Here is an article from the Washington Times. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/17/obama-blames-us-guns-in-mexico/
There is some very interesting stuff in there. For example, Obama is pulling out that figure that 90% of the guns used in Mexican crime come from the US. This has been trotted out several times now by the administration. It seems like this is one of those things where they want to use something over and over until it becomes accepted.
The only problem is that the number is not true at all. It has been proven false, and I’m pretty sure the President’s Teleprompter is aware of this by now.
If I recall correctly, something like 16% of the guns recovered in Mexico are asked to be traced by serial number by the ATF. Of that 16%, 90% originate in the US. Hence the 90% number that keeps being thrown around.
Okay, so that would actually mean that the majority of weapons are not asked to be traced. Why is that? Well, most of them are obviously not from the US.
I have worked with people who do law enforcement on the border. I’ve seen evidence photos from gun battles. Many of the guns are ChiCom or Eastern block military weapons. Contrary to the news, you can’t pick up grenades, full-auto weapons, or RPGs at a gunshow.
So, if our government already knows this 90% number is false and misleading, why do they feel the need to continue to use it? Could it be that they need to repeat something over and over again in the media until it is accepted as truth? Will the next batch of gun control be based on saving Mexico?
You want to save Mexico? You might want to go after the bigger problem. I’ve also seen pictures of the money. Bales of money. Literal piles of American hundred dollar bills. Big sacks with dollar signs on it. We’re talking friggin’ Donald Trump Lotto. Do you really think that in a country that is in complete chaos that cartels with billions and billions of dollars really need our guns that bad?
Tens of thousands of Mexican Army soldies have gone AWOL and joined the cartels. I’m pretty sure they bring their guns with them. (mostly made in the US, by the way, so I guess that must be our fault too). We actually trained the Zetas at Fort Bragg, and now they’re the ultimate cartel death squad. I suppose that’s our fault also.
I have no problem believing that some of our guns are being used in Mexican crime. You know why? Because our border is totally unsecured, and criminals can cross back and forth with near impunity, and they’re operating on our side of the line, they can easily pick up American guns off the black market like other criminals scumbags. Remember, since they have giants sacks of money, picking up a gun from a drug dealer who stole it isn’t a big deal.
My response to this is to crush the criminals like bugs and secure our borders so they can’t operate here so easily. The Obama plan will apparently be to punish people like me and you so we can’t have guns because they might someday fall into the hands of a country that is buying AK47s by the crate from China.
So, even if something like 15% of Mexico’s guns come from us, I’ve got a simple solution. It is a whole lot simpler than trying to regulate us, ban guns, or bring back another stupid ban. Build A FENCE. Last time I looked, we had even actually passed that law, and something like 70% of America was behind the idea, and we still haven’t done it for TWO YEARS. So instead of building a fence to actually control our border, we can spin it the other way, and say that we’re building the fence to protect poor Mexico from our terrible firearms. It is for the children.
But we can’t build a fence, because we need illegal aliens to be able to roam freely, because they do the jobs Americans won’t do, even though we have the highest unemployment rate in decades, and Americans can’t find jobs.
Man, logic is hard!
Well, anyway, it is coming. Get ready for it. The next batch of gun control will come in the form of international treaties and other assorted BS. The “90%” press conferences we’re seeing now are the political feelers.
I’ve been throwing cold water on the NYT forums about this “issue.” It is amazing that most of the very same people who want to ban guns also want to legalize pot. How can they not see the parallel? It is isn’t even a pale analogy, it is exactly the same thing. These guys spark up a joint and hang it out of one side of their mouths and then talk about the law out of the other.
Treaties do not trump constitutional amendments.
The articles that handle international treaty in the Constitution are just that: articles.
The article that handles amendments specifically says that amendment supersede any provisions already in the document.
Of course, that won’t stop Uncle Joe Obama from trying to use a treaty to justify doing what he wants to do.
It’s not American’s can’t find jobs, it’s that the jobs they find are jobs Americans are now unwilling to do…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-udsIV4Hmc
I thought we were supposed to be getting change and transparency? This is the same type of play the last administration used to promote invading Iraq and expanding the WoT.
here is another link for you.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/
I can’t believe he’s still saying that three weeks later. Spread the word I guess.
You know something that would crush Mexican drug cartels even faster and harder?
Legalizing drugs.
I know, I know. “Who invited the libertarian Mormon to the party?”
Ishpeck: I have heard it argued that it will not necessarily do so. It might help control some of the violence on our own streets, if we can convince “legitimate” companies to distribute. But in this day and age of “Big Tobacco” lawsuits, is any company really going to be foolish enough to package and sell heroin or cocaine?
“You done got me all addicted to this here heroin! Sure, it said right on the box that it’s crazy addictive and that if I did it I would surely die, but it’s still your fault! Gimme a million dollars!”
Now, if you can package drug legalization with tort reform, we might have something, but there’s no way the lawyers will allow it, and have you noticed that most of Congress is made up of lawyers?
And–I ask because I really don’t know, not as a rhetorical device–is selling drugs really all that lucrative for the cartels, on a single dose level? The reason cocaine (for instance) costs so much at the user level is because all of the people in the transport chain need to be rewarded for their extraordinarily high risk in handling the stuff before the end user gets it. The transport guys, the deal network, all those fellows need a fairly high incentive to do this illegal thing which can land them in jail for decades, or dead, or they wouldn’t do it.
So notionally, all that will be cut out if Joe-Bob’s Cocaine Packaging can buy it straight above board from the Zetas, run it through his factory, and distribute his easy-to-sniff single use coke shots through Walgreens. But i suspect that part of the reason the cartels are getting so much money is because of the sheer volume of product that comes this way. If they’re still supplying as much, or more, there’s no reason to think that they’ll drop their prices or make any less money.
We might hope that if we legalised things, Mexico would give up the fight and the Zetas would simply be transformed into legitimate businessmen, but I’m not sure that they would.
—-
Which isn’t to say that I don’t think legalising drugs is the ethical thing to do, simply because a priori restraints on liberty are unethical.
Telling a guy he can’t do cocaine because he might go on a rampage is morally equivalent to telling a guy that he can’t own an Evil Black Rifle because he might go on a rampage. Punishing the law abiding because of the actions of the law breaking is always wrong, no matter whose ox is being gored.
Winston Churchill remarked: “There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics.”
The old boy was right, and I would only add, now there are damn few like him: “There are liars, damned liars, and then there are politicians.”
Perlhaqr: Walgreens would buy from the legal government wholesalers in Bolivia.
Currently, only the narco trafficers buy from them, as well as a few pharmacological outlets ( there is a tiny legal trade in cocaine for dental and ear-nose-throat surgery use ).
If Walgreens sells the stuff at near cost, the narcos will find something else to make money on.
I’ve said it elsewhere, I’ll say it again. Pelosi, Schumer, Obama, and all the others can bite me. I’ve complied with all the rules, regulations and hoops passed before my birth, and up until recent years. I am obeying all the firearms rules I ever will, at this very moment. I consider any more that are passed to be null and void. I am tired of being pissed on, and told it’s for the children. NO MORE. I WILL NOT COMPLY. Other countries have no bearing on our rules.
The gun grabbers keep pushing, pushing, pushing. Sooner or later, someone is gonna push back. It won’t be someone like me, either, it’s gonna be someone who’s served this country, and knows how to play the game. The politicos are going to be responsible for blood being spilled, and it’s going to include their own, mark my words. I’ve seen the anger from Vets at this latest DHS report, and it isn’t pretty. The US is a powder keg, and Obama is a little boy lighting matches.
I sincerely hope I am wrong.