06-10-2019, 11:59 AM
stanc Wrote:I don't see any anti-Trump statements in the article, but the author is definitely anti-Canterbury.
I'm not sure if it is important, although some here might be concerned about the reported desire of Canterbury to "invigorate" the ATF and increase its size.
Good Morning Stan!
A bureaucracy has one purpose in life, to increase its size and power. So it comes as no surprise to me that this Canterbury guy would say he needs more staff. Takes Congress to authorize more staff. Fat chance.
The guy was the president of the FOP. Normally the President of the FOP is rabidly anti gun. I wouldn't doubt it here too, but the author failed to cite anything that proved he is rabidly anti gun.
This comes across to me as an opinion piece devised by someone who is 100 percent prejudiced against the ATF. The author needs to provide more than her emotional rantings as evidence that IF congress would authorize an increase in the ATF, those agents would be used to target gun owners or the 2A. Basically, she hates the ATF so anything she says about it is suspect.
She has failed to identify any other pro gun organization that supports her opinion. Seems to me that if this guy is so bad, she would list the other organizations that do not support his nomination.
She hasn't said when the guy would be up for a vote or who supports or doesn't support the guy. Unprofessional which further reduces the credibility of her opinion.
Finally she says we ought to tell our Senators to vote 'no' on the guy but doesn't offer up any alternative.
Is it important? Could be but she surely hasn't done a good job of convincing people.
LR55