Steve Kelley by Steve Kelley

Steve Kelley

Comments (12) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, over 3 years ago

    Too many people playing “fast and furious” with the details on this case. It is ironic that this program began under another name before Mr. Obama was elected. It is additionally ironic the “marked guns” were purchased at gun shops in the USA that didn’t require background checks so the Justice Dept. could ‘track’ them into Mexico. The batteries showing their locations didn’t last very long or were removed. Then Mr. Obama was elected, and Mr. Holder allowed himself to be convinced the people in charge of “fast and furious” were in the middle of an ongoing investigation. The fact the leads on that investigation had lost control of the guns and their whereabouts didn’t come to light until the death of an ATF agent.
    One of the biggest ironies in our relationship with Mexico is that the gun US gun sellers are supplying to Mexican cartels are being bought with money US citizens spend on cocaine and marijuana and other drugs smuggled into the USA.
    Captialsim at work. We sell them guns, they sell us drugs, and gov’ts stand by helplessly while citizens get caught in the crossfire and go to work in corporate prisons.
    “Cage of Freedom/That’s Our Prison/ We’re the jailer and prisoner combined.”
    Instead of blaming ANYONE for this situation, would it not be better to pass laws that make this cycle of self destruction less prevalent?

  2. d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release

    d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release said, over 3 years ago

    @Respectful Troll

    The reason they won’t pass sensible gun laws is because of this thing called the NRA. They’ve got the gun nuts convinced that the gubbermint is coming after their guns and they’re gonna give them to people on welfare.

    Or some such…

  3. midaswelby

    midaswelby said, over 3 years ago

    Fast and Furious occurred because our government broke the law, and forced gun retailers to break laws. How would passing additional laws be preferable to enforcing existing law?
    It’s unfortunate, but most of the new laws that are being suggested won’t affect criminals at all, but they have a great deal of support anyway.

  4. Mikaehl

    Mikaehl said, over 3 years ago

    @Respectful Troll

    The problem with your assertion about F&F is that:

    1. The people who did the buying passed a background check. A background check is required on all sales from an FFL.

    2. Straw purchasers, people suspected of buying guns to smuggle out of the country, were allowed to continue by the ATF’s continued pressure on FFLs to allow it to continue. There are many FFLs who were driven out of business by the ATF for refusing to participate, invoking massive audits and ultimately being forced to lose their FFL due to it.

    3. The Cartels you speak of do buy some of their weapons here in the US. However, if you do a bit of googling, you’re going to find that the cartels are supplied far greater numbers of weapons from sources in the Mexican military, and corrupt militaries across central and South America. When the issue was brought up, the line was not “majority of guns seized” coming from the US, the line was “the majority of guns seized that could be traced”.

    Data on google suggests that close to 70% of the weapons being supplied come out of central and south america, and are much cheaper to buy from those sources.

    Clearly F&F was a bad idea, and one neither administration should have even considered. However, the US’s firearms market is not solely, nor even the majority player, responsible for the guns used by Mexican cartels.

    At least, let’s be accurate about the situation south of the border, hmm?

  5. Tax Man

    Tax Man said, over 3 years ago

    @Respectful Troll

    Those laws already exist. The Obama administration simply ignores the law.

  6. californicated1

    californicated1 said, over 3 years ago

    @Respectful Troll

    What may have been learned on the playground out there may have some elements of truth in it, but the context is still wrong.

    When it comes to Mexico, it has sort of been unwritten “policy” out there to have Mexico in chaos and the reason for that is if they are fighting each other down there, they are not fighting us for what they lost under the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo (1848) and the Gadsden Treaty (1853).

    Problems happen when there is too much chaos in Mexico and that tends to spill over those treaty lines into the United States.

    “Fast & Furious” was nothing more than a tracking project for the US Government in the ongoing war on drugs and that the firearms sales were used to find out who might be involved in the drug trade and who they may be doing business with so that the DOJ and its various agencies could keep better tabs on what drugs were coming into the US through Mexico and who was involved in those transactions.

    At the same time, “Fast & Furious” also could be used as information to give to our allies in the Mexican governments at the various levels, so that they could also get better control over these factions and cartels before they got out of control, especially in areas close to the US Border.

    The problem besides the fact that the cartels were wheeling and dealing in these weapons, too and selling them to anybody with money, including US buyers themselves, hoping to own a weapon that their neighbors don’t have and that is because the DOJ probably did not know the scope of the problem in Mexico or how the Cartels these days do their business, which means also that those weapons sold in “Fast & Furious” could be used by criminals here on this side of the Treaty Line, regardless of their nationality.

    Word had it that even the buyers who sold to the Taliban were also buying these weapons in Mexico, too, to use against GI’s out there.

    “Fast & Furious” in Mexican eyes looked to be more like another American plot to continue meddling in Mexican internal politics because it looked like we were arming the cartels against their enemies in the neighborhoods, in the streets, and even in the government and local police forces, which turned into yet another anti-American propaganda story for those out there that can’t stand what we do—more of that “walk softly and carry a big stick” approach, from the same President who told us that “Latin America was an SOB, but they were OUR SOB”.

    But then some of these weapons wound up back on American soil and in American hands, some of them law-abiding, some of them criminal and with the recent shootings out there in Aurora, Colorado and Newtown, Connecticut, providing fuel to the fires that are the “gun debate” as we have them.

    No laws on the books out there are going to keep illegal firearms out of the hands of people who aren’t allowed to legally own them in the first place—Adam Lanza, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris proved that.

    And nobody was working to legally prevent that Californian, James Eagan Holmes, from legally purchasing firearms and other explosives to shoot up that theatre and burn his home down to divert the Aurora Police Department, even though there were people already out there in Colorado as well as in several universities all over the country where he interviewed for his graduate program that this guy was just plain nuts and “batcrap crazy”.

    The point here is that one has to work on keeping illegal firearms out of the hands of people who are not legally allowed to have them in the first place while not depriving the right of the people that can legally own legal firearms from having them and enjoying them safely, responsibly and legally.

    And once again, let’s mention Gianluigi Ferri and his shootup of Pettit & Martin in San Francisco in July 1993, which compelled Feinstein and a Freshman Senator at the time, Barbara Boxer, to get the Assault Weapons Ban drawn up and enacted as a response to limiting the kind of weapons that Ferri used from getting into the hands of everybody for fear that another shooting like Ferri’s took place.

    Even with that law in place, it did not stop Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold from getting their hands on “assault weapons” and shoot up their high school in 1999.

    And all I can think of here is the well-worn phrase that “stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” and that when it comes to regulating firearms through legislation, it doesn’t work.

    What needs to be addressed here is why this overwhelming need to have these weapons in the first place and until that is really addressed, we can’t go further.

  7. californicated1

    californicated1 said, over 3 years ago

    Actually, IT IS MY BUSINESS if you are my neighbor and you might pose a threat to me and my family with that weapon in your possession.

    And if I find out that you are seeking such a weapon that could be lethal to me and my family, then I am going to work to keep it out of your hands, legally and when that fails, may use other means, including forceful ones to ensure you don’t get that weapon until you can tell everybody and explain why you need such a weapon in the first place.

    I don’t put up with heavily armed wacko’s in my neighborhood any more than I put up with known criminals, illegal immigrants or even registered and unregistered sex offenders, because they all invite all sorts of crime, either by committing it themselves or bringing in others that will commit crime.

    And perhaps that may be what we ought to do, just like registered Sex Offenders these days, put all those out there who have shown that they want and/or are seeking firearms on a registry out there so we in the community can all look at it and assess what kind of people these are.

    The downside may be that all the criminals and lowlifes out there may look at the list and then decide to only attack those people not listed on it because the assumption may be that those folks aren’t armed, but that could also be just as foolish an assumption, too because firearms can be owned illegally, too.

    The upside may be that if there is a lowlife that is indeed legally owning a firearm, perhaps the community might move their Law Enforcement apparatus to work on removing those weapons from that lowlife if it is proven that they are indeed a lowlife and should not be owning firearms or any other lethal weapons that could make them a danger to the community around them.

    I look at this way, if you bring a firearm to an event that I sponsor, and I found out about it, I will work on having your weapon removed or just having you removed so that you don’t pose or become a threat to the safety or security of the rest of my guests.

  8. disgustedtaxpayer

    disgustedtaxpayer said, over 3 years ago

    there was no program like Fast & Furious during GWs 8 years in the White House.
    the Obama DOJ broke the laws of the USA to buy and sell weapons to Mexicans, some were Cartel members, crooks and criminals, and people died by the hundreds in Mexico.
    One US Border Patrol American was murdered.
    Nothing like that happened under Bush.

  9. Uncle Joe

    Uncle Joe GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    @Respectful Troll

    Well said!

    Respectfully, J

  10. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, over 3 years ago

    @ Harleyquinn and Ansonia – We must be getting our details from differing sources. You both seem to believe that Holder and Obama came in and got involved, to what depth? My info suggests that the new administration was focused on other issues – health care, immigration, gitmo, etc., and trusted the men from the previous administration when they said, “We’ve got everything under control.” Micro managing is not a good thing, and it was really the duty of the house oversight committee to have identified the problems with the F&F program. Did the majority Dems drop the ball while pushing other points on their agenda? That wouldn’t surpise me. Was it the administration’s fault that legislators dropped the ball? No. Time will tell if there’s more to this, but I suggest you keep your minds open.
    @ Mikaehl – I have some minor nuanced disagreement with your post, but in general, you added some good points to the discussion and did so with grace and courtesy, Thank you. It was my understanding that the guns were ‘released’ through numerous methods, but since I’m not positive, I can’t argue. You are correct that weapons come north into Mexico from South America as easily, and maybe more easily, than from the USA back to Mexico. thank you for the contribution to the debate.
    @ Mneedle – the ATF may have abused their power in the past however, they are still paying for that error today. If you go to the ATF website and watch the videos of them talking to gun sellers, you see people nearly begging citizens to help them enforce the laws on the books. Laws that are no longer legal requirements, but “guidelines” which sellers may choose not to follow. Undercover cops “break laws” all the time while trying to get information necessary to arrest offenders. Maybe they just smoke some pot or snort some cocaine, maybe they sell drugs or guns, but they do it with the higher goal of putting a very bad person behind bars.
    @ Californicated1 – I think I need to read you more often, neighbor. The points wherein I don’t totally agree with you are points where I’m not certain of either the facts and/or my own mindset regarding them. The recent stories about the plastic 3d printable guns may make all gun laws unimportant, but I still support universal background checks for all gun sales, severe punishment for straw purchasers, and mandatory reporting of guns stolen from private owners.
    The 3d gun video is pretty impressive.
    Thank you for your excellent comment California.

  11. Mikaehl

    Mikaehl said, over 3 years ago


    So, you’re saying that you’ll go out of your way to violate the civil rights of people who do something you don’t like? That’s mighty nice of you, neighbor. I’ll have to find out where you live so I can move in with my arsenal just to annoy you.

  12. Mikaehl

    Mikaehl said, over 3 years ago


    I find it interesting that you have such fear of gun owners at large that you would go out of your way to violate their civil rights.

    Tell me, if those owners/carriers are legally allowed to own firearms, have committed no crimes, and have the proper permits, which mean they’ve had all the proper background checks done to carry them, why would you be concerned? Why would you care?

    What place is it of yours to determine who is and isn’t a lowlife? What place is it of yours to determine what people are allowed to own?

  13. Refresh Comments.