Jun 202013
 

The ATF has been unpopular with extremist gun-nuts ever since the ATF attempted to seize the illegal weapons cache at the Branch Dravidian compound in Waco, TX, resulting in the subsequent destruction of that compound by the FBI. For the extreme right, it's a serious enough matter that it prompted one of their number, Tim McVeigh, to bomb the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, because it contained an ATF office. He has been lionized by the Tea Party to the extent that Tea Baggers have celebrated that date by bringing their weapons to "Open Carry" protests near Washington, DC. But Republicans have actually found a much sneakier way to keep the ATF from enforcing gun laws, and Democrats want to change it.

20GunsThe No. 2 Democrat in the Senate is readying legislation aimed at pressuring the gun lobby to endorse the confirmation of a permanent Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) director.

The bill being crafted by Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) would allow for the ATF’s functions to be shifted to another agency, such as the FBI, effectively bypassing the need for the Senate to confirm a director of the embattled bureau.

“It strikes me that if the Senate has not confirmed the head of an agency as important as this, after a certain period of time, that we should transfer the jurisdiction of that agency to the FBI for example, which has a long-term director,” Durbin told The Hill. 

The National Rifle Association (NRA) has successfully lobbied Congress to block every presidential pick to head the ATF since 2006. The group argues that a permanent director could lead to more severe enforcement of firearm laws… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <The Hill>

Photo credit: The Rude Pundit

Rachel Maddow Provided Details

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The hypocrisy here is extreme, because Republicans are saying that we just need to enforce the laws we have, at the same time they are preventing those laws from being enforced. I like Durbin's bill, but I see no chance of its passage as long as Republicans control the House. However, I consider it worth pursuing, because it makes public the manner in which Republicans are sabotaging Americans' safety for the sake of gun industry profits and seditionist hate groups.

Share

  25 Responses to “Free the ATF!”

  1. Let's face it. Congress, be it the Senate or House, does not like to actually work. It's easier to block action than to take action, in their minds.

    • That's all the Republican Party wants now: to cause failure, blame it on Democrats, and present themselves as the solution.  It worked for them in 2010.

  2. I agree with Patty.  As long as the NRA and their fellow kooks exist, meaningful gun legislation (like background checks) won't be possible until at least 2014.  No way that bill will get through the House.  I want those freaking Neanderthals out of there, especially the ones who cooked up that ridiculous abortion bill.

    • Because lefties chose 2010, a census year, for apathy anbd protest votes, Republicans got to Gerrymander so many districts that getting them out of the House will be most difficult.

    • As long as Bloomberg and his fellow kooks exist, meaningful gun legislation (repealing NICS, GCA 1968, and NFA) will never be possible until they push the country into a bloody civil war.

  3. As I read from top to bottom of the article, I find that I can put it no better than you have in summary.  This is what I was thinking.

    The hypocrisy here is extreme, because Republicans are saying that we just need to enforce the laws we have, at the same time they are preventing those laws from being enforced. I like Durbin's bill, but I see no chance of its passage as long as Republicans control the House. 

    The only difference is that I said Durbin's bill has less chance of suriving than a snowball in hell!

    If the Republican/Teabaggers are trying to rebrand themselves, they are doing a piss poor job!  A leopard does not change its spots!  They are the same extremist party that they have been for some time now!

    • I can concur with that assessment.  As I said, what makes it important is the we can use it to defind them correctly.

  4. The BATFE should be dissolved, along with the NSA, IRS, and DHS/TSA. I also support scrapping the rest of the alphabet soup including FEMA and DEA, and banning all 'czars'. The Democrats, not the Republicans, are the problem concerning their unconstitutional gun laws.

    • Cleary you did not read the way I deflated your last gun rant, so I'll ignore this one.

      Republican administrations had more czars, and ,ade up the term czar.  What most beeds to be disolved is the T-E-A  P-A-R-T-Y.

      • So let me get this straight..

        You believe that non-constitutionally based governent agencies that have NO elected positions in them (which means NO direct public oversight) should be allowed to remain in places of power and authority over American citizens.. To make it worse, you believe that the right of individual citizens to come together and state their own views and opinions as a group should be "disbanded".

         

        I'm sure your govenrment masters love little political slave minds like yours.

        -Jones

        • Jones, please see my reply to your leader anmd treat everyone here with respect.  That is your only warning.

        • Jones came back and said we have not earned respect, lied that I had not answered his arguments, which I did not, beccause they have no basis in fact, as you can see.  Then he added a couple more personal attacks and invided me to delete his comment and ban him.  I was happy to comply.

      • Wow what an article.  As usual both current events and historical fact are woefully confused.  The Branch Davidians may or may not have been dealing in firearms illegally.  We will neve know the FBI buldozed the crime scene into the ground.  Of course this was accomlished after they saw to the deaths of helpless women and children burned to death of gassed by the by product of the buring CS gas that produces a vapor that is a nerve agent.  This causes horrendous muscle spasums and is even violent enough to break the bones of the victim.

         

        Of course we have April 19th. This is the date that the ATF decided to go in an armed force and put these defensless victims at risk, the women and children.  Nope instead of quietly picking up Koresh they decided an armed assult in tactical gear with an over whelming force the requirement, complete with the media sideshow of course.  Koresh even phoned the sheriff and asked why they were shooting at them, he did'nt even know they were there for a lawful cause.  the ATF started shooting right off the batt.  Can you say media circus????  That is why the ATF went in there that day, to make a show; well they did and then they could not even finish what they started.

        We mack to April 19th….  The reason the Tea Party clebrates that is because that is the date the British marched on Lexington and Concord, the date of the shot heard around the world.  Unfortunately ininformed people can be manipulated by hype because they are ignorant of their country's history.  Ahh well ignorance is bliss as they say…  But you see I did not attack the speaker or a person, I only addressed the proposition.   This is called reason and reason is dicussed properly and formally in an argument.  This is how reasonable people convey ideas.  People who use appeals to emotion, popular sentiment and appeals to authority are referred to as unreasonable because all those examples are logical fallacies.

        • Welcome Draco. :-)

          The militia's never took the date seriously until after the WACO incident, that McVeigh stated proptped the bombing.  The Davidians cache was illegal, but I agree with you, and have preciouysly stated here that trhe behavior of the FBI was a criminal massacre.

          Thank you fpr keeping our rule that we treat each other with respect here.

  5. Tom, I agree with you, it will never  get passed,  nothing worthwhile does,

  6. "Free the ATF?"  Interesting experiment in alternate collectivist reality.  You perhaps have heard of the Law of Unintended Consequences?  Starting a bloody civil war seems a bit counterproductive to your plans and to the safety of the society you wish to foist them upon.  I understand that collectivism is nothing but an appetite for other people's liberty, property and lives but just how many of us "bitter clingers" are you willing to see dead in order to enforce your plans for more citizen disarmament?  A million?  Two?  Ten?  Think hard, and think now — before that process server from the Law of Unintended Consequences shows up at your door with the butcher's bill.

    • Welcome Mike. :-)

      Please be aware that, while I have no trouble with commenters attacking public figures, like Obvama or Bachmann, we argue issues among each other with respect and courtesy.

      Am I correct that by collectivisy, you mean communist?

      Now, if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that if you don't like the decisions made my your elected government, and if you respond with violence, then your actions are our fault.  We are all responsible for our own actions, and it seems that you are using projection.

      Of course I know who you are, and I think I may have written an article about you in the past.  Here's some of the information I have.from the SPLC.

      When he’s not talking about his love of the Constitution, his dislike of immigrants, or the need for armed citizen militias to battle a repressive federal government, Alabama “Patriot” leader Mike Vanderboegh has a thing about throwing bricks. Unfortunately, at least a few people are listening.

      In 2010, after Congress passed President Obama’s health care reform bill, Vanderboegh used his Sipsey Street Irregulars blog to urge opponents to throw bricks through the windows of Democratic offices nationwide. “Break them NOW. Break them and run to break again. Break them under cover of night,” he wrote.

      Thugs responded in several U.S. cities, including Wichita, Kan., Rochester, N.Y., and Tucson, Ariz., where bricks shattered the office windows of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat who was later shot in the head by a deranged gunman with no known ties to Vanderboegh. At least 10 Democrats in Congress reported harassment, vandalism or death threats. Vanderboegh was unapologetic, telling The Washington Post that the attacks were a legitimate warning to Democratic lawmakers that health care reform could lead to civil war. Throwing bricks, he said, “is both good manners and it’s also a moral duty to try to warn people.”

      Is this correct? If so, your threats did not end with bricks.  Here are your own words, included in a segment by Rachel Maddow.

       

      Are the words we see you speaking yours?

      You claim to be a leader in the patriot movment, looking back to the Boston Tea Party.  But our founding fathers did not object to taxation.  They objected to taxation without representation and fought to vreate a representastive goverment.  By comparison, you threaten and advocate violence against yoor own representative government.  In my view, such a position is sedition, not patriotism.

      Ironically, you and I probably object to some of the same laws, and both of us would like to see aspects of this government overthrown.  The difference is that I choose do do so through ballots, as the Constitution provides, not bullets.

      • Hi.

        I’m not Mike V. and am not speaking for him,but I’d like to add to this debate by mentioning that the SPLC,whom you have quoted in great breadth in your argument,likes to keep lists.

        Lists like the one Floyd Lee Corkins II used to identify a target before going postal and firing three shots in a politically right establishment.

        Your attacking Mike V’s character based on what they have to say?

        Also,I would like to remind you that,in fact,and despite your protests to the contrary,it is PERFECTLY LEGAL in an American political context to use force to defy criminal assaults,even criminal assaults upon our liberty by those in government,also known as “tyranny”……
        …..I understand that this is an alien concept to people who idolize the SPLC as well as the idea of a centrally powerful government that should operate more along the lines of Athenian mob rule democracy,rather then the limited by law Republic founded in actuality by our Founders,someone who likely ends every tirade about how much they dislike violence and promote “gun control” with how such government should simply ignore any limitations to the contrary,reinterpret its own authority,and literally use force to deprive millions of Americans of their rights.

        But then,there it is.

        There’s the difference between you and us.

        You believe that we should surrender our rights to lawfully elected politicians who -by virtue of popular consent- can abrogate unalienable human rights and use government sanctioned violence to deprive people of such rights.

        We believe that there are areas gov’t is NOT ALLOWED to transgress,under much,if any,pretext whatsoever.

        You believe that its perfectly “reasonable” for government to violate it’s limitations,as long as its sanctioned by 9 unelected bureaucrats in black robes,and we know that to be an illegitimate construct based solely in revisionist history and outright blatant manipulations of powers granted to government into the realm of powers NOT granted.

        It is inarguable fact that the Bill of Rights was written as to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.”

        The amendments to the bill, when adopted, did not create any so-called constitutional rights or grant the federal government any power over individual rights; they placed additional restraints and qualifications on the powers of the federal government concerning the rights enumerated in the Amendments.

        If the Second Amendment is read through the preamble, we find it was incorporated into the Bill of Rights as a “declaratory and restrictive clause” to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its power” to infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

        The federal government claims it was granted the constitutional authority to determine the extent of the individual rights enumerated in the Amendments and/or impose “reasonable restraints” on those rights.

        This assertion is absurd.

        (And we know this.)

        Just as the notion is absurd when you declare yourself to seek only the peaceable avenues of democracy,whilst simultaneously wishing to unleash the dogs of war -government use of force via its federal policing agencies- on your fellow citizens who own property that is supposed to be off limits to regulation,but whom you wish to deprive them of,using government force……..arguably so that you can claim that your hands are clean.

        • KJ, I believe that you are not Mike, but not that you are not speaking for him, because you referred to him as 'we' later in your comment, and because you parroted the lie aout this conversation he posted on his website.

          As for assassinating Mike's character, I did not.  I posted publically available news coverage  of him, and asked if any of it was correct.  I was careful to post nothing from SPLC that I have not already seen Mike say in video clips, many of which, Rachel Maddow also presented.  There is one exception.  I cannot independently verify SPLC's and Rachel's claim that Mike collects $1,300 per month in federal disability benefits.

          I never said that it is OK to unleash the dogs of war on you or to kill you all.

          I also have never suggested that anyone has the right to take away guns that you, or anyone, lawfully own.  The notion that Obama is coming to take your guns is a myth with no basis in fact.  I have suggested that people purchasing new guns should have to document that they are not former felons, and that they have the reaining and ability to store and use guns effectively.  I have also suggested that very few weapons and monster clips no longer be sold without a license.  And that brings us to the only other new thing yu have added here.

          I will be the first to admit that there are extreme wing-nuts, who choose violence as a means to achieve political ends, on both the left and the right, although your side of the fence seems to have a lot more of them,  I am certainly glad that Floyd Lee Corkins II was not armed with a street keeper with a 100 round drum.

  7. Well, TomCat, you seem to have stirred up the wacko, gun nut, anti-everything stupid stew.  Their rantings just show everyone else how out of touch with reality they really are.

    • Yes a lot of us believe in the Constitution and the bill of rights as written and do not want the government telling us what we can do and not do and don't want them having to much power and control if you like that you should go live where they have Communist party rule you should be very happy there. Proud to be a nut and have Freedom.

       

       

    • Thanks, Jerry. but please remember that we treat people who comment with opposing views with respect here.  Facts are better arguments.