Fox: fair and balanced. At least until January 21st. I guess they finally woke up and realized who's in the White House. "You can't listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." And I'm sure you can't watch Fox and work with him either. Rather than get on Mr. Obama's bad side, they've started using Brady press releases as scripts for "news" segments. Goals: Eliminate "straw" purchases by total registration at time of purchase of gun and buyer. Then courtesy home visits to make sure both are still there and together. It's the only way to make sure they aren't "gunrunners." We'll just presume guilt on the part of EVERYONE. It makes enforcement simpler. Goal: Eliminate the semi-auto Ar-15, AK clones and the Barrett Light .50 from the civilian market. Criminals can't steal them if citizens can't own them. Assuming that the seven Barretts captured from cartel members weren't stolen from POLICE. Before, during or after killing them. But the drug cartels in the movies always have FULL-autos. The same 15 licensed machine guns Hollywood is allowed to own, that get passed around from film to film. Semi-autos are so boring in a movie. Why not jazz it up and misinform people at the same time? I'm not responsible for crime that happens in the next block, much less Mexico.
I wish we could buy LAW's in our gun shops and at gun shows today. Sadly we have politicians that claim we can while prohibiting it via laws that we do obey.
I have not doubt that Mexico's drug cartels are the beneficiaries of American weapons smugglers. There can be no legitimate argument to the contrary. I do think those Americans aiding in the smuggling of arms to the drug cartels should be convicted, imprisoned and executed.
Let's start at the source of the weapons pipeline. Washington D.C.
Here's how it works, our government, in the form of aid, sends money and arms to the Mexican authorities in the name of Good Neighborliness and the War on Drugs. The Mexican authorities from civilian to military then, for a price, distribute these weapons to the drug cartels. They keep the money themselves and the cartels use the money the American weapons help them make to go off continent to buy more weapons of foreign manufacture. For example, AK 47's. The cartels own more of these firearms than there are in the U.S. or than there have been in the U.S. They could not have bought them here through straw man purchases because they are not here nor have they been available in anything like the numbers in the hands of the drug cartels.
Everybody wins. The Mexican authorities keep the American money, keep the money from selling the arms our Washington thugs send them and blame us for their problems.
The drug cartels have a reliable supply of weapons and keep all the money they get from their illegal activities.
Our Washington thugs get to browbeat the American citizen into surrendering more liberty, thus enhancing their own power, while blaming everybody but themselves, the Mexicans, and the drug cartels.
Everybody wins, except of course, for the innocent citizens on either side of the border.
These smugglers of American origin need to be held to account, instead they get reelected.
I think ya'll are looking at this backwards. The real problem is recreational drug use. Recreational drug use funds the cartels who buy the weapons and wage the turf wars that provide the Brady Campaign and their allies with such lovely headlines.
The real problem is the easy acceptance of illegal narcotics as "harmless fun".
Did anyone take a look through ALL the pictures of the "weapons"? Take a good look at the supposed "gold plated handgun" - that's a SERIOUSLY poor "gold plating" job, and if it came from Desert Eagle's factory, it's the Titanium DE model. Everything looks cheap on it, not like a real DE. Even the sights look like they've been plated over and the safety is pop-riveted to the slide.
Well, hell... I hear that Gun Shows are autonomous zones where no laws, regulations, or rules apply. I hear that drug-addicted school children, with AD/HD, dressed like Dracula, and sportin' green hair can buy machineguns...with no back ground check!
Seems I remember the Brady Bill was supposed to take care of all that..wudn' it?
Hell I guess we need another law (and more cops on the streets!).
The "news piece" says that El Hummer Sr. Gonzalez Duran, was being transported in "an armored vehicle".
His fellow cartel members launched a "brazen attack". It doesn't say they ambushed the vehicle. They had 540 rifles ( I wonder how many men to shoot use them), half a million rounds of ammunition, frags, RPG's, a LAW and a couple of Barrett M82's.
These bozos couldn't take down one armored vehicle? Or did that attack take place somewhere else, as Sr. Gonzalez Duran was being transported without incident.
Either way, the Federales prevailed...Hurrah! And, they captured all the weapons! Hurrah again! Now if they could just find that stinking gun show in Terlingua. Or was it Alpine? Presidio?
Hell we need a hundred thousand new cops on the streets..that'll do it...and double the Brady Bill!
Grayhawk, please show us the clause in the Constitution where the federal government has been delegated authority to concern itself with fighting a war on drugs. At least when the passed Prohibition they had enough vestigial respect for the Constitution to authorize it via amendment.
The real dangerous narcotic is power, and there is no shortage of government junkies hooked on that crap. Between that and "conservatives" willing to enable them as long as they go after behavior you disapprove of...
I'll take drug users over JBTs and the police state your attitude enables any day of the week.
Let me get this straight: drug use is the problem?
You're saying that with a straight face? (Hey, maybe I'm more tired than I thought, and missed something.)
No no, seriously, I want to make sure I've got it right: are you saying that regular people, minding their own business, having done no one any harm, privately consuming the same sort of plant products that have been available to the whole of humanity for the span of humanity (prior to the age of the nanny-state decreeing by fiat that they are contraband), and continuing to harm nobody, are causing such a problem ON THEIR OWN that it is somehow okay to use government to force prior restraint on not just them but all of us, at the barrels of an unaccountable federal army? 'Cause ya know, once the principle of forced prior restraint has been accepted for one thing, there's all kinds of other things that enterprising thinkers can add to the "prohibited" list...and you've already bought in to the idea.
Government now simply creates criminals where there were none before, simply by calling something contraband. (Neat, huh?) This thereby creates a black market where there was none before, which provides almost unlimited "enforcement" and further marketing opportunities. And the best part (for the state--the only people to make out in this whole sordid mess, or haven't you noticed?) is that once they decide you can't have something, they get to poppa cap in y'ass if you get uppity and complain. For the good of us all.
This is Brady Bunch logic at its core--useful idiocy par excellence. Hell, "easy acceptance" may be a patented term there at Brady Central!
This is all kinds of NOT about "harmless fun".
I had my own hypocrisy exposed years ago, when I tried to justify that drugs were somehow different than guns, viz being "okay" to regulate. It's simply not defensible. Either you're free until you harm someone, or you're not. Period.
Isn't alcohol a drug? Doesn't alcohol become addictive? Doesn't alcohol when consumed too much make people do stupid and regrettable things that in the end they end up in prison. Costing taxpayers a lot of money, isn't that correct? In my state the state is the one that sells booze, nice huh?
having grown up down by the border I wouldn't trust the Mexican police/military farther than I could personally throw them. Even before this was a really big problem we used to pay the police to watch our vehicles when we went into stores. Everyone/everything is corrupt down there. I find it strange that they will parade" EL Hummer" around, as well as all these guns etc, but no other prisoners from this "grande" battle. This whole thing is a PR stunt that just so happens to fall in line with the gun grabbers agenda. pure crap !!!
which reminds me.. I wonder how much of that ammo was .223 things are little expensive up here...
17,000 soldiers have deserted from the Mexican army. Gee, I wonder why. And where they went. ha ha. Prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s and '30s: Sen. Ted Kennedy's grandfather built the family fortune smuggling scotch and bourbon across the border from Canada by boat on the Great Lakes. If he could have bought it at a distillery in Kentucky, well, hell, so could anyone. Where's the profit in that? People didn;t stop drinking or drink less, they just had to associate with REAL criminals to do it. Real criminals who got rich and became politicians. Or is that redundant? 3,000 years ago, the Romans knew to ask about any new law: "Qui bono? Who benefits?"
When will the average “Joe” figure out that the major problem is not the illegal drugs but the fact that they are illegal! Whenever a government “bans” something in relatively high demand (I.e.: alcohol, drugs, guns, or whatever is the “evil” substance/item de-jour) , some enterprising criminally-minded entrepreneur will begin to provide this substance/item to the demanding segment of the nation. He will ensure he/she prices it at a high enough profit level to make it worthwhile to risk violent, armed confrontation with other criminally-minded entrepreneurs seeking to horn in on his territory and/or armed agents of the government seeking to curtail the trafficking in said substance/item. If you end the prohibitions on the “evil” substance/item de-jour, you will reduce greatly the violence, the social cost, and the prison population of our nation. The rub is that you will also reduce the profitability, power, prestige, and influence of the judiciary, law enforcement, and the prison industry. Whoops! Can’t have that now, can we?
Greyhawk:"I think ya'll are looking at this backwards. The real problem is recreational drug use. Recreational drug use funds the cartels who buy the weapons and wage the turf wars that provide the Brady Campaign and their allies with such lovely headlines.
The real problem is the easy acceptance of illegal narcotics as "harmless fun"."
Nope. The problem is that the drugs are prohibited in the first place.
Bet me that 99.9 percent of those guns land on the street within an hour of the photo being taking.
ReplyDeleteFox: fair and balanced.
ReplyDeleteAt least until January 21st.
I guess they finally woke up and realized who's in the White House. "You can't listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." And I'm sure you can't watch Fox and work with him either. Rather than get on Mr. Obama's bad side, they've started using Brady press releases as scripts for "news" segments.
Goals: Eliminate "straw" purchases by total registration at time of purchase of gun and buyer. Then courtesy home visits to make sure both are still there and together. It's the only way to make sure they aren't "gunrunners." We'll just presume guilt on the part of EVERYONE. It makes enforcement simpler.
Goal: Eliminate the semi-auto Ar-15, AK clones and the Barrett Light .50 from the civilian market. Criminals can't steal them if citizens can't own them. Assuming that the seven Barretts captured from cartel members weren't stolen from POLICE. Before, during or after killing them.
But the drug cartels in the movies always have FULL-autos.
The same 15 licensed machine guns Hollywood is allowed to own, that get passed around from film to film. Semi-autos are so boring in a movie. Why not jazz it up and misinform people at the same time?
I'm not responsible for crime that happens in the next block, much less Mexico.
I wish we could buy LAW's in our gun shops and at gun shows today. Sadly we have politicians that claim we can while prohibiting it via laws that we do obey.
ReplyDeleteI have not doubt that Mexico's drug cartels are the beneficiaries of American weapons smugglers. There can be no legitimate argument to the contrary. I do think those Americans aiding in the smuggling of arms to the drug cartels should be convicted, imprisoned and executed.
ReplyDeleteLet's start at the source of the weapons pipeline. Washington D.C.
Here's how it works, our government, in the form of aid, sends money and arms to the Mexican authorities in the name of Good Neighborliness and the War on Drugs. The Mexican authorities from civilian to military then, for a price, distribute these weapons to the drug cartels. They keep the money themselves and the cartels use the money the American weapons help them make to go off continent to buy more weapons of foreign manufacture. For example, AK 47's. The cartels own more of these firearms than there are in the U.S. or than there have been in the U.S. They could not have bought them here through straw man purchases because they are not here nor have they been available in anything like the numbers in the hands of the drug cartels.
Everybody wins. The Mexican authorities keep the American money, keep the money from selling the arms our Washington thugs send them and blame us for their problems.
The drug cartels have a reliable supply of weapons and keep all the money they get from their illegal activities.
Our Washington thugs get to browbeat the American citizen into surrendering more liberty, thus enhancing their own power, while blaming everybody but themselves, the Mexicans, and the drug cartels.
Everybody wins, except of course, for the innocent citizens on either side of the border.
These smugglers of American origin need to be held to account, instead they get reelected.
I think ya'll are looking at this backwards. The real problem is recreational drug use. Recreational drug use funds the cartels who buy the weapons and wage the turf wars that provide the Brady Campaign and their allies with such lovely headlines.
ReplyDeleteThe real problem is the easy acceptance of illegal narcotics as "harmless fun".
Did anyone take a look through ALL the pictures of the "weapons"? Take a good look at the supposed "gold plated handgun" - that's a SERIOUSLY poor "gold plating" job, and if it came from Desert Eagle's factory, it's the Titanium DE model. Everything looks cheap on it, not like a real DE. Even the sights look like they've been plated over and the safety is pop-riveted to the slide.
ReplyDeleteIt's probably a Desert Eagle cigarette lighter.
Well, hell... I hear that Gun Shows are autonomous zones where no laws, regulations, or rules apply. I hear that drug-addicted school children, with AD/HD, dressed like Dracula, and sportin' green hair can buy machineguns...with no back ground check!
ReplyDeleteSeems I remember the Brady Bill was supposed to take care of all that..wudn' it?
Hell I guess we need another law (and more cops on the streets!).
Longbow
Just another thought.
ReplyDeleteThe "news piece" says that El Hummer Sr. Gonzalez Duran, was being transported in "an armored vehicle".
His fellow cartel members launched a "brazen attack". It doesn't say they ambushed the vehicle. They had 540 rifles ( I wonder how many men to shoot use them), half a million rounds of ammunition, frags, RPG's, a LAW and a couple of Barrett M82's.
These bozos couldn't take down one armored vehicle? Or did that attack take place somewhere else, as Sr. Gonzalez Duran was being transported without incident.
Either way, the Federales prevailed...Hurrah! And, they captured all the weapons! Hurrah again! Now if they could just find that stinking gun show in Terlingua. Or was it Alpine? Presidio?
Hell we need a hundred thousand new cops on the streets..that'll do it...and double the Brady Bill!
Longbow
Grayhawk, please show us the clause in the Constitution where the federal government has been delegated authority to concern itself with fighting a war on drugs. At least when the passed Prohibition they had enough vestigial respect for the Constitution to authorize it via amendment.
ReplyDeleteThe real dangerous narcotic is power, and there is no shortage of government junkies hooked on that crap. Between that and "conservatives" willing to enable them as long as they go after behavior you disapprove of...
I'll take drug users over JBTs and the police state your attitude enables any day of the week.
To Greyhawk:
ReplyDeleteLet me get this straight: drug use is the problem?
You're saying that with a straight face? (Hey, maybe I'm more tired than I thought, and missed something.)
No no, seriously, I want to make sure I've got it right: are you saying that regular people, minding their own business, having done no one any harm, privately consuming the same sort of plant products that have been available to the whole of humanity for the span of humanity (prior to the age of the nanny-state decreeing by fiat that they are contraband), and continuing to harm nobody, are causing such a problem ON THEIR OWN that it is somehow okay to use government to force prior restraint on not just them but all of us, at the barrels of an unaccountable federal army? 'Cause ya know, once the principle of forced prior restraint has been accepted for one thing, there's all kinds of other things that enterprising thinkers can add to the "prohibited" list...and you've already bought in to the idea.
Government now simply creates criminals where there were none before, simply by calling something contraband. (Neat, huh?) This thereby creates a black market where there was none before, which provides almost unlimited "enforcement" and further marketing opportunities. And the best part (for the state--the only people to make out in this whole sordid mess, or haven't you noticed?) is that once they decide you can't have something, they get to poppa cap in y'ass if you get uppity and complain. For the good of us all.
This is Brady Bunch logic at its core--useful idiocy par excellence. Hell, "easy acceptance" may be a patented term there at Brady Central!
This is all kinds of NOT about "harmless fun".
I had my own hypocrisy exposed years ago, when I tried to justify that drugs were somehow different than guns, viz being "okay" to regulate. It's simply not defensible. Either you're free until you harm someone, or you're not. Period.
Yep, legalize drugs, guns and rock and roll.
ReplyDeleteOutlaw politicians!
Isn't alcohol a drug?
ReplyDeleteDoesn't alcohol become addictive?
Doesn't alcohol when consumed too much make people do stupid and regrettable things that in the end they end up in prison. Costing taxpayers a lot of money, isn't that correct?
In my state the state is the one that sells booze, nice huh?
having grown up down by the border I wouldn't trust the Mexican police/military farther than I could personally throw them.
ReplyDeleteEven before this was a really big problem we used to pay the police to watch our vehicles when we went into stores. Everyone/everything is corrupt down there.
I find it strange that they will parade" EL Hummer" around, as well as all these guns etc, but no other prisoners from this "grande" battle.
This whole thing is a PR stunt that just so happens to fall in line with the gun grabbers agenda. pure crap !!!
which reminds me.. I wonder how much of that ammo was .223 things are little expensive up here...
17,000 soldiers have deserted from the Mexican army. Gee, I wonder why. And where they went. ha ha.
ReplyDeleteProhibition of alcohol in the 1920s and '30s: Sen. Ted Kennedy's grandfather built the family fortune smuggling scotch and bourbon across the border from Canada by boat on the Great Lakes. If he could have bought it at a distillery in Kentucky, well, hell, so could anyone. Where's the profit in that?
People didn;t stop drinking or drink less, they just had to associate with REAL criminals to do it. Real criminals who got rich and became politicians. Or is that redundant?
3,000 years ago, the Romans knew to ask about any new law: "Qui bono? Who benefits?"
When will the average “Joe” figure out that the major problem is not the illegal drugs but the fact that they are illegal! Whenever a government “bans” something in relatively high demand (I.e.: alcohol, drugs, guns, or whatever is the “evil” substance/item de-jour) , some enterprising criminally-minded entrepreneur will begin to provide this substance/item to the demanding segment of the nation. He will ensure he/she prices it at a high enough profit level to make it worthwhile to risk violent, armed confrontation with other criminally-minded entrepreneurs seeking to horn in on his territory and/or armed agents of the government seeking to curtail the trafficking in said substance/item.
ReplyDeleteIf you end the prohibitions on the “evil” substance/item de-jour, you will reduce greatly the violence, the social cost, and the prison population of our nation. The rub is that you will also reduce the profitability, power, prestige, and influence of the judiciary, law enforcement, and the prison industry.
Whoops! Can’t have that now, can we?
Greyhawk:"I think ya'll are looking at this backwards. The real problem is recreational drug use. Recreational drug use funds the cartels who buy the weapons and wage the turf wars that provide the Brady Campaign and their allies with such lovely headlines.
ReplyDeleteThe real problem is the easy acceptance of illegal narcotics as "harmless fun"."
Nope. The problem is that the drugs are prohibited in the first place.
the first sentence explains where the weapons came from imo, the mexican military, even if they were stolen, is far more likely.
ReplyDelete