Skip to main content

Ever since Watergate, it seems that conservatives have been itching to return the favor and impeach a Democratic president. For anything. So it comes as no surprise to me to find some of them fantasizing about how they would do it.

It does seem strange for the focus of their fool's paradise to be the 'Fast and Furious' program, which was started under their own leader Bush. But mix in gun enthusiasm and the delusion becomes clear.

And then, sometimes they broadcast their peculiar visions where others may record them, as Right Wing Watch has with Gun Owners of America director Larry Pratt.

Right Wing Watch includes a brief explainer, so it's understood how gun enthusiasts see the 'Fast and Furious' scandal through the lens of their 2nd Amendment obsession.

While the rest of the conservative movement is already several conspiracy theories ahead of him, Gun Owners of America director Larry Pratt is still hung up on Fast and Furious, the troubled Justice Department operation started under the Bush administration that Pratt and others believe was actually orchestrated by President Obama to promote gun control.
Now, there's no reason to be dismissive of 'Fast and Furious' entirely -- after all, there is a real problem in this country that brought it about, guns being smuggled from America into Mexico thanks to gun enthusiasts' interest in gun proliferation, lax gun laws and easy access to guns. As pointed out in RWW's CNN link, there is no federal statute against gun trafficking. And of course, there was a Democratic attempt last month to fix that, which went down (thanks to filibuster rules) 42-58.

Yes, I wrote it that way on purpose; 42 votes beat 58, see, in today's Senate.

As the Washington Post reported, this is what Republicans really think of the problem that spawned 'Fast and Furious':

Gun trafficking failed 58-42: This legislation worked out by Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) targets only gun trafficking. It makes gun trafficking a federal crime and strengthens the penalties against “straw purchasers” (people who buy guns for others who are not legally able to do so). The NRA is on board with this amendment as well, thanks to a compromise ensuring that guns can be bought as gifts or prizes. It failed with 58 votes in favor and 42 against, a bit of a surprise given the bipartisan and NRA support. Collins, Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Kirk were the only Republicans in support. No Democrats voted against it.
In that light, it's interesting to consider where the fantasies of gun enthusiasts reside -- not in saving lives or making anyone safer, of course, but scoring political victories, in vengeance for Watergate. Right Wing Watch has the video, and transcribed some of the ... discussion.


   Pratt: This last week has been a spectacular spinning out of control of the future of the president. He is no longer the big guy in town. I don’t know who that might be to take his place yet, but it sure is not he. And he’s gonna be doing well not to end up just exactly like Richard Nixon. They still have helicopters that can fly you out of the White House on that last flight.

    Solomon: Yeah, right, and of course, with a little luck he can be dangling from the bottom of one.

    Pratt: Gangrene One!

    Solomon: Yeah.

These jerks haven't heard of the latest scandals du jour, but I suppose as long as Republicans keep whiffing on building up scandals with which to attack the president, they have to keep coming up with new ideas. And 'Fast and Furious,' bad as it was, failed on them. I guess that won't stop the gun enthusiasts from indulging in some masturbatory rhetoric.

Originally posted to The Tytalan Way on Thu May 16, 2013 at 08:01 AM PDT.

Also republished by Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA) and Shut Down the NRA.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (16+ / 0-)

    If we cannot make our communities safer with the Congress we have now, we will use every means available to make sure we have a different Congress. – Gabrielle Giffords

    by tytalus on Thu May 16, 2013 at 08:01:05 AM PDT

  •  I Think the Hippies Have First Dibs on Gun Revenge (6+ / 0-)

    for Nixon.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu May 16, 2013 at 08:11:53 AM PDT

  •  Targeting gun trafficking is a total violation of (9+ / 0-)

    my constitutional rights! Doncha know that? t clearly is a slippery slope - today you go for illegal guns and tomorrow you confiscate all of my weapons!  Stop attacking my rights!


    h/t detroitmechworks

    /snark - how can anyone be opposed to gun trafficking? Our guns are getting used to kill thousands in Mexico and allow the cartels to dominate/terrorize people. Allowing gun trafficking to continue is terrorism IMHO. Why are Republicans so soft on criminals and on terrorists? (unless of course they can be used against Obama)

    Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

    by DefendOurConstitution on Thu May 16, 2013 at 08:16:37 AM PDT

    •  As with background checks... (5+ / 0-)

      they had their own junk-laden Republican amendment for it, so they could claim they voted for it even as they voted against it. The WP article I cited above mentions this one dying via Democratic votes and the filibuster rules, as it too scored a majority vote, meaning some Democrats voted with the Republicans for the GOP's sop to the NRA. I think the mention of Cruz is wrong, and should either stick him in Texas, or maybe they meant Jeff Flake.

      Republican gun legislation failed 52-48: The main Republican alternative to gun control, proposed by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ted Cruz (R-Ariz.) failed with 52 senators in favor and 48 opposed. It would increase funding for criminal prosecution, school safety, and mental health resources and create a task force to go after felons who fail background checks. It would also criminalize trafficking and straw purchasing and increase the penalties for them. At the same time, the amendment would loosen gun restrictions by making it easier to purchase and carry guns across state lines. The National Rifle Association supported this legislation. Nine Democrats supported it: Baucus, Begich, Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Heitkamp, Mary Landrieu (La.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Pryor and Jon Tester (Mont.). Two Republicans, Kirk and Mike Lee (Utah) opposed.

      If we cannot make our communities safer with the Congress we have now, we will use every means available to make sure we have a different Congress. – Gabrielle Giffords

      by tytalus on Thu May 16, 2013 at 08:55:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So, wait.. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tytalus, SilentBrook
        create a task force to go after felons who fail background checks
        It's illegal to fail a background check?
        As long as the person failing the check doesn't get a gun, that should be the extent of the penalty.
        Or am I missing something here?

        If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

        by CwV on Thu May 16, 2013 at 10:23:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They may be after felons for trying to get guns (3+ / 0-)

          which may be illegal for them to have. If they hadn't loaded their bill down with pro-gun provisions, perhaps they could have garnered more support.

          http://www.grassley.senate.gov/...

          Cruz Task Force. Task Force and $10 million per year for 5 years to prosecute felons and fugitives who try to get guns. Created task force and proposes funding of $10 million per year for five years to prosecute felons and fugitives who fail National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)–funded through the Asset Forfeiture Fund.

          If we cannot make our communities safer with the Congress we have now, we will use every means available to make sure we have a different Congress. – Gabrielle Giffords

          by tytalus on Thu May 16, 2013 at 10:33:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So they prosecute felons for TRYING (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tytalus

            to buy a gun through legal channels?

            If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

            by CwV on Thu May 16, 2013 at 10:45:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Legal channel they're not allowed to use (5+ / 0-)

              hence the fail at the check. But due to lack of manpower, or serious penalty, it may go un-prosecuted. Like gun trafficking itself, perhaps.

              If we cannot make our communities safer with the Congress we have now, we will use every means available to make sure we have a different Congress. – Gabrielle Giffords

              by tytalus on Thu May 16, 2013 at 10:50:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Only apply to felons? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                tytalus

                or to anyone who fails a BC?
                How do you know if you'd fail until you do?

                If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

                by CwV on Thu May 16, 2013 at 11:47:46 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Grassley's pdf says felons and fugitives (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  DefendOurConstitution, CwV

                  I don't think they would go after anyone, but given that it's a Republican bill some skepticism may be warranted.

                  That being said, I don't think the basic idea is bad. I think that if a state has standing law that felons are prohibited firearms that they ought to know, and that the state has an interest in such a prohibition. If there are felons out there who pose no danger (ridiculous war on drugs laws come to mind), then the case could be made for being more precise.

                  If we cannot make our communities safer with the Congress we have now, we will use every means available to make sure we have a different Congress. – Gabrielle Giffords

                  by tytalus on Thu May 16, 2013 at 12:14:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  There is some precedent, I believe. (4+ / 0-)

              If a minor, for instance, even TRIES to purchase alcohol they can be busted.  "Attempted murder" and "Attempted assault" are all illegal.  A lot of "attempted" crimes are.  

              Presumably if you are a felon you know that TRYING to buy a weapon is a no-no.  It's really not a stretch to punish someone for intent or for trying to break the law.    

              Metaphors be with you.

              by koosah on Thu May 16, 2013 at 12:35:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Yes--exactly (3+ / 0-)

            It is illegal for a felon to attempt to purchase a gun so the refrain about enforce the law is that the federal government is not enforcing the law in terms of going after those attempted purchases enough.  

            There is some merit to the idea of enforcing those laws more strictly, but most people trying to traffic are using straw purchasers in some form.  Thus tracking down straw purchasers is generally a better used of government's limited resources.  

  •  Masturbatory Rhetoric? (4+ / 0-)

    How about Firearm Fellatio.

    And they scream... The worst things in life come free to us... Cause we're just under the upper hand... And go mad for a couple grams.

    by glb3 on Thu May 16, 2013 at 08:30:46 AM PDT

  •  Nixon was never actually impeached while Clinton (8+ / 0-)

    was. You would think that "equivalence" thing would be done with.

    The road to excess leads to the palace of Wisdom, I must not have excessed enough

    by JenS on Thu May 16, 2013 at 08:32:28 AM PDT

  •  Hadn't realized that (8+ / 0-)

    Until today, I had no idea that gun enthusiasts as a general class of people (including me, I suppose) were interested in illegally smuggling guns to Mexico because we believe in "gun proliferation, lax gun laws and easy access to guns". I had always thought it was the actions of criminals out to make a profit, rather than a form of political activism.

    Clearly I've been remiss in my responsibilities as a "gun enthusiast".

    As pointed out in RWW's CNN link, there is no federal statute against gun trafficking
    Yes, there is no law against selling guns within the US to someone else in the US who is legally allowed to own them, as mentioned in the CNN link:
    No federal statute outlaws firearms trafficking within the U.S
    There are of course, plenty of laws about selling guns to felons, to someone outside the US or transporting them across international borders. Now I have to go look them all up to make sure I am violating them properly. Otherwise, someone might revoke my "gun enthusiast" card.
    In that light, it's interesting to consider where the fantasies of gun enthusiasts reside -- not in saving lives or making anyone safer, of course, but scoring political victories, in vengeance for Watergate
    I must have missed that memo. Or maybe "gun enthusiasts" is just a broad smear to lump all gun owners in with the tiny minority who engage in criminal activity. I'm sure the readers can figure which of the two it is.

    In the meantime, I apparently have a lot of smuggling and trafficking and vengeance to catch up on, plus a whole lot of backtracking of my prior support for better gun laws.

    •  If you identify with the likes of Larry Pratt (5+ / 0-)

      that's your problem, sir.

      If we cannot make our communities safer with the Congress we have now, we will use every means available to make sure we have a different Congress. – Gabrielle Giffords

      by tytalus on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:02:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  One can be a gun enthusiast without being (4+ / 0-)

        connected to or agreeing with a rightwing nut like Larry Pratt.  Why not put right wing or conservative in front of "Gun Enthusiasts"?

        "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

        by Texas Lefty on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:51:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'd say it is your problem (5+ / 0-)

        Mitt Romney said 47% of the population is moochers, and that caused problems for Republicans, in that it alienated a lot of people who might have otherwise thought him a reasonable candidate.

        Saying every "gun enthusiast" in the country is someone who has fantasies of vengeance for Watergate and wants to see guns smuggled into Mexico? I think that would alienate people who might have otherwise thought you were a reasonable person.

        I fail to see how that is my problem.

        •  Of course you would (8+ / 0-)

          you're a member of a group dedicated to maintenance of the status quo, which incidentally results in the things you're supposedly railing against here. You can go to them for sympathy. I have none for you. You were already alienated when you got here.

          If we cannot make our communities safer with the Congress we have now, we will use every means available to make sure we have a different Congress. – Gabrielle Giffords

          by tytalus on Thu May 16, 2013 at 10:10:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're right! (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Texas Lefty, theatre goon, andalusi

            I happen to be a member of a group that thinks it is a liberal value to support all of the Bill of Rights.

            Thank you for noticing.

            As far as what I am railing against, that is often just speaking out against authoritarian bigots who engage in profiling and insulting and lying about large groups of people who have never done anything wrong and are never likely to. As far as I can tell, speaking out against that sort of thing is also a liberal value.

            But judging from your writings, that will have to be something else that we disagree on.

            •  Ah, couldn't resist the insults (0+ / 0-)

              I already witnessed the same group of RKBAs, gushing about 'gun bans' with NRA-approved imprecise language, trade recs for their hypocrisy. And of course they're right here now, backing you up as you complain about just the sort of thing they did. Try and make me care.

              Again, alienating folks like you presumes that there is some common ground to begin with; on this issue, there's not. For all that you like to talk about being liberal, on this issue your group is out of step with the Democratic party, with liberals, even with many Republicans and gun owners. And they will have to defeat you in Congress, as they are in some states, Maryland being a good example today. It won't be liberals on your side. It will be liberals defeating you.

              Queue up the last word as expected, and have a good evening.

              If we cannot make our communities safer with the Congress we have now, we will use every means available to make sure we have a different Congress. – Gabrielle Giffords

              by tytalus on Thu May 16, 2013 at 02:46:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  2nd amendment absolutism is the farthest thing (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tytalus

              from a progressive support or interpretation of the Bill of Rights.  Such absolutism is more in the domain of conservatism, libertarianism, and anarchy.

  •  Do they really want to mention Nixon? (6+ / 0-)

    Nixon, according to my cursory research, wanted a complete ban on handguns.

    Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

    by Dogs are fuzzy on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:32:40 AM PDT

    •  Nixon, Reagan, Bush... (3+ / 0-)

      For conservatives, it's like the Old Testament.  Just use the parts you like and pretend like the parts you don't like aren't there and never happened.

      Must be nice.  The scary part is that some of them aren't pretending.  They've had mental "thought-lobotomies" to excise the information with which they don't agree.

      Metaphors be with you.

      by koosah on Thu May 16, 2013 at 11:58:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  only a gun fetishist would agree with this bullsht (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DefendOurConstitution, Miggles

    yikes

    This machine kills Fascists.

    by KenBee on Thu May 16, 2013 at 01:03:07 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site