Just Because You’re Paranoid Doesn’t Mean They Aren’t Out To Get You

Tuesday, June 28th, 2011

In this editorial about the ATF, the Washington Post writes that gun owners are “[c]oncerned to the point of paranoia about the erosion of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”

This would be the same newspaper that’s published in a city that, until it was rebuked by the Supreme Court, made it all but impossible for its citizens to buy or own a gun. The Post supported those laws, of course.

The same ed board shows today that it really isn’t all that concerned about the First Amendment, either.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

12 Responses to “Just Because You’re Paranoid Doesn’t Mean They Aren’t Out To Get You”

  1. #1 |  Some Guy | 

    “The ATF had hoped to move against higher-ups in the chain of command, but the operation went awry when the bureau lost track of 2,500 weapons, some of which have now been traced to criminal activity south of the border.”

    Don’t they mean “the operation went as intended when the bureau lost track of 2,500 weapons…”? The ATF intentionally let those guns fall into the hands of Mexican drug gangs, knowing full well they wouldn’t be able to track those guns. They knew they only had a *chance* of seeing those guns again when they were recovered at the scene of a crime or an arrest. The ATF *hoped* to find those guns again at murder scenes. Must have been a real thrill for the ATF until they found them at the murder scene of a Border Patrol agent.

  2. #2 |  Mattocracy | 

    Hipocrisy is hard thing to self diagnos. The Washington Post should seek professional help.

  3. #3 |  Bob | 

    What do we need guns for? The police will protect us from all crime!

    Wait, that might not be the way it works…

    As for the BATF’s master plan to sell weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels, exactly HOW were they planning on ‘tracking’ or somehow ‘intercepting’ the weapons prior to, or incident with, their delivery to said Cartels?

    Perhaps Magic? Because that’s the only way that would work.

  4. #4 |  Quote of the Indeterminate Time Interval – Washington Post Editorial Board | Pithy Title Goes Here | 

    [...] this time, via Radley Balko, the WaPo starts right off with the hysteria: The California law is different because it dealt only [...]

  5. #5 |  Somalian Road Corporation | 

    The Washington Post certainly understands the importance of maintaining media narratives, regardless of the relation those narratives have to reality.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/25/obama-were-working-on-gun-control-under-the-radar/

    Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.

    “I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

  6. #6 |  croaker | 

    Oh, this goes a whole lot further than that. If you want to slog through 80+ pages of discussion and links, ar15.com has a thumbtacked subject line in the General Discussions area. Sipsey Streer Irregulars has a timelined summary of the event to date, specifically for media attention.

    Gunwalker was a coordinated effort in four states, and the bad actors in the chain of command go all the way to the White House. Some people, with justification, view this as a coordinated effort, possibly even headed by Obama, to paint gun dealers as people selling guns to the Mexican drug cartels in order to push even more gun control legislation. IIRC this news got broken over the effort of the ATF to prosecute the dealer who sold the rifle that killed the Border Patrol agent, when in fact the rifle was sold on ATF orders.

    The Brady Bunch is being quiet to the point of paranoia over Gunwalker. If this falls out the way they fear, every gun-control and gun-grabbing organization in the USA is going to be linked to this and in a heap of trouble politically and socially. To say that this could actually be the beginning of the end of the concept of gun control is not too far a stretch.

  7. #7 |  Pablo | 

    The D.C. gun ban was unusual in its comprehensiveness. In one fell swoop it pretty much did prevent law abiding citizens from buying or keeping guns for self defense.

    The more usual tactic is incremental gun control. Ban “sniper rifles” because they are so accurate. Ban “saturday night specials” because they are cheap and innacurate. Ban .50 caliber and larger because no one needs a gun that big. Ban small caliber guns because they are, well, small and inaccurate. Ban “pocket rockets” because they are small and powerful and accurate. Ban “assault weapons” because they hold too many rounds. etc etc etc. And gun control advocates wonder why gun rights supporters aggresively fight any proposed gun law.

    Death of a thousand cuts, and all that.

  8. #8 |  H man | 

    Are you sure the homing beacon is securely on the weapons?

  9. #9 |  RM | 

    I’m surprisingly pleased by the fact that pretty much every single commentator is calling the WaPo out on its bullshit.

  10. #10 |  Brian V. | 

    Let’s not forget that D.C. still makes residents run an obstacle course, submit DNA, remit numerous fees, and memorize the entire works of Chaucer before they can own a gun.

  11. #11 |  Laura Victoria | 

    This post appeared to link to WaPo. Otherwise, the content of the WaPo/Pravda piece was so over-the-top as to be sickening. Yeah let’s strengthen what I guess should now be called ATFE -since explosives are now added to the mix. But in the tradition of government always scaling up but never down, alcohol and tobacco are still kept in. And read the the defense of Fast and Furious. Seriously, I had to check twice that this was really a WaPo link and not the Onion.

  12. #12 |  Pablo | 

    One of my favorite T shirts:

    “Alcohol
    Tobacco
    Firearms

    OK who’s bringing the chips?”

Leave a Reply