Quote of the day—Barron Barnett

Existing gun control legislation provided the ATF with leverage over FFLs to coerce them into transactions they knew to be criminal. Gun control provided the ATF with the resources and power to organize and conduct the operation. Lastly, gun control was the root cause of the operation itself. The operation was conducted in an effort to create a crisis that would warrant the further restriction of firearms. This restriction would either be that of ownership by law abiding citizens, or that in preventing new purchase by a law abiding citizen.

Barron Barnett
October 22, 2011
Fast and Furious, Root Cause Analysis
[It’s a little bit of a “Catch 22” here. Certainly the existence of gun control enabled the crimes committed by the government agents. But had there not been some laws restricting firearm sales there would have not been a crime for the government agents to commit.

I think the lesson to be learned here is that Ayn Rand was correct. The government has power because it has the power to create criminals.—Joe]

3 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Barron Barnett

  1. Wohoo! My thoughts were coherent enough that at least Joe understood what I was saying!!!

    I was knew some would pass what I wrote off without really thinking about the circular logic that allowed this mess to happen. I wish I had remembered that full quote from Rand when I wrote it cause it does work perfectly with the subject matter.

  2. Obviously they can’t be trusted with such power. In any case, why the hell do we have a tax-payer-funded organization dedicated to limiting a constitutionally guaranteed right?

    “But had there not been some laws restricting firearm sales there would have not been a crime for the government agents to commit.” In the absence of gun laws I think there may still be something along the lines of aiding and abetting.

    But it’s more convoluted than that. As for the gangs; I think we’re talking, mostly, about Mexican gangs dedicated mostly toward drug trafficking. If not for our drug laws, there would be no incentive for crime gangs in the drug business. They’d have to resort to petty robbery, kidnapping, or run for political office.

    Let’s try to bring the lasso of evil into a full circle then; our government created gun crimes, created a violent, criminal drug trafficking network based on the well-known model of success in promoting corruption and gang violence during the Prohibition era, and then actively assisted gun crimes using the drug gangs they created, so as to create more gun crimes.

    It’s the circle of life. We’d have to add in the tremendous amount of money these crime gangs (the ones inside our government) are raking in from all sides.

    Let’s try again; our government created powerful, violent crime gangs and saw that it was lucrative. When Prohibition failed to hold up in public opinion, it was modified. Knowing that would reduce the money stream to a trickle, they immediately created gun crimes to keep the money flowing. That worked OK, so they created drug crimes, and the money came in a flood. Wanting more, they actively assisted gun-n-drug violence as a means of promoting more gun crimes, to increase the money flood to a tsunami.

    But still we’d have to work in the power aspect. It’s about relevance and power as much as money. The dismal fools want to count for something– to “make a difference”.

    All this in the Land of The Free, with the Second Amendment and the Oath of Office.
    Ropes, Trees, Feds.

  3. What the Barron and the Lyle describe is pretty bleak, but I can’t find a flaw in their logic. It’s not so much circular as it argues a clear unbroken line of reason from the current situation back to the source of the problem, overreaching by, and the concentration of power (particularly the power to create criminals via creation of malum in se crimes) in the Federal Government.
    Without the laws there wouldn’t be the corruption, which would eliminate the money which would eliminate the desire to create new over reaching laws. It DOES feed on itself and so appears circular at first glance.

Comments are closed.