[sam_paine]

I'm afraid you didn't comprehend properly.

I'm not concerned with project names or people.

I'm concerned with your assertions about the technology itself.

You've fallen into a trap of fast-and-loose media along with the fast-and-furious investigation. To the FBI, the term "tracking weapons" included merely matching up serial numbers of know sold guns to serial numbers found at crime scenes. Brian Terry's case is an example. They say they "tracked" the weapon back to F&F. Indeed it was from there, but they didn't have a blinking red dot on a google map showing where the transponder said it was next to his body.

Show me some data and descriptions of these "GPS tracking devices" which were embedded in individual firearms.

These "GPS receivers" as you call them would necessarily have to be (1) self-powered {for how long?} and (2) if they indeed had GPS receivers to calculate their position, then they'd have to at some point TRANSMIT that position to someone somewhere (more power).

In reality, none of that ever happened under any administration. Certainly nothing of the sort happened that was in a metal trunk or a truck.

Perhaps they instrumented such a larger setup on a getaway car or in the carrying crate. That's possible.

But they did NOT individually put power sources, antennas and receiver/transmitters in the stocks of individual weapons like below to track them like you think of when you think about a hollywood action movie or Star Trek. Physics has limits.

[zeugma]

Perhaps they instrumented such a larger setup on a getaway car or in the carrying crate. That's possible.

I thought I'd read that it was in the box, but that might have just been my brain mapping the possible to the stupidity of reporter's claims.

Show me some data and descriptions of these "GPS tracking devices" which were embedded in individual firearms.

I'd be interested in seeing how that worked too. You could build it into the stock, unless it was a collapsible one. However, that would mean that each of these specific guns would have been provided by the government with the mods already in place. I've not seen mention of that, so I'd discount the idea, because something would have been made of it.

You pose a good question with this.

However, there is still a large difference between the two programs, in that one was initiated with the knowledge and cooperation of the mexican kleptocracy government, and one was not. Given the difficulties that mexico is currently having with the drug cartels, I'd say F&F was in all practicality a warlike act of belligerence.

[Erik Latranyi]

I'm concerned with your assertions about the technology itself.

In Katie Pavlich's book, Fast and Furious, one agent built his own GPS device with parts from Radio Shack. The battery lasted 40 hours.

The technology is there, but, as you said, a bit limited.

The idea (under Bush) was to always intercept the straw buyer at some point as they were also under surveillance.

Fast and Furious did not allow surveillance, wire tapping, or SMS intercepts (the preferred communications of straw buyers).

So, it is YOU who needs to get some facts stratight.