“Is it standard policy for the cartel operatives to drop their guns after they use them,.....”
THAT HAS BEEN BUGGING THE “H” OUT OF ME since I first read about this F & F operation.
Unless they had orders from their Cartel bosses to kill, and drop those weapons so they could be traced, (as part of the deal with the BATFE for providing them not only weapons, but operational protections as well) why would anyone in their right mind leave behind a perfectly good weapon?
The only thing that makes sense is a choreographed mission by the DOJ for the purpose of establishing fabricated evidence to support any anti second amendment actions on the part of the Obama administration. A setup for the UN’s Worldwide small arms ban, and confiscation.
Otherwise I can’t for the life in me understand dropping those perfectly good weapons at scene.
Observation: Seems to me that in recent past there were those in our government quite adept at fabricating such scenarios as we see today. Seems to me one of those fabricators is SOS today, and a supporter of that Worldwide ban of small personal weapons the U.N. is so adamant to establish.
Why would they leave them behind? So they don’t get caught in possession of a weapon that can be traced ballistically back to a murder. That’s why
I think they might drop them because they could be traced if forensics are done at the original crime scene. For instance if the same ballistics show up on the US border and then in Coloumbia.
I just wondered if it was standard procedure for the cartel’s operatives to do that, or were the guns left at that crime scene as a specific message—thanks for the guns, don’t try it again, here’s the body of an US Agent or two. Money isn’t really an argument for keeping the guns around I suppose, these are the same people who were buying second hand subs and disposing of them after one run, if I recall.
Freegards