Indeed. I mean, he is Executive in Chief, right? As in, head of the Executive branch? You know, the same Executive Branch that owns the ATF? I know it's the liberal way to dodge responsibility and blame shit on Bush, but fucking come on.
This is exactly why it's so tedious dealing with powerfully anti-Obama people. I didn't say it was Bush, and I would give the same response if (in this case) you were to call it "Bush's Fast and Furious". Whether or not it's the "liberal way" to dodge responsibility by blaming W, it's not what I'm doing. It's the idiot way to assume that others view the world as narrowly as some, and perhaps yourself, do.
F&F was stupid operation, but it was marked by failure to communicate information (including upwards, where the President certainly is). It was initiated prior to Obama's inauguration, though the "scandalous" portions occurred after. It was a low-level operation, definitely not one that the President was directing personally or, perhaps, even brought to his attention.The ATF had no actual director in that period, only an acting director, and it's not for lack of effort to appoint one on the President's part.
You can make the case that the President bears ultimate responsibility for everything that happens in federal departments but it is unreasonable to call it "X's Fast and Furious", imputing all or nearly all responsibility to X when it was not initiated by him, and was carried out far below him, almost certainly without any intervention from him. Naming it this way is the activity of either someone who hasn't given it much thought, or willfully wants to attribute it to X, facts be damned. I do blame Obama for trying to circle the wagons around Holder, and clumsily. I do believe that he placed obstacles to the investigation, though I maintain that there is far less to investigate than F&F fans tend to suggest. But trying to hold him accountable for the entirety of the operation makes it far more difficult to lay blame where it's due, and in the absurd effort to place it where it is not.
The border with Mexico is a critical factor in national policy. When it comes to forbidding stuff, it's one of the most important factors.
It's not necessarily a lawless warzone. It's actually kind of a pleasant place, as long as you know enough to steer around the worst spots. However, it is a place that is ready, willing, able, and goddamn happy to provide what people here in the US want, people who aren't afraid to deal in shady channels to get it. Has nothing to do with Iowa. Mexican drugs (and, eventually, Mexican guns, once the current price increases due to artificial shortages induced by the administration trying to lock down guns and ammo through stockpiling) reach all the way to the Canadian border and beyond.
And you can pretend all you want that guns don't provide protection; clearly you've been listening to MSNBC who wouldn't cover a good gun story if their lives hung in the balance. I have personal first hand experience that yes, guns can and very frequently do stop crimes in progress and defend people who otherwise would be victims.
Until the Mexican border can be properly secured (and that will mean endless amounts of liberal tears; a fucking ocean of them) there is simply no way that significant gun control legislation can work here. Congress knows it. They know that we would have an enforcement nightmare on their hands to make the current war on drugs look like a schoolyard snowball fight.
Why would anyone bother going through back-channels with (Mexican?) black market dealers to get something that is already freely available, legally or at least easily and with no real chance at detection, in the US? No need for catapaults. Even if gun trafficking from Mexico were a serious concern, which I'm not sure I buy, it couldn't possibly compare to the easy legal channels that already exist domestically. It would be like claiming that people buy beer from bootleggers today: even if it happens more often than never, anyone who makes a suggestion that bootlegging is a serious source of alcohol in the US would be exposed as a fool. If there were severe gun restrictions passed in the US, I would expect illicit inbound trade to pick up. But that isn't the case, and I doubt that any amount of smuggled arms would match the amount of guns already freely available here.
Oh and by the way, I've plenty of experience seeing guns produce victims where there would otherwise have been none. Not that you'd ever see that on a variety of so-called news sources, or wherever you go to enjoy anti-liberal screeds. You can pretend all you want that that isn't the case, but it is. Gun control arguments are about balancing the benefits of guns with the dangers, and until you admit the dangers you'll have a hard time making a good argument about the benefits outweighing them.
I never said that guns don't provide protection. They do, however, present a lot of risk to gun owners, their families, and innocent bystanders. If you want to argue that the protection element outweighs the risk element, that's fine. But don't pretend that my position is that guns are totally ineffective for protection (it isn't), or that I watch MSNBC (I don't), or any other number of assumptions. You have made a couple about me in the post I'm quoting; so far, none are correct.