The U.S. gun lobby holds Mexico hostage

[KansasVoter]

You got to love the NRA!!!

How can it be possible that after 18 months in office, President Obama still has not appointed a director for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the federal agency charged with monitoring illegal flows of weapons? We know the answer. The administration and Congress are scared of the gun lobby.

It's the kind of situation that makes you wonder if good governance has taken a holiday: Mexico is reeling from a drug-cartel insurgency that is armed mainly with weapons acquired in the United States; Arizona is so frightened about drug violence and other imagined Mexican dangers that its legislature enacted an anti-immigrant law that a federal judge says is unconstitutional.

Naming a new ATF chief to lead the fight against illegal weapons would be a small symbolic step. But it would signal to Mexicans and Arizonans alike that the administration is mobilizing to deal with these problems -- and is willing to take some political heat in the process. Yet this is not the season for "Profiles in Courage." When I queried the White House about the ATF vacancy, I got little more than a "no comment."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073004120.html

[Pullo]

1. Here we go with this tired, old canard again .......

Yep, those cartels get 90% of their fully-automatic weapons, grenade launchers, and other military equipment straight from US gun shops and gun shows ..... :eyes:

[Pullo]

4. I forgot to mention the anti-tank rockets .......

I mean, don't you know they give those things away as door prizes at gun shows and JFPO Bar Mitzvahs???

[X_Digger]

8. Only if you know the supah-sekrit handshake, don'cha know. n/t

[billh58]

21. I don't have a dog

in this fight, but I do read the Guns Forum for entertainment. It seems to me that the use of the term "canard," has become a catchall phrase for anything that a poster wants to portray as silly, absolutely false, or without merit. A canard is variously defined as: " (1) An unfounded or false, deliberately misleading fabrication, a false report, rumor or hoax," or, (2) a duck in French.

In the article linked above, the following information is given:

"Terry Goddard (D), Arizona's attorney general, risked his political career to work with the ATF. He promised Mexican officials in 2008 that he would try to crack the arms flows. And with help from both the ATF and Mexican authorities, Goddard's prosecutors brought a criminal case in May 2008 against X-Caliber Guns, a Phoenix gun dealer that was allegedly providing weapons used by the Mexican cartels.

Goddard's complaint alleged that X-Caliber had sold more than 700 AK-47s and other deadly weapons to straw buyers who planned to ship them to Mexican syndicates. "The important part of this case is the number of weapons that ended up at crime scenes in Mexico," Goddard said when the trial opened.

But as it turned out, the X-Caliber case showed that with Arizona's weak gun laws, prosecution was almost impossible -- even when there appeared to be strong facts. X-Caliber's owner had sold guns to ATF undercover agents after they told him they planned to resell the guns in Mexico."

Now, I seldom agree with David Ignatius, but he is a well-respected columnist, and I don't believe that he would publish a blatant lie, or that the WP would allow him to publish lies.

If any of this is true, then the assertion that there are indeed illegal gun dealers selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels is at least partially true, and is therefore not a "canard."

This is not an attempt to re-argue Heller, or the meaning of 2A, but rather an attempt to point out the tired, old, overuse of a term that appears to be frequently misused in this debate. Even a half-truth remains half-true, and therefore is not a "canard."

[Statistical]

24. It is a canard.

The mexican cartels have AUTOMATIC weapons. Weapons which are incredibly heavily regulated in the United States. They also have grenade launchers, RPG, heavy crew serve machineguns, etc.

They aren't getting arms from pawn shops and gun stores in the US.

If you were a Mexican cartel with billions to finance a private army which would you buy

a) fully automatic AK-47 with armor piercing ammo by the shipping container for $300 a pop

OR

B) semi-auto civilian rifles from US at $1500 a pop.

It is a canard.

[billh58]

26. Or,

"If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands." -- Douglas Adams

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WalksLikeaDuck

[Pullo]

44. Yep, its looks like a canard, lacks supporting facts like a canard, so ..... its a canard n/t

[billh58]

47. Or,

you guys just love saying that word...;-)

[SteveM]

54. Or,

The cartel gangs are acquiring their weapons (grenades, auto weapons, etc.) from the MEXICAN military and law enforcement, using raids, hijackings, and other methods commonly used by well-organized and effective insurgents. That the MEXICAN military & LEOs get these weapons in the first place from the U.S. is hardly significant; they could obtain them from Russia, China, or any other nation with a well-established armaments industry. I would also point out that if the cartel gangs wanted to obtain military ordnance from other than the MEXICAN military, they would (and do) get them from over the border with Guatemala, and from the long coastlines which are "well oiled" with illegal drug shipments and the support systems needed to successfully operate a smuggling industry.

Why go north when you can go south?

BTW, most of what the WaPo writes about gun-control policy is either a canard or straight-up agit-prop.

[billh58]

55. Or,

you could use the word "canard" over and over until you weaken its actual meaning, and watch while it loses its value as a rebuttal phrase to half-truths and innuendo.

Suggestions:

1) "Yes, some American-made weapons make their way illegally from the US to Mexico drug gangs," but,

2) "many of the weapons used by Mexican drug cartels are supplied from within Mexico, or by neighboring South American countries," or,

3) "Yes, there are gun dealers in the US who illegally sell weapons to anyone with the money, but there are already laws to deal with that situation."

Using a blanket dismissal such as the tired "canard" label does absolutely nothing to make your point, other than make it appear that you actually support the illegal sales of guns, and that you blindly deny that there are illegal gun dealers in the US.

As I said earlier, I only read the Gungeon for its entertainment value, but it's almost painful to watch a group of supposedly fellow Liberals use sophomoric debating tactics and phrases to make an otherwise valid point. A few regular posters on this forum are quite civil and well-spoken -- others, not so much.

[SteveM]

56. Perhaps you should examine your "entertainment" needs...

arguing the precise definition of "canard" has been tried here before. Not much substance to it, and hardly worth hanging the pejorative "sophomoric" onto someone else's take on the word (it certainly misses the point of the subjects at hand).

[billh58]

58. Not the precise

definition, just the overuse of a tired old phrase. And my entertainment "needs" are modest, as evidenced by the level of the "with us, or against us," discourse that meets them...;-)

[SteveM]

71. I prefer "straw." "Canard" sounds like an old steamship line. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

57. Please show us where SteveM "actually support(s) the illegal sales of guns"

And no, disagreeing with the OP indicates no such thing.

The elephant in the living room you're doing your utmost to ignore is that, yes, there are many fully automatic US guns
in Mexico- but they weren't sold by US gun dealers.

Rather, they were mostly exported quite legally to the MX government, directly from their manufacturers. Some smaller amount would have been, ahem, supplied by the Reagan administration to various Central and South American countries and paramilitaries to be clandestinely used against those deemed insufficiently anti-Communist.

There is, of course, lots of other types of weapons available from those whose idea of an end-user's certificate is "a deposit
slip indicating the proper amount deposited in an offshore account". Mostly Warsaw Pact stuff, in those cases.

The fact that the MX government is so corrupt that it cannot control its own armories and borders is not sufficient reason to curtail
the rights of Americans, especially so if those attempting do so keep resorting to untruth...

[billh58]

59. Not what

I said, nor intended. I said that the use of a tired, old, sophomoric phrase as a counter-argument to totally dismiss even a weak, but partially factual, argument gives the appearance of support by denying the entire premise.

I certainly have never argued that law-abiding US gun dealers are supplying Mexican drug cartels, but it would be extremely naive to assert that there are not US criminals who are breaking the law by selling weapons outside of "legal" avenues -- whether it be to US drug gangs, or Mexican drug gangs (which in many cases are one and the same). To believe that ALL US gun dealers are honest and upstanding, or even licensed, is unrealistic. This is not an argument for additional "gun control," but to point out that enforcement of existing laws would do much to stop the practice.

I don't believe that anyone who rationally promotes 2A and RKBA "supports" the illegal sale of arms, but to totally deny that the practice exists by calling the mere mention of it a "canard," is asinine. If one is entirely open to the truth, there are exceptions to every "absolute."

[cleanhippie]

66. Or,

You just cannot take the fact that your point, while in general, was valid, in THIS case, as has been demonstrated, it IS a canard.

[TPaine7]

60. It appears that you have made a mistake.

OP (Quoting the Washington Post):

…Mexico is reeling from a drug-cartel insurgency that is armed mainly with weapons acquired in the United States…

The offensive “canard” statement:

Pullo (256 posts) Tue Aug-03-10 05:03 PM
Response to Original message

1. Here we go with this tired, old canard again .......
Yep, those cartels get 90% of their fully-automatic weapons, grenade launchers, and other military equipment straight from US gun shops and gun shows .....

Your “refutation” (post 21, to which I am replying):

“If any of this is true, then the assertion that there are indeed illegal {American} gun dealers selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels is at least partially true, and is therefore not a ‘canard.’”

Read those statements and think about what they are saying. One of them has a very different subject than the other two. The different statement is yours. You have demolished a straw-man of your own manufacture--Pullo never denied that "there are indeed illegal {American} gun dealers selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels." Pullo nowhere called the idea that "there are indeed illegal {American} gun dealers selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels" a canard.

I know that it's easier to defeat an adversary in debate if you get to pick his position, but isn't it too easy?

There are several reasons people manufacture straw-men and then demolish them. First, honest people sometimes misunderstand their opponent's position. Others aren't smart enough to see the nuances--to them the straw-man is actually a fair representation. Others lack the integrity to honestly grapple with opinions they don't like. Still others start out honestly mistaken, but are too proud to admit their mistake when they see it; they sometimes argue for many posts from a known, fatally flawed position.

I will assume you are in the first category--honest mistake--until I see how you address this post. Will you ignore it, bluster, heap insults upon the messenger, or admit your mistake (or show me where my thinking is wrong)?

Waiting patiently.

[billh58]

62. I imagine that

from your, and others', points-of-view I may have made an "honest mistake." From my own perspective, however, I did not intend to address the meat of issue of illegal arms sales to Mexican drug cartels, but only what I believe to be the overuse of the term "canard." The statement that you have quoted by me was in reference to Terry Goddard (D), Arizona's attorney general (not a strawman) and his experience with a probable shady gun dealer (X-Caliber Guns, also not a strawman) and NOT in response to Pullo's "90%" remark.

After reading this forum for a couple of years, and occasionally participating, I have seen the use of the term "canard" become a standard reply to any opposing information or opinion. I believe that the many regular contributors to this forum are above using a canned dismissal of any particular statement, even if it is a disingenuous one.

I realize that many of you have been patiently attempting to explain the virtues of defending the Second Amendment for years, and have most likely grown tired of repeated deliberate misinformation. Resorting to accusing anyone who posits an opposing opinion of using "canards" does absolutely nothing to further your cause, nor to educate those who are misinformed.

As for your call for me to "admit your mistake (and show me where my thinking is wrong)" I believe that I will pass, because I don't believe either premise is true. I may have not communicated well, as you seem to have misundertood my intent, but I don't believe that I am mistaken about the dead horse (duck?) called "canard." Similarly, I can find no apparent flaws in your thinking, other than addressing a position that I did not take (at least not intentionally).

No, I am not a member of the grammar police, but the overuse of the blanket "canard" rebuttal in the Gungeon has become almost humorous in a forum so in need of common civility and honest communications. Something about vinegar and honey comes to mind...;-)

[Glassunion]

63. +1

:toast:

[TPaine7]

65. Hmmm...

The statement that you have quoted by me was in reference to Terry Goddard (D), Arizona's attorney general (not a strawman) and his experience with a probable shady gun dealer (X-Caliber Guns, also not a strawman) and NOT in response to Pullo's "90%" remark.

I beg to differ. Here is the statement of yours that I quoted:

If any of this is true, then the assertion that there are indeed illegal gun dealers selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels is at least partially true, and is therefore not a "canard."

I agree that you were referencing the attorney general's position, which is not a strawman. I agree that you were referencing his experience with X-Caliber Guns, and that his experience is not a strawman. I do not agree that the words you used are not logically and objectively a response to Pullo's 90% remark. The 90% remark was the only "canard" Pullo addressed. It was the only canard under discussion at that point in the conversation. It is the only logical antecedent to your criticism.

By using the word "canard", you referenced and criticized Pullo's 90% remark. There is no other logical way to read your statement. This is doubly so because the 90% remark is the only statement in the one-sentence post you were replying to.

Even if you weren't answering a post that consisted entirely of Pullo's 90% remark, you still have a strawman. No one doubts "that there are indeed illegal gun dealers selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels." The fact that no one doubts that obvious reality is 100% unaffected by the truth (or falsity) of the attorney general's statements. No one has called the idea "that there are indeed illegal gun dealers selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels" a canard. You have refuted a position that no one has taken--a strawman.

Ok, you have explained that you didn't mean to refer to Pullo's "90%" remark. We all misspeak on occasion. That does not absolve you of your strawman fallacy. Of course "the assertion that there are indeed illegal gun dealers selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels" is not a canard, but that fact is not germane to the debate. It is as relevant as if you had protested that blue was not red.

Would you have us believe that it was not your intent to convey that someone doubts "that there are indeed illegal gun dealers selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels"?

Your words from post 55 come to mind:

As I said earlier, I only read the Gungeon for its entertainment value, but it's almost painful to watch a group of supposedly fellow Liberals use sophomoric debating tactics ...

Isn't the use of a strawman a sophomoric debating tactic?

[billh58]

69. "Strawman" is another

overused term in the Gungeon, which has lost much of its true meaning since Dubya used the tactic so successfully for eight years. At least that is what "some people say."

[TPaine7]

70. I actually agree with you that

"strawman" is an overused term here, as is "canard." But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the use of those terms in this thread (unless, of course, you think they should NEVER be used in even the most appropriate contexts, but stricken from the English language). Some people overuse the word "racist" too, though that should be little comfort to the Imperial Wizard.

The fact remains that your argument is a textbook case of the strawman fallacy. I know it, you know it (even if you didn't initially) and any moderately informed and intelligent person who reads this exchange knows it.

You are not the only one wearied by sophomoric debating tactics, like, for example, evasion. It is tiring, after carefully laying out the obvious to someone who claims to want elevated discourse, to be met with such tactics. Especially when that someone claims to only visit for "entertainment"--to watch the alleged "sophomoric" goings on here.

Such tactics from an obviously intelligent and supposedly un-sophomoric debater make it look very much like you do have a dog in this fight.

[billh58]

72. You and I have

gone over the "dog in the fight" issue before on another thread, and let me assure you that I totally understand the Constitutional ramifications of further restricting a civil right -- any civil right. In fact, you are the one who made the biggest impression on my slight change of perspective from that last episode, and you haven't disappointed this time. I don't like guns, but I don't mind if you have one, and I would never attempt to trample on anyone's Constitutional rights.

My remarks about reading the Guns forum for "entertainment," however, go a little further than looking for a fight, or conjuring up "strawmen" to piss people off. It is mildly amusing (maybe "entertainment" is the wrong word) to watch the few who come here to attack your positions, and their obvious attempts to provoke the relatively few who appear to be anxiously waiting for them.

I see the same attacks, and counter-attacks, from mostly the same people day-after-day, and after the smoke clears, absolutely no one's position has changed in the slightest. It's almost as if old adversarial acquaintances play the same game of chess to a perennial stalemate day in, and day out, while embracing incivility, and calling each other nasty names. Yes, I consider that type of pointless interaction sophomoric, in a Monty Python sort of way.

I have been luckier than most "lurkers" I imagine, because I have actually learned a few things that I most likely would not have discovered on my own from the people on this forum. As for both me and my dog, we have won, and lost, enough fights to be content to watch others tilt at cyber windmills, with only an occasional comment about style and substance...;-)

[TPaine7]

73. That's one hell of a compliment, and a rebuke.

It's good to hear that I actually influenced someone. It's also good to be reminded that much of what I do here is tilting at cyber windmills.

One of my character flaws (or virtues) is that I find exchanges with people who disagree with me more stimulating. I think it's even more useless to discuss things with people who all agree with me. And, in my defense, I'm tilting less; I tried quitting this place cold turkey and it didn't work.

Yes, I don't like to admit it, but I have embraced incivility, and calling people nasty names. Yes, I have engaged in pointless, sophomoric interaction. I can see how some of my antics have been entertaining in a Monty Python sort of way; and doubtlessly I am not alone.

I'm flattered and humbled.

Thanks.

[billh58]

74. The compliment

was intended -- the rebuke, not so much. I too enjoy debating with someone who sticks to the substance of a controversy, without resorting to ad hominem (yet another overused phrase) attacks on their opponent.

Thank you for your civility, and your sense of fairness.

[oneshooter]

75. Things are a LOT more civil here since the new rules. n/t

[Glassunion]

2. One un-truth I found in the article.

Mexico is reeling from a drug-cartel insurgency that is armed mainly with weapons acquired in the United States... Not true.

[rrneck]

3. The words

"gun lobby" appear in the first paragraph and the last paragraph of the editorial. Where does he actually make a case that the federal government is afraid of this "gun lobby". Nowhere in the piece do the letters NRA appear.

What's Mr. Ignatius' (and your) point?

[KansasVoter]

5. So you didn't know that the NRA is a huge gun lobby? Go to NRA.ORG and read more!!!

[cleanhippie]

67. Your ONLY response to the article YOU posted was "gotta love the NRA".

It was pointed out that the NRA was not even referenced ONCE in the article so you prop up ANOTHER strawman to knock down. At this point in the thread, you are 2 for 2 in the strawman contest.

Did you HAVE a point, other than to show your strawman building and knocking down skills, to make?

[bluestateguy]

6. Maybe the Mexicans can look to themselves and clean up their own gun and crime problem

before imposing demands on us.

[X_Digger]

7. Second verse, same as the first..

This was "news" 4 months ago

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/2010/04/16/atf-has-no-head-15-months-into-obama-presidency.html

Poor Kristen Rand

[east texas lib]

9. Amazing!

Five pounds of bullshit packed into a one pound post! :o

[one-eyed fat man]

10. I see you have reloaded and are still spreading........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxyamhDbet8&NR=1

You never get tired of the shit, do you?

[slackmaster]

11. Key words - "Of the weapons that could be traced..."

:rofl:

[X_Digger]

12. In 2007-2008, the MX gov submitted about 11k numbers.

Here's the factcheck.org de-myth-ification..

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/

Given the lack of hard data from Mexico, we can’t calculate a precise figure for what portion of crime guns have been traced to the U.S. Based on the best evidence we can find so far, we conclude that the 90 percent claim made by the president and others in his administration lacks a basis in solid fact.

[Kolesar]

14. So, what quantity of guns going to Mexican gangsters would be a good amount in your opinion?

What quantity of guns would you be happy with??

[X_Digger]

16. Who says any quantity makes me happy?

But that doesn't mean I'm willing to give up my rights to own one because Mexico's government can't fix their side of the border, either.

How about we legalize most drugs and watch the narcotrafficantes move elsewhere? (And watch a huge portion of our inner city violence disappear just as happened on the repeal of prohibition).

[Kolesar]

30. You could "own one" even if these racketeers were prevented from smuggling

Tune your squelch and don't be so reflexive. Act cool

[pipoman]

33. Good then,

it sounds like you agree that this is entirely about border enforcement and enforcement of existing laws...very well then..

[Kolesar]

35. That is some fanciful reasoning...eom

[X_Digger]

37. You seem to be the one with a twitchy knee..

.. as if I should be 'happy' about some percentage, because I called bullshit on the article's demonstrably false statement.

Mr. Pot, I'm please to introduce you to Mr. Kettle.

[Kolesar]

40. Since they live near a crazy country ...

...the Mexicans are going to have to accept that some quantity of weapons will be flowing to gangsters in their country. But Americans get to say that they have "freedom" and "rights".

[X_Digger]

41. Is that your opinion? Are you stating what you think I said? Please elaborate. n/t

[hack89]

42. What about all the weapons flowing to Mexico from the south?

you know - the serious military weapons?

[slackmaster]

15. The fact that US-made guns CAN be traced demonstrates that we have effective gun control here

Mexico has a problem with illegal importation of firearms (and other things like illegal drugs), and that is much larger than the problem of US-made firearms being smuggled into Mexico.

But Mexico does enforce its strict immigration laws.

[oneshooter]

38. The question I have about this report is

"How many of these weapons that were researched were full auto and how many were semi auto?" It makes a hell of a deference in the argument. If the majority were full auto then they came from sources other than dealers in the US. More than likely they were stolen from the Mexican police and/or military. This means that it is an internal problem for the Mexican Government. They can not retain their own issue weapons.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Remmah2]

90. Seized weapons?

"A recent weapons seizure in Nuevo Leon, just across the border from Texas, illustrates the drug traffickers' arsenals. On May 11, after an armed confrontation, the Mexican army seized 124 assault rifles, 15 handguns, three anti-tank rockets, more than 5,000 rounds of ammunition and 1,375 ammo magazines. "

Anti-tank rockets? I wonder where they were traced to?

[Bold Lib]

91. "Anti-tank rockets? I wonder where they were traced to?"

Why, at an NRA gun show in Laredo of course. At least that is what some on this thread believe - for some reason.

[Glassunion]

92. I thought they came from WalMart

with "no questions asked".

I wonder how that test worked out?

[PavePusher]

93. Hell, I've got 5000+ rounds of ammo.

And I'm running low.

I wonder what that says about me?

[Remmah2]

96. My kids varsity rifle team goes through 15,000+ rounds in one season.

Approved firearms in schools, go figure.

[Kolesar]

13. I hate the Boeing/Lockheed lobby, but I hate *this* weapons lobby even more...eom

[cowman]

17. weapons lobby?

Where does the NRA say they are a weapons lobby? They are a one issue org. dedicated to protecting the 2nd Amend. Try to get your "facts" correct please.
The NRA is what it is today because of anti 2nd Amend groups like the Brady Bunch and the VPC and people like you who would love nothing better than to try to further restrict law abiding citizens RKBA.
On a side note: I FINALLY RETIRED TODAY.

[pipoman]

34. Yep, those pesky civil rights lobbys are such a pain in the ass. huh?

[Callisto32]

43. Wait, so the lobby of guys that make the big guns that various states use to kill many thousands...

is less reprehensible to you than the lobby of private citizens owning weapons the statistical likelihood of which killing someone is incredibly small?

WOW.


Edit: Typo fixed.

[GreenStormCloud]

18. Your claim fails basic common sense.

Full-auto weapons just aren't available in the U.S. All they can get are semi-auto knock offs. Even a semi-auto AK-47 cost hundreds of dollars here. But in Africa you can get full-auto, selective fire, AK-47s for about $50 apiece. Even with the smuggling overhead, the real ones are far cheaper that the U.S. fake ones.

The Mexican government knows this, and doesn't bother to submit such guns to tracing because they know that it wasn't made or sold in the U.S.

[Glassunion]

19. Could it be the Mexican government is trying a knee-jerk answer that has nothing to do with the

problem to appease those who vote for them? Say it ain't so, Joe.

[Taitertots]

20. Aww how cute, trying to pass off an opinion piece as legitimate journalism

He even quotes Paul Helmke. What a joke.

"From December 2006 through this past April, the Mexican government seized 31,946 handguns and 41,093 assault rifles"
Idiot doesn't even know what "assault rifle" means.

"Of the weapons that could be traced, roughly 80 percent came from the United States, according to Mexican ambassador Arturo Sarukhan"
Of the weapons that could be traced. How else could they be traced if they didn't come from America?

[krispos42]

22. Obama won in 2008 with 90% of the vote, didn't you know that?

Yup, 90% of black voters voted for him. So he won with 90% of the vote.


See how that works?

[pipoman]

23. Is this your M.O.?

After proven wrong in a thread, abandon the thread, resurface a week later to be proven wrong in a new thread? Isn't this actually trolling or posting flame bait?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x331344

[Kolesar]

29. It is against DU rules to call another DUer a troll...eom

[pipoman]

31. Nobody is calling anyone a troll..

and who are you? His big brother? Maybe you can answer some of the slew of unanswered questions on previous flame bait, troller posts?

[Kolesar]

32. Oh, it is "troll-er", I see the distinction

:sarcasm:

[Francis Marion]

25. Corrección

Ay, no.

Primero: Mexico has strict gun control, especially for military calibers. It's therefore impossible for them to have gun related problems.

Segundo: Drug cartels, institutional corruption, poverty, injustice, lack of education, and a poor economy hold Mexico hostage, with or without armas from el Norte.

Tercero: If Mexico wanted to control their border, they are certainly free to do so at any time.

Numero Cuatro: People who smuggle guns into Mexico are only looking for work, are just doing it to support their families, and are, in fact, simply unlicenced arms merchants.

Entiendes? Es bueno clarificarlo todo asi.

[Glassunion]

50. +1

[Xela]

76. Respecto al Numero Cuatro...

Estoy un poco en desacuerdo, respetuosamente, claro.

These "people who smuggle guns into Mexico" are criminals, plain and simple--they know that their business is a criminal activity. Now, los compradores es otra cosa (strawman), most often than not these are manipulated girlfriends, wives, friends, colleagues, family members (heck, I've seen mothers and/or sisters being pulled into it), and similar, who are cajoled into buying firearms illegally in the US. Then their miserable boyfriends, friends, relatives pass them on to the contrabandistas, or are contrabandistas themselves.

I don't know if you mentioned el Numero Cuatro de forma sarcastica, or whether it was serious. But I think there's more to that than what meets the eye.

Recibe un saludo cordial,

Xela

[Francis Marion]

77. de forma muy sarcastica,

el cuatro. Pienso tambien que en verdad son criminales.
YEs, sarcastic on point four. I also truly think they're criminals, just the same as drug smugglers. Straw purchasers probably know they're doing something wrong, I suspect, in most cases.

Those same justifications, however, are often applied to other aspects of the illegal immigration phenomenon.

Gracias por ofrecer sus opiniones. Que le vaya bien,
-FM

[Glassunion]

78. La cabeza duele...

Fallé noveno grado español. ¿Es tipos que cambian una receta para frijoles y arroz? Si ése es el caso yo tengo un bueno uno si es interesado. Gracias. Y recuerda mis moscas de gato en mis pantalones.

[Xela]

80. La cabeza duele? Easy. Tequila, limon y sal. Se acabo el problema. notxt

notxt

[Glassunion]

81. Again...

I failed 9th grade Spanish. Are suggesting I need Tequila, slime and a large room? Ah... Memories of Spring Break...

[Xela]

82. See? We do speak the same language ;-) notxt

[Xela]

79. Point taken

I see those two as ultimately separate issues, but point taken.

Xela

[Francis Marion]

83. A narco-state within a nation

What is the economic scope of the illegal drug business? How much pull do they have?

"...Mexican (drug) traffickers have increased their shipments of several types of narcotics north across the border, becoming titans of an industry that by some estimates earns $39 billion a year, equivalent to almost 20% of the government's annual budget."

Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexico-cartels-20100808,0,361156.story

Wow. Drug cartels represent one sixth of the economic life of Mexico. It is fair to say therefore that Mexico is one-sixth of the way to failed state status, if the drug problem is really as large as the LA Times claims.

"... An assessment of the drug threat issued early this year by the U.S. National Drug Intelligence Center said Mexican drug-trafficking organizations, or DTOs, "continue to represent the single greatest threat to the United States."

Mexican cartels, with operations in more than 2,500 U.S. cities, are the only ones working in every part of the United States, it said. They have largely displaced Colombian and Italian traffickers.

"The influence of Mexican DTOs, already the dominant wholesale drug traffickers in the United States, is still expanding," said the report, known formally as the National Drug Threat Assessment..."

These drug cartel scum work in 2500 US cities, selling us their drugs, sending the profits back to Mexico. They must have concluded, (rightly?) that Americans are a great pack of rich, indulgent, complicit fools. How otherwise could they set up shop here. Drug use is a 'victimless crime' I hear; the organizations who sell illegal drugs nevertheless killed 26,000 Mexicans since December of 2006. How many is that each month? Over 620 Mexicans get shot, vivisected, tortured to death, blown up each month. Even if many of those are drug 'workers', it's still unacceptable, and certainly not victimless. Journalists, officials, police, and 'wealthy' kidanap victims get killed, and maimed too.

Mexico needs perhaps to suspend all law and government for six months worth of vigilante justice during which time the people can sort things out.

[Xela]

85. RE: "suspend all law and government for six months", "vigilante justice"

For the record, I disapprove of this option.

It's the rule of law the general Mexican population are demanding.

I suspect, however, that the Mexican version(s) of Los Pepes is somewhere on the horizon, unfortunately:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Pepes


Xela

[Glassunion]

86. Los Pepes?

[Francis Marion]

87. Which solution is best:, and no solution is clean

A cancer of the body politic has to be treated. Cut it out, chemo it, but something must be done. To ignore the cancer or pursue the status quo won't help. Mexico must take some extraordinary measures to reclaim the republic for the people. I don't know if the Mexican establishment is capable of accomplishing this goal, much less genuinely interested in doing so. Nobody wants to see violence, but that's perhaps the only language the cartels understand. Without the US drug consumer base, the problem would diminish significantly. But here, our government is unwilling to control what comes over the border. Might even be unable, but the effort expended to control the border, from the US side, is wholly inadequate, a token gesture at best. Mexico takes more interest in people and goods crossing illegally into Mexico than they do in people and drugs leaving Mexico. This uneven policy, by both countries, ensures that drugs will flow North.

Mexican nationals living in the US send too much money back home for the Mexican government to ever seriously hinder their illegal entry into the US. And Americans love to buy and use those illegal drugs, so it seems to me that it's entirely on the Mexican people to clean their house. Americans won't 'get religion' and solve the domestic drug consumption problem. All we'll ever do is feed the cartels and maintain their trade routes. So the root of the problem, and also therefore the solution, resides in Mexico. Don't see any way to clean up Mexico without bloodshed, unfortunately, considering the nature of the cartels. Reasonable steps only work with reasonable people.

[Glassunion]

88. Has anyone tried sending them a fruit basket and a strongly worded letter?

Worth a shot.

[Xela]

89. Arm chair generals

We could play arm chair generals to the tune of Machiavelli til the cows come home.

I think there's more blame to put on the American side than you care to admit (exploitation of their cheap labor, taxation without representation).

It will take both sides to implement equivalent, fair, humane, and lawful measures.

I understand there will be a violent component (we are already living it, even my family has been affected to the tune of six armed men and a carjacking), but even then, or because of it, I do not share your cataclismic, one-sided view.

Xela

[Francis Marion]

95. Back to the point of this thread:

Exploitation of cheap labor- most definitely, and that's one very good reason border enforcement isn't taken seriously. Maybe employers should pay illegal aliens the prevailing wage instead of allowing them to suppress wages, as apparently happens in construction.

Taxation without representation- all US citizens are represented in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. Who is not being represented? You can't possibly be referring to illegal aliens; they're simply not entitled to representation in the US Congress. They already have representation in their countries of origin, and in fact, should not even be living or working here. An illegal alien, from Timbuktu to Tecate, has no claim whatsoever to the benefits, obligations or responsibilities of US citizenship.

In order to get representation, an immigrant has to go through the front door and comply with the law, taking steps to become a US citizen. Either that or break the law and luck into a Reagan style amnesty. But if economic refugee status in the US offers a better (albeit illegal) way of life than what is found in their home country, it's a curious choice to make, but deserves little to zero sympathy, like any other volitional act or accident of geography.

It makes people here angry to see a sizeable number of folks reside here illegally with no regard for our law. We have Spanish language radio stations in LA, including La Invasora, The Invasive; and La Raza, The (Mexican) Race. Can you imagine the hell people would catch if they put up a radio station in a major US city whose name was, The White Race? Until everybody plays by the same rules, there will be plenty of resentment, misguided concern, and righteous indignation. And to top it all off, this thread was started by some guy who is upset, evidently, that illegal aliens and straw purchasers are buying guns here and taking them to Mexico. And a gun rights group is part of this 'problem'. Implying that we need to curtail our rights as Americans because some few domestic criminals and various foreign criminals run guns. Well, should we all lose the right to vote just because the dead have been known to vote in Chicago? Hell no; we should punish criminals and PROTECT the rights of the people, and enforce the laws of the country- for everybody, all the time.

[Xela]

97. El Cuatro, va de nuez...

Your interpretation of the situation is infused with familiar jingoistic perspectives, gross stereotypes, and absolutes.

On immigration, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll try stick with you on the common ground (RKBA).

Aunque no lo parezca, fue un placer charlar contigo.

Regards,

Xela

[Francis Marion]

99. It's about the rule of law and doing things the right way.

I think it's very fair to state what I have observed firsthand and relate what I have read which journalists have observed; don't shoot the messenger. I am reporting the news. Of course, reality is far more sublte and nuanced than even a well-intentioned absolutist can appreciate; with enough time I'll learn that it's OK to have parallel sets of laws and expectations. Some laws for some people, no laws for other people. Illegal immigrants should, in fact, be celebrated and given special favors just to show how nice we are.

Get a passport before you come to the US? Yes, yes and yes for all you folks... what's that, you say, you're not going to respect US law? Hijole! Why didn't you say that you were Mexican? You don't have to do anything at all, just cross the border in the border in the dead of night. You might die of exposure, your women might get raped, you might end up carrying illegal drugs, you might get held for ransom in a clown house where you'll be beaten until your gente pay up. Ha, just kidding- those things are all stereotypes. In actual fact, there is no illegal immigration phenomenon, that's all absolutitist malarkey. There are no Mexicans residing illegally in the US, much less crossing the border illegally.

... Really? stereotypes? Jingoes? Me da penas decirlo, pero es realidad. Disfrute mucho tambien el discurso; es mejor ofrecer los puntos de vista, y aprender.

The phenomenon is not only real, it is of a staggering size, such that we have parallel societies. This bothers me; I want people to immigrate here legally and in numbers such that American and immigrant cultures can both interact, improve, and assimilate. When we transplant entire Mexican towns to the US, the cultural interaction is minimal, and you cannot assimilate when everybody looks and talks like you do. Without papers, the working generation has no roots here, although their kids usually do. It's the absolutist in me, but I don't want people to come here to extract something of value and then leave. I want serious, hardworking, aspiring Americans who have no intention of going back home, and who in fact desire deeply to make the US their new home. That type of person is an immigrant. They're here to stay. In contrast to the economic refugee who has no interest in following our laws, no stake in this country, and perhaps no intention of making this country their home. Economic refugees deserve nothing from us. Law-respecting immigrants are already welcome, and by definition, came through the front door.

And I must agree wholeheartedly on the human right to keep and bear arms. We need to take care of that right, guard it jealously, and I dare say, asolutely!

Cheers,
-FM

[proteus_lives]

27. Yes, because you can get military weapons from U.S. gun stores.

:eyes:

Certainly not from the corrupt Mexican military or from South America.

:eyes:

Edit: None of the usual KV canard replies. He ran away from this OP as fast as possible. :rofl:

[JonLP24]

28. Evidence the Mexican military is corrupt?

They government is using the Mexican Army to fight the drug cartels. Also since firearms are not legal for sale, cartels have to smuggle them from either the US or as you say South America or more correctly Central America as they share a border with Guatemela. As far as cartels getting weapons from the US. That is well documented.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/us/26borders.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/us/15guns.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/05/07/20080507akbust0507.html
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/Officials_say_most_weapons_from_raid_came_from_Texas_dealers.html

Just a few examples. It is important to point out all the weapons that end up in the cartels is the result from illegal trade. I have no problems with legal trade. However it is a problem that weapons from the US are getting into the hands of these cartels. On edit-Before I get flamed too bad it is important to note that the vast majority of weapons seized in Mexico cannot be traced.

[benEzra]

36. One thing about those "weapons from the U.S."...

I have no doubt a majority of any U.S.-made pistols and civilian rifles in the cartels' hands came from the U.S. civilian market, but the 14.5" select-fire M4's, the M16's, the M203's, grenades, and 5.7x28mm AP aren't available on the U.S. civilian market. They are available only to governments, law enforcement, and the military in this country, meaning that while they are U.S. made, they are being diverted from government supply channels (primarily via Mexican military/LE).

The number of automatic weapons manufactured for the U.S. civilian market since 1986 is exactly zero, and possession outside of police/military/government or their supply chain in this country is a 10-year Federal felony, no exceptions.

[GreenStormCloud]

48. The article references hand grenades. Where can I buy some? N/T

[shadowrider]

51. According to some here, at any local gun show

All you have to do is walk up to the booth, tell the guy how many you want, and voila!, you have your grenades.

[Glassunion]

52. You forgot...

The NRA secret handshake...

[shadowrider]

53. I heard about it using my NRA secret decoder ring n/t

[Euromutt]

64. Actually, it's mainly state police forces that are plagued by corruption

The army and the federal police are relatively clean. I do say "relatively," given that Los Zetas managed to recruit about 30 members from the Mexican Special Forces' Airmobile Group (GAFE) around a decade ago.

Also, when the Mexican army adopted the new FX-05 Xiuhcoatl rifle in 2006, it instituted a stringent system of custody control, so that if copies of the rifle were to turn up in the hands of narcotraficantes, the last person who had control of the weapons could be traced. Evidently, there were some problems with the Mexican army's previous rifle (the G3). Of course, it's rather unfortunate that the first unit to be issued the FX-05 was the GAFE.

[Callisto32]

39. We should instead...

allow Mexico's inability to deal with violence hold our liberty hostage?

RIIIIGHT.

[Katya Mullethov]

46. Such a grand crisis

Wont be wasted .

[Katya Mullethov]

45. Are these the same cats that section cops ,snitches , and competitors

Into handy bite sized pieces and then scatter these same said body parts in the middle of major thoroughfares ?

By my recollection ,the second gun lobby vehicle borne improvised explosive device (the 100 kilo job) is supposed to go off any day now (as promised by the gun lobby). I am certain that such acts of terrorism will finally bring the full force of the gov't down on the NRA and other members of the dismembering gun lobby ...certainly .

Or..... more realistically ,we can expect the State Dept,Customs,DEA,ATF,every alphabet 'crat ,Calderon , prohibitionists , authoritarians and " statist fucks" to blame it on anything other than prohibition..... as prohibition is their rice bowl , and it works .

To paraphrase the great philosopher Escuela , "Pro-ha-beeshoan has been vedy vedy goo-oooot ......to me . "



ETA :"statist fucks"

[DonP]

49. I love the raw naked power we gunnies wield in Congress and on the International stage!

Maybe we should just suggest to Iran that if they don't shape up we'll send the NRA to hold their next convention in Teheran.

Thats will browbeat them into submission.

[TPaine7]

61. Pray tell, what are the ransom demands? How do I get a cut? n/t

[jeepnstein]

68. All the time I thought it was the Drug Cartels...

that were strangling Mexico. Oh, I forgot, they bring in tons of foreign cash and are probably propping up the legitimate economy of Mexico. So Mexico cries some alligator tears over a few dead here and there and tries to act like they care about something. Any U.S. politician fool enough to fall for this bad act needs to get a head examination.

[Katya Mullethov]

84. Coming up on THIRTY thousand killed since 2006

And the best either side can do is cook up yet otrageous to feed us . Very telling behavior .

[Hangingon]

94. Please tell me why this worthless thread is still going?

[Xela]

98. Side tracked

Apparently it got side tracked into immigration reform.

I'm partially to blame.

Stopping as of...now.

Regards,

Xela