lanny Breuer just LIE to congress, about multiple long gun reporting requirements?

Lanny Breuer, 1 November 2011, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism Holds Hearing on Combating International Organized Crime.

:

So today if I go into a dealership today and I want to buy 50 or 60 semiautomatic weapons, there is nothing that requires that to be in any way notified to ATF....

Today, Senator, we are not even permitted to have ATF receive reports about multiple sales of long guns, of any kind of semiautomatic weapon or the like.

A quick Google search, resulted in these sites, defining the new requirement from ATF as of august 14th 2011, that multiple sales of certain long guns in a 5 day period are indeed required to be reported to ATF, including the actual form, that a FFL must use to report multiple sales.



http://www.scribd.com/doc/61159256/ATF-Multiple-Rifle-Sale-Reporting-Requirement-Letter


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/03/us-usa-mexico-guns-idUSTRE7725DB20110803

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/atf-multiple-long-gun-reporting-forms-sent-to-ffls

http://www.scribd.com/doc/61164591/Report-of-Multiple-Rifle-Sales

Another Google search provided the form, for multiple sales of handguns, which are semiautomatic, that,reporting the sale of, has been a requirement since the late 1960's

http://www.scribd.com/doc/61164591/Report-of-Multiple-Rifle-Sales

Lanny Breuer is assistant AG for the DOJ criminal division, Arguably a smart guy.

Did Lanny really think that his, two statements to congress, about multiple sale reporting to ATF would go unnoticed?
Did he really think that he could just flat out lie to congress with impunity?

Or was he just "confused" about the subject of his own testimony?

[krispos42]

41. "Assault weapons" also include pistols.

At least according to the now-expired federal ban.

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
  
• Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
  
• Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
  
• Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
  
• A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm
  
  Although, frankly, I want the preferred weapon of gangbangers and other violent criminals to be as heavy and unconcealable as possible, so I'd love for them to use magazines that attach outside the pistol grip, with a barrel shroud, and that weigh more than 3 pounds, 2 ounces unloaded.

[Straw Man]

45. Not a failure of comprehension at all.

"Very few hunters in the United States or sports people and law-abiding people really need to have semiautomatic weapons or long guns."

If you want to pretend that this means:

Very few hunters in the United States or sports people and law-abiding people
really need to have semiautomatic weapons or really need to have long guns.

then you're welcome to make a fool of yourself in public by doing that.

Nothing foolish about it, because that's exactly what it does mean. Bear with me.

Anyone with two brain cells and basic ability to parse an English sentence can see that it means, and anyone with a single shred of integrity will acknowledge that it means:

"Very few hunters in the United States or sports people and law-abiding people
really need to have semiautomatic weapons or semiautomatic long guns.

Do you want to parse sentences? OK: "semi-automatic long guns" are "semi-automatic weapons." The "or" construction therefore is completely illogical. Of course, "handguns" and "long guns" are mutually exclusive designations, in which case the "or" construction would make sense. If he had said "handguns" instead of "weapons," you might have a valid point. But he didn't, and you don't.

Please don't expect me or anyone else to make the opposition's points for them when they are incapable of making them for themselves. I would never expect that courtesy from you. Why should you expect it from me? You left good faith behind long ago on this forum.

Now tell me about my stupidity and lack of integrity. Please. I would be very disappointed if you didn't.

[GreenStormCloud]

54. You may wish to talk another look at English grammar.

He said, "...semiautomatic weapons or long guns."

Semiautomatic weapons includes semiautomatic long guns. So for him to mean it as you suggest, "semiautomatic weapons or semiautomatic long guns. would mean that he was being redundant. Since semiautomatic long guns are included in the term "semiautomatic weapons" then the word "or" means that he is about to refer to another category that are not semiautomatic weapons. Long guns are indeed a separate category.

It is possible that he misspoke, but until he issues a clarification we must take him at his spoken words.

[Deep13]

12. I wish I could make out what you are saying, but...

the basics of reading comprehension have escaped me completely.

[Remmah2]

16. Taken literally, it reads clear as day.

You can't twist this one. Just like a $25,000 proposed payoff and ACLU approval in a previous discussion.

[iverglas]

18. will you be clear?

Are you claiming that he said that hunters do not need long guns?

Simple yes or no answer.

Keep in mind that a "yes" answer will be simple in more than one way.

[Remmah2]

23. Are you telling me what I can and can't say?

Seriously, do you have a clue or do you just post to instigate and aggravate?

[iverglas]

26. I guess you won't be clear

Smart move, in the circumstances.

[Union Scribe]

37. I picture that poster as having two bee hives for hands.

Not sure exactly why, but it seems to fit well enough.

[TheWraith]

9. Not just congressional testimony, testimony from the Assistant Attorney General.

And then people wonder why we think that policy is being shaped by morons who have no fucking idea what they're talking about.

[ileus]

11. basically a bunch of lies...anti's being anti's

[DissedByBush]

42. Need vs. Want

Rights are not subject to the criteria of "need."

The other day I saw a car with about a hundred bumper stickers. Hilarious, ranging from crude humor, geek humor, religion (from a pagan and atheist point of view), and a huge amount of good-old politics, topped off with an Obama sticker.

Did the driver NEED that many bumper stickers to express his First Amendment rights?

Hell no.

But he wanted it. That's good enough for me.

[Deep13]

44. Interesting, but a bit off topic.

If we are talking about freedom of speech, then I guess the argument is that the witness had a right to make those remarks. And he had a right to define the word "need" narrowly. But we know that rights are not absolute even when they are well-defined. As a witness before Congress, he was under oath and under a legal duty to tell the truth. Granted, it is the truth as he sees it, but the truth nonetheless. I guess he thought he was doing that, but if he wasn't, then he can be lawfully punished for what he said. And that's for a pretty broad right of free speech. Take a narrowly defined right like that of the collective people to be armed in a regulated manner for state security and the restrictions can be extensive.

[DissedByBush]

49. Quite on topic

He's addressing a right as based on need, which it isn't. You don't necessarily NEED to demand the police have a search warrant to search your house. Only that you WANT them to have one before allowing them in matters. You don't have to have a NEED to invoke your right to not testify against yourself, you only have to WANT to invoke it.

If you disagree, then you agree with the authoritarians who say "Why not, if you don't have anything to hide?"

Why? Because I WANT TO. No explanation necessary.

Same for the Second Amendment. I don't NEED an AR-15. Only my WANT matters (that I personally don't actually want one is irrelevant).

"And that's for a pretty broad right of free speech. Take a narrowly defined right like that of the collective people to be armed in a regulated manner for state security and the restrictions can be extensive."

The Second Amendment is a broadly defined, INDIVIDUAL right, the clear history going back to old English law. The whole of the people is the militia to be armed, and security of the FREE state means to defend it against an oppressive government that would make it into a non-free state. And that phrase is only descriptive, not restrictive.

[Deep13]

5. What the hell is "Fast and Furious?" nt

[oneshooter]

6. Google "Fast and Furious", get past the movie reviews, and start reading. n/t

[TheWraith]

7. A program that had the BATF endorse the smuggling of several thousand guns into Mexico.

Basically, they overrode the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and forced through sales to known criminals and smugglers, sometimes even over the concerns of the shop owners. Supposedly, this was to track smuggling of weapons into Mexico, but they never actually tracked any farther than the border (some not even out of the shop), and never informed the Mexicans at all. A number of the guns have shown up at crime scenes right here in the US, including the murder of a Border Patrol agent.

There's circumstantial evidence to suggest that it was less for the stated purpose, than to be able to say "Look, there are thousands of guns being smuggled into Mexico. Give us more money and powers in order to stop it." Alternatively, some people think it was a cover to arm one cartel against a more violent and hostile one, trying to play them off of each other. I doubt that though, as it's much more likely to be simple incompetence and attempts to justify more money and agency authority.

[Remmah2]

15. I suspect it describes the love life of some people as well. ;) NT

nt

[spin]

20. This scandal grows bigger and bigger, day by day ...

drip. drip, drip.

And it involves both a Republican and a Democratic administration.

It's far bigger than a simple ATF program run by some Keystone Kops.

I have a good nose and I am picking up a slight scent of a CIA involvement. There is no proof yet, but rumors are starting to spread.

FARAGO: Was CIA behind Operation Fast and Furious?
New and troubling motive for Team Obama’s illegal gunrunning scheme
By Robert Farago and Ralph Dixon

The Washington Times

Thursday, August 11, 2011

***snip***

In congressional testimony, William Newell, former ATF special agent in charge of the Phoenix Field Division, testified that the Internal Revenue Service, Drug Enforcement Administration and Immigration and Customs Enforcement were “full partners” in Operation Fast and Furious. Mr. Newell’s list left out the most important player: the CIA. According to a CIA insider, the agency had a strong hand in creating, orchestrating and exploiting Operation Fast and Furious.

The CIA’s motive is clear enough: The U.S. government is afraid the Los Zetas drug cartel will mount a successful coup d’etat against the government of Felipe Calderon.

Founded by ex-Mexican special forces, the Zetas already control huge swaths of Mexican territory. They have the organization, arms and money needed to take over the entire country.

Former CIA pilot Robert Plumlee and former CIA operative and DEA Director Phil Jordan recently said the brutally efficient Mexican drug cartel has stockpiled thousands of weapons to disrupt and influence Mexico’s national elections in 2012. There’s a very real chance the Zetas cartel could subvert the political process completely, as it has throughout the regions it controls.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/11/was-cia-behind-operation-fast-and-furious/

BUT IT SHOULD BE POINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS A SIMILAR PROGRAM UNDER THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

Earlier ATF gun operation ‘Wide Receiver’ used same tactics as ‘Fast and Furious’
By Sari Horwitz, Published: October 6

Republican lawmakers for eight months have been leading the probe into “Fast and Furious,” the controversial ATF gun operation, and trying to determine who in President Obama’s Justice Department knew what, and when they knew it.

But it turns out there was another gun operation run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives years before, using the same tactics of allowing guns to flow illegally onto U.S. streets and into Mexico. This operation was conducted under the Bush administration’s Justice Department.

Dubbed “Operation Wide Receiver,” the case was run out of Tucson between 2006 and 2007 and involved hundreds of guns that were purchased by small-time buyers who transferred them to middle men who then passed them up the chain and into Mexico.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/earlier-atf-gun-operation-wide-receiver-used-same-tactics-as-fast-and-furious/2011/10/06/gIQAuRHIRL_story.html

For those interested in reading about CIA operations in the Americas, two quick Wikipedia links:

CIA activities in the Americas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_the_Americas

CIA activities in Nicaragua http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Nicaragua

[one-eyed fat man]

25. One teeny weeny difference

"Wide Receiver" was a failed operation in that weapons were allowed to cross the border and the mechanisms by which the weapons were to be tracked did not work. Unlike "Fast & Furious", Mexican authorities were part of "Wide Receiver." There were plans for the Mexican police to pick up surveillance on their side of the border. When the shortcomings of "Wide Receiver" became apparent, the operation was halted.

Fast & Furious was a "sting operation" right up until guns crossed the border without surveillance and no way of knowing where they would wind up. The Mexican authorities couldn't pick up surveillance, they were deliberately not informed, violating only a few "minor laws and treaties." When the shortcomings of this operation became apparent, the whistle-blowers were retaliated against, its existence was denied, and any investigation was stymied at every turn.

Holder got caught "misunderstanding the question" on an operation that involved three agencies that work for him, ATF, DEA and FBI and at least a handful of US Attorneys that superintend the legal issues of those agencies.

Now, one more time slowly, a sting operation requires you to track the contraband up the chain of supply to find the bigger fish. To provide contraband to the low level buyers and simply watch them walk away is useless. To let them walk away with guns and wait until one of them is found at the scene of a murder is criminal.

[slackmaster]

22. Lanny Breuer, Sacrificial Lamb

:argh:

[AzWorker]

24. Statements like that reveal the true reason for OPs like F&F

Keep the anti's talking, they will make the case FOR the 2A

[SteveM]

28. Quite possible. According to CBS, the operation involved...

several federal agencies. This in itself leads to the possibility that the OP was not strictly (if at all) about "tracing" guns to gang operatives in Mexico. Given the considerable MSM flurry about supporting restrictions on gun dealers near the border -- a kind of cordon sanitaire -- It is possible that the OP was making the case for restrictions on gun sales, with a foothold in the Southwest.

More disturbing is the possibility that the CIA et al was trying to get the guns to a rival of the Zeta Cartel, La Sinaloa. This because the former was the strongest cartel and in position to bargain for formal power-sharing within the Mexican government. Arming Sinaloa was thereby a means to slow down the Zetas.

[SteveM]

27. Jeez, now I have to spring for a .44 mag revolver to go deer hunting? nt

[oneshooter]

36. Na, you could pop for a 44mag Desert Eagle. n/t

[SteveM]

46. Those damned things look like juke boxes. nt

[Euromutt]

30. A lot of hunters will be surprised to hear they don't really "need to have long guns"

Does Mr. Breuer think we should all be using bows?

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ObamaFTW2012]

35. Gun haters can't keep their mouths shut

They just have to blurt out their true feelings from time to time. I relish those moments, because everyone can see them for who they truly are - enemies of freedom - regardless of how they try to distance themselves from such an unpopular reputation.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

40. Lanny Breuer can kiss my ass.

what a maroon.

[benEzra]

55. This guy needs to educate himself posthaste

on what a "semiautomatic" is, and what percentage of U.S. gun ownership they constitute.

The overwhelming majority of civilian guns sold in the United States are semiautomatic, which of course refers to guns that fire once and only once when you pull the trigger and then reload the chamber after each shot. That is how most civilian guns work, as opposed to government-restricted burst-mode and automatic weapons. Hunting is almost irrelevant to overall gun ownership as well, and I'm surprised that this still comes up. 1993 called and wants its talking points back...

Considering that Mr. Breuer's boss got a loud and clear STFU from the White House after making less sweeping statements about restricting semiautos, methinks Mr. Breuer will be getting a talking-to from his less-clueless chain of command over this....