Mexican police guard bricks of seized cocaine
All you have to do is take one look at the recent headlines and you'd think the U.S. has been tried, convicted, and sentenced for causing drug war violence in Mexico.
Stop flow of U.S. guns to Mexico drug war
NBC's Mitchell Pushes Hillary to Bring Back Assault Weapons Ban
Drug war 'testing US-Mexico ties'
Mexico Under Siege: The drug war at our doorstep
Clinton Says U.S. Feeds Mexico Drug Trade
All this is intended to raise public support for bringing back the expired "assault weapons ban." The thing is, the public isn't buying what they're selling.
A recent Zogby poll and O'Leary Report show that only 13.5% of those surveyed think the United States is to blame. It is pretty easy to come to that conclusion since the war south of the border is being fought with machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, and other similar weapons that just aren't available at gun shows. Why would a drug cartel buy a semi-automatic rifle (the kind the legislation Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wants would ban) when they can just as easily get fully automatic weapons illegally on the black market? It just doesn't add up, and the American public isn't as stupid as they're being taken for.
"Blame America" seems to be the motto of the current administration. Keep it up and they just might chant themselves out of office just like the majority of people who signed the original AWB did back in 1994. But it must be our fault, right? Why else would Clinton pledge $80 million to buy Black Hawk helicopters to give to the Mexican government? Better to spend the money there than to fix a bridge, right? We have to atone for our mistakes, don't we? Right.
The Mexican drug cartels aren't following any laws but their own. They don't get their weapons of war from legal U.S. sources. They don't go to gun shows, they don't shop at the local Cabela's, and they don't use a hunting rifle when they can use a machine gun. They also won't be affected one but by an "assault weapons ban" here, but then again, Mexicans aren't really the ones the anti gunners are trying to control.
Following up on yesterday's story, late yesterday afternoon agents from the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation raided the offices of Cuyahoga County Sheriff Gerald McFaul allegedly to investigate allegations his employees engaged in illegal fundraising activities for his campaign. As chairman of the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party, Cuyahoga County Commissioner Jimmy Dimora, despite being the subject of the biggest corruption investigation in the Cleveland area, will have the loudest voice in determining McFaul's successor.
READERSHIP INTERACTION
Richie: First, I am a dyed-in-the-wool liberal so I firmly believe in gun control. We need good hard governance to keep weapons out of the hands of the bad guys AND those laws need to be enforced. However, until such time as all bad guys are disarmed - I will be armed. I go to the range weekly and practice extraordinary safety consistently. I will turn and run before I ever use my weapon. But if there are no alternatives in that I must protect my lovely wife and beautiful daughter from certain harm, I will. I'm no cowboy, never will be. I believe in peace,love and rock & roll. However, I'm a realist. I am not a gun freak - in fact, I loath guns. Would rather see them banned totally. However, until the bad guys get the message, I need to be ready to defend my family. So, to my fellow liberals: "Not from my stone cold liberal hands"
Hi Richie. You've struck an interesting balance between how you'd like the world to be and the acceptance of how it really is. Of course, short of a higher being suddenly blinking all weapons out of existence I don't think all the bad guys will ever be disarmed. You can pass all the laws you want, and criminals will continue to defy those laws and still obtain guns. I commend you for taking the necessary steps to protect your family.
Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:
- Atlanta: Self defense is harmful to the environment
- Austin: The ‘gun lobby’ and democracy
- Charlotte: Prize fight for the Second Amendment: Levy vs. Henigan
- DC: DC Council's Mendelson's defense of DC gun registration stretches truth beyond breaking point
- Denver: Why big cities want gun control
- Los Angeles: Repealing the Second Amendment: The Left v. The United States Tonight
- Milwaukee: New anti-gun ”feel good” bills now in committee in WI Capital. CORRECTION
- Minneapolis: There are no super heroes
- National: What is purpose of ATF's 'forward trace initiative'?
- Seattle: Illinois Assembly considering racist bill aimed at minority neighborhood in Chicago
- St. Louis: Gun rights victories in Illinois
- Wisconsin: If you open carry - Wisconsin laws you must know
Comments
Here's an idea. Why doesn't the U.S. government suggest to Mexico that they get rid of all their gun control laws and allow honest citizens the Right to defend themselves. There are more honest citizens than drug cartel members. The drug dealers would be out numbered and in no time the honest citizens would have the drug problem solved. The drug dealers and drug lords would all be dead. Just an idea.
how dare anyone suggest that we ban weapons when drug cartels are loaded with tnt and auto weapons. why doesn't mexico try confiscating them since they are already banned there?
Well Otter and Lester, The problem here is we are dealing with a bunch a bed wetting lib's who are of the opinion that the U.S. should sulve the problems of the whole world just because we are the U.S., You see common sence does'nt play into this Like letting Mexico deal with they're own problem, is too easy to blame the americans and gun owners. Until we can get rid if these bed wetters, we are always going to have this problem.
I have an idea. Finish the fence and put TSA in charge of the gates. No more illegals, firearms, or drugs in either direction. Whats that you say? TSA can't keep stuff off of airplanes? Nevermind!
What is wrong with an assault weapon's ban? Why does anyone need an assault weapon? Is the gun lobby capable of any compromise?
For anyone (OK, I'm trying to be polite here... I'm actually thinking "for any brainless, clueless, useful idiot shrilly shilling for banning 'assault weapons,' and/or all privately owned guns in the U.S.) who thinks that disarming Americans is going to rectify the lawlessness in Mexico and/or make Americans safer, I suggest he or she read my true-life story of living through the disarmament of the law-abiding population in Jamaica by reading "How Gun Control 'Worked' in Jamaica on the website of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. BTW, I live in Arizona, which is more directly affected by the situation in Mexico than most other states. Those of us who actually study these issues, instead of screeching hysterically for nuking the 2nd Amendment, know these facts: a) Mexico has NO program to search cars that are entering Mexico from Arizona (or California or Texas) for guns - logic would conclude that, if they really believed guns were being smuggled in from the U.S., they'd be tearing apart every third car or so entering their country; b) the Mexican government refuses to provide the U.S. government with ANY serial numbers of guns it seizes from drug cartels, because these guns are almost certainly military guns that were sold to the Mexican military by the U.S. and then resold by the corrupt Mexican military to the cartels (I know - corruption in Mexico... we're all shocked, SHOCKED!); c) in Ecuador, one can purchase a live grenade for about $2.00, and a semi-automatic (one pull of the trigger = only one bullet shot from the gun) AK-47 or AR15 for about $200. Contrast that with the fact that live grenades are illegal to buy in the U.S., so private U.S. citizens aren't selling them to Mexican drug lords, and AKs and ARs cost around $600 to $3,000 in the U.S., and full-auto weapons (which AKs and ARs are NOT) can also be bought in Ecuador, but not in the U.S., by ordinary citizens. So why would Mexican criminals, who are no dumber than any other consumer looking for the biggest bang for his buck (pun intended), spend way more money on semi-autos in the U.S., when they can buy them cheaper, and also get full-autos, grenades, rocket-launchers, etc., in Ecuador... or maybe from Iran or Syria or North Korea - all countries which would be delighted if the U.S. government attempted to (further) disarm its own citizens, most of whom are in no mood to relinquish the firearms they've been buying like there's no tomorrow ever since anti-Bill-of-Rights Barack Hussein Obama took office and hired Attorney General Eric Holder, who, like his boss (check both of their long-standing anti-2nd Amendment records, folks!) positively slavers at the idea of disarming Americans, who are increasingly retorting, "Molon Labe!"
Portland Progressive Examiner wrote:
"What is wrong with an assault weapon's ban? Why does anyone need an assault weapon? Is the gun lobby capable of any compromise?"
Compromise? You can write that with a straight face when before 1968 anyone could mail order a firearm with no questions asked. And before 1934 you could say the same thing about machine guns. We have compromised to the point that we go in and beg permission from the government database every time we buy a gun and in some states the same goes for local permits and to purchase ammunition. Do not expect that argument to pass even the briefest smell test.
And as to your question, I will answer in two parts. First, the 1994 AWB did nothing to reduce crime. Even the Brady group admitted that when it sunset in 2004. If anyone could have shown that it made any significant difference in the crime rate do you honestly think congress would have sat on their hands and let it die? The so called gun lobby is no way near that powerful. Same can be said for the current California ban. You know California where they ban all those evil black rifles and high capacity magazines. You know where four police officers just got shot down in cold blood. Tell me again how anyone could possibly believe that a new ban would do any good whatsoever when your shining example fails so miserably.
And that leads me to part two and why we will fight tooth and nail to prevent any more compromise. Because we know from bitter experience both in parts of this country and in others that once they got their way the gun banners would only smell blood and push for more concessions. Probably go after the deadliest close range weapon every created, the pump shotgun. Or target those evil long range sniper weapons, aka your daddy's scoped deer rifle. So, no, not having any of your compromise today, thanks anyway.
I DON'T OWN AN AW, CAN'T AFFORD THEM! I DO HAVE MY SHOTGUNS, HUNTING RIFLES, AND PISTOLS. THEY DO A FINE JOB AT WHAT THEY ARE INTENDED TO DO, WHEN I USE THEM.I HAVE FIRED SEVERAL OF THE SO CALLED AW'S IN THE PAST,AND IF YOU CAN AFFORD THEM,ENJOY THE SPORT, GOD BLESS YOU. DON'T GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS. NONE OF THEM.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!