It’s really about stealth gun controlEven before Obama was inaugurated, gun control was high on his wish list, including the restoration of the Clinton-era ban on “assault weapons.” So the most plausible explanation for the fine mess the administration currently finds itself in is this:Wishing to “prove” the lie that 90% of the guns used in Mexican drug violence originate in America (the real figure is closer to 17%), Justice used the failed Operation Wide Receiver as the model for a larger operation deliberately designed to fail.That way, they could point in feigned horror at the recovered American weapons and crack down on legitimate gun dealers — the very dealers they had forced to sell weapons to the cartels via “straw purchasers” in the first place.In short, the truth is that Fast and Furious was most likely a murderously cynical assault on the Second Amendment — and one whose multiple ghosts will now haunt the Obama administration’s remaining days.
The theory cannot be ruled out. However, I don’t find it persuasive[ED Note - nice touch].First, Fast and Furious does not appear to have been the brainchild of President Obama or Attorney General Holder. Rather, the program reportedly was formulated by the ATF in Phoenix in response to an edict from Washington to focus on eliminating arms trafficking networks, as opposed to capturing low-level buyers, as had occurred under traditional interdiction programs. If Fast and Furious had been the product of a conspiracy by the administration to promote gun control legislation, the program would have come from the top down, not from the bottom up.Now, it’s possible that a thorough review of documents would show that, contrary to current understanding, the plan originated in the White House or with Eric Holder. But it seems unlikely. For if this had happened, those who have been blamed for the program would likely have said they were following edicts from the highest reaches of the government....Second, Obama and Holder probably would not have believed that increased violence in Mexico could lead to tougher regulation of guns in the U.S. Americans simply don’t care enough about Mexico to alter domestic policy based on what occurs there, especially when it comes to an issue as passionately and endlessly argued as gun control. Americans view violence in Mexico the way they viewed violence in Colombia – unfortunate, typical, and not our problem at any fundamental level.It was always possible that a few Americans, especially some involved in law enforcement, would be killed with guns that were part of Fast and Furious. But in this event, the probable consequence is what we have witnessed – major embarrassment for the administration, not an effective vehicle for advocating more gun control. On balance, it seems unlikely that the administration would come up with a program this risky in the pie-in-the-sky hope of increasing gun control.