Posted on 11/07/2011 7:14:30 PM PST by Nachum
Why not? We pay for having a terrible federal government every day. Why should this be any different just because it involves lost rights instead of lost money?
Seriously, though, having Obama’s AG mumble about more gun regulation in front of a mic will accomplish two things. One: It’s bound to worry all sorts of swing-state gun owners in Pennsylvania and Ohio once word of his testimony gets around, which is all to the good for election day next year. Two: The more gun owners perk up about Holder’s testimony, the more public interest there’s bound to be in Fast & Furious. And hey — there actually is room for a smart new gun law here if Congress is willing to take it up. I call it the “DOJ Shouldn’t Walk Guns to Psychotic Mexican Drug Cartels Act of 2011.” The text reads, in full, “The DOJ shouldn’t walk guns to psychotic Mexican drug cartels.”
I’m thinking that would be a party-line vote in the House.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
The list, ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
It’s always worked with campaign financing, so why not guns. Democrats have always cheated on campaign finance laws, and when they get caught, they scream for better laws.
Those guns didn’t run by themselves, what we need is tighter control of our government.
The AG with the loosest gun control record in history, supplying Drug Cartels with weapons, will speak for tighter gun control.
It’s a Bizzarro world folks.This is what happens when a fake President starts appointing his idiot friends to high office.
Wasn’t that the real purpose of Fast and Furious anyway?
I agree with him if he means that we need tighter gun control on corrupt attorneys general so that they can’t so easily sell weapons to drug lords.
Oh yes.
Oh yes.
Will this “call” by Holder be gerrymandered over to the White House for a congressional bypass and an Executive Order fiat? Why not? The clock is running and time is short for the stirrings by the Marxists to finally become porridge, before the election comes and boils them in oil.
After he “testifies” tomorrow, his ass should be thrown in jail.
Tighter Gun Control??
Yes, that can be accomplished by reducing the group size at 100 yards. That is the only gun control that makes any sense to me.
Isn’t it funny, the way that they’re proposing doing away with all voter ID requirements, RIGHT AFTER Fast & Furious went bust...? Such a coincidence.
I mean...I’m SURE that another F&F objective wouldn’t have been to drive a major part of the population in Northern Mexico into the USA, right?
Oh I’m sure of that..!
So is tighter gun control going to prevent the government from breaking the laws they were breaking in the first place?
Its no wonder no one can tell the difference between reality and satire anymore.
Was at a county political event this evening. I asked my congressman about fast and furious. He said that Holder will ultimately resign. The wheels are turning relentlessly because of the sound investigations.
I can’t wait.
I don't want him to resign. I want him to GO TO JAIL!
Yes, there is no doubt in my mind that the whole Fast and Furious scheme was hatched to convince the American people that guns needed to be controlled. What Holder and Zero did not count on was that they would get caught.
This is much like in 1993 when Slick Willie, Hitlery and Janet Rhino launched the assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco in an effort to convince the American people that they were under imminent threat for those, gasp, right-wing militias.
How about less gov't? A whole lot less.
The Hail Mary pass when the original plot behind F&F didn’t work. The shoot-your-parents-then-beg-for-mercy-as-an-orphan scheme.
Holder will go down and be ousted or resign, but not without a lot of noise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.