Etymology: Scots, from feck effect, majority, from Middle English (Scots) fek, alteration of Middle English effect
Date: circa 1585
1 : weak , ineffective
2 : worthless , irresponsible
-- Merriam-Webster Dictionary
This is the New York Times Building.
This is the latest New York Times editorial demanding more draconian gun control laws:
The Drug Cartels’ Right to Bear Arms
Published: February 27, 2009
The hypocrisy grows all too gruesome: The Justice Department pronounced the Mexican drug cartels “a national security threat” this week, even as American gun dealers along the border were busily arming the cartels’ murderous gangs. Mexico complains that American dealers supplied most of the 20,000 weapons seized last year in drug wars in which 6,000 Mexicans died.
A vast arms bazaar is rampant along the four border states, enabled by porous to nonexistent American gun laws. Straw buyers can pick up three or four high-powered war rifles from one of more than 6,600 border dealers and hand them off to smugglers. They easily return to Mexico, where gun laws are far less permissive.
Licensed dealers routinely recruit buyers with clean criminal records to foil weak laws and feed the deadly pipeline, according to a report by James C. McKinley Jr. in The Times. The countless unlicensed “gun enthusiasts” free to deal battlefield rifles at weekend shows, thanks to loophole-ridden laws, are a second source.
The federal government is allowed to only trace weapons used in crimes and has no idea of the full scope of the border trade, which accounts for 9 out of 10 recovered weapons.
One dealer exploited the lack of federal controls by packing up his California shop, where laws were tougher, and moving to the lenient Arizona border. He is accused of selling hundreds of AK-47 rifles to the cartels before he was finally arrested in a sting by undercover agents. He’s more the exception. At best, 200 agents work the border expanse where gun smugglers operate as a “parade of ants,” in the words of one frustrated prosecutor.
There should be enormous shame on this side of the border that America’s addiction to drugs is bolstered by its feckless gun controls. Firm federal law is urgently needed if the homicidal cartels are to be seriously challenged as a threat to national security.
This is what Serbian Television and Radio Headquarters looked like after Bill Clinton decided to modify American rules of engagment to include the media, politicians and ideological support structure of an enemy regime as legitimate targets of war.
Among the 16 vicious enemy combatants killed in the air strike above were janitors and makeup artists.
Can someone explain to me why, if the NYT gets its way and the current American regime provokes a civil war over gun confiscation, this
shouldn't look like this?
After all, Bill Clinton said it was OK.
Of course Three Percenters don't have cruise missles and precision guided bombs, and unlike our enemies (witness Waco and Ruby Ridge)we wisely eschew any attacks which might cause innocent deaths. That only makes the potential process more targeted and personal.
The New York Times editorial board is willing to fight to the last ATF agent to enforce the theft of our traditional, God-given and natural rights to liberty and property -- a process they must fully realize will be resisted and will place our own families at risk of government execution by raid party. Thus, they are also more than willing to fight to the last firearm owner.
But, are they willing to fight to the first editorial writer?
The second anti-gun politician?
The third columnist?
The fourth collectivist intellectual?
If they get their wish, we will most likely find out.
Be careful what you wish for, New York Times, Bill Clinton's rules of engagement may give it to you.
You want "feckless"?
Look in the mirror, before it is too late.