As Drug War Rages, AZ AG Talks Gun Control and the Benefits of Legalization
By Logan Murphy Saturday Feb 28, 2009 3:00pm
Friday morning on CNN Kiran Chetry spoke with Arizona's AG Terry Goddard about the raging drug war taking place along our southern border and how U.S. gun and drug laws are perpetuating the violence.
Since George Bush allowed the assault weapons ban to expire, the gun smuggling trade in the U.S. has skyrocketed and many of these weapons are ending up in the hands of Mexican drug lords and are responsible for thousands of murders. The right has been going bonkers, warning Democrats want to take everyone's guns from them and turn us into a nation of dopers, but it's high time they admit that our gun laws are aiding drug cartels and making it possible for them to get more drugs into our country.
Goddard points out that the vast majority of the drug cartel's income comes from the sale of marijuana which begs the questions - is it time to reinstate the assault weapons ban and legalize pot? Both President Obama and AG Eric Holder have said they want to reinstate the assault weapon ban, hopefully they will be successful. As for the legalization of pot, I think the time has come.
Login or Register to post comments.
Polls: Never been a better time to legalize pot
Our drug law and penalties make no sense to begin with. Changing our stance particularly on marijuana would go a long way towards minimizing many of the problems.
This issue now being talked about actually gives me hope for humanity.
Because it is Symbolic for many of our problems.
Crime!??!--
Make it legal, and tax it-- You take the air out of the black market. Which means that it would not meet the profit margins currently enjoyed by these criminal cartels.. No money in it for them... No money to buy guns...
This simple iota of common sense being breeched with the last 100 years of stupid prohibition and war on personal choice... is the wellspring for many of our stupid policies and decisions.
As with any war, the money is in the waging. This could also seriously impact the corporate prison systems. Do you really want to bail those out too?
How do you mean "bail out"?
If you meant bail out those convicted of marijuana possession, by vacating their convictions, then hell yes. There are thousands of people in prison for minor acts and billions spend upon their incarceration. That's another huge savings on the budget and deficit.
has the potential to perpetuate a black market, which is why I am 100% against that remedy. Most of us, though, would grow our own, thereby circumventing the market.
Legalization, on its own merits, is a prudent move for the sake of the entire country, on so many levels.
However..
You would still go down and purchase that Northern Light x Bubble Berry Hybrid... as well.
I think the Way the Netherlands did it is the correct way.
Sure there is some ebb and flow there.. But overall their system works.
I do not think the Taxes on it would be too crazy...
Plus it would create a decent sized fertilization to a already somewhat booming market sector anyhow.. The Indoor Cultivation supply store.
The thing is even if we simply stopped wasting Billions of dollars going after it .. It would be a win all around.
Tie it onto Hemp profit and taxation.. and it is the cherry on top.
to my assertion validates my point. As a grower, purchasing high quality seeds from (say) Holland, affords me the opportunity to grow any strain available. Therefore, I wouldn't buy ANY finished product. My wants and needs would be met by my skill as a grower. One less person needing to get around the system, so to speak.
Indoor cultivation supply stores would get my business and everyone else's. And it would have zero association with a tax structure.
Hemp is another issue altogether.
It will be difficult to legalize pot. Not because it would be a bad thing. But because hidden powers as well as more than a few high placed politicians, past and present, have made millions and billions off the illegal trade. And will push the "evils" of legalization to the limits of reason to protect their fortunes.
That was the during the 80's..
People knew the truth for longer.. So it started simmering the situation to the legalization push, when "THEY" saw this... Thats when we saw the Just Say No bullcrap and Raygun's stupidity about destroying your brain Propaganda..
It did its job for a time, .. However now with Scientific research creating mountains of evidence showing the realities of it... Now with the internet allowing people to exchange ideas..
That pathetic band aid of fear is now at the bottom of the shower, all we need to do is pick it up and toss it away..
We will Legalize -- and we will make it to the next step of our evolution with it under our feet.
Legalize and be Civilized.
Drugs laws benefit high-end drug dealers.
Anti-gun laws are feel-good but B.S.
I personally believe people SHOULD have personal firearms for protection.....But.... do people really need assault rifles and Tech-9's? Those should indeed be illegal. You don't need to shred a burglar, a simple shot between the eyes usually does the trick.
Yes. I support the 2nd amendment but always wondered what the rationale was on assault rifles and the fucking 50 caliber gun that anyone can still buy.
For Zombies.
OK but just you.
What happens when we perfect the laser? Do we have the right to bare lasers?
You can make one out of your DVD player nowadays. It will actually burn stuff.
I want a Laser gun..
!!SO BAD!!
But having it .. and using it for fun.. is a different mindset.
WE have to change the mindset of people.
That can be done by raising quality of life... opening new horizons for humans to fill. Moving us forward away from violence.
Guns are out of the bottle.. We really cannot put them back in the bottle..
So we have to solve the problem in better ways.
Personally I liked what Frank Herbert proposed in Dune..
i want to mount it on my car when i drive through la traffic
and fuck it, can we please legalize pot already
its so stupid
its a fuckin plant
need a troy bilt chipper/shredder...
(it makes for really small pieces)
Which model and how much horse power are we talking bout here?
Cartels are stealing or buying weapons from the Corrupt Mexican Army along with some from the U.S. sold to them by the U.S. Government. Cop killer Bullets can only be sold in the U.S. legally to Police and Military. The Mexican Government can buy them and Drug gangs can either buy them from Crooked Cops of which there are many and military sources.
Weapons of the Mexican army
FX-05 Mexican made assault rifle 5.56x45mm NATO round
Heckler & Koch G3 7.62 assault rifle, made under Heckler & Koch licence
HK21E 7.62 machine gun. Made under license from Heckler & Koch
Heckler & Koch MP5 9x19mm Sub-macine gun.
Heckler & Koch UMP 45 ACP (11.43x23mm) Sub-machine gun
FN P90 5.7x28mm Sub-Machine gun used by army special forces
Heckler & Koch G36 Used in limited numbers 5.56x45mm NATO round
MK 19 grenade launcher 40 mm .
Beretta 92 Service Pistol.
M249 Squad Automatic Weapon and FN Minimi.
M-2 machine gun 12.7 mm .
Heckler & Koch MSG90 7.62x51mm NATO sniper rifle.
Barrett M82 .50 Caliber 12.7×99mm NATO sniper rifle
Milkor MGL 40 mm grenade launcher
MILAN anti-tank missiles. About 500. Last batch bought to Oman
B-300 82 mm light anti-tank rocket.
Blindicide 81 mm light anti-tank rocket.
M40 106 mm recoilless rifle over High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle.
Brandt 60 mm LR Gun-mortar
Mk 19 grenade launcher 40mm automatic granade launcher.
M1 Mortar and M29 Mortar (75 Mortar of 120 mm and 1,500 Mortars between 60 mm and 81 mm)
Mondragon Fusil M1908 7x57mm automatic rifle used in ceremonial activities.
You mean I don't need an UZI to protect myself?
:-)
No but it helps in bird hunting when they are small and fast.
you can't buy the automatic UZI without a highly restrictive federal license.
you can buy a legal knock-off - SEMI-AUTOMATIC - Uzi with the proper background checks.
and there should be no limits to any type of weapon. A citizen militia is the only protection from our government.
You sound like you just stepped out of an NRA meeting!
Fully automatic weaponry is illegal to possess without the proper federal license. Meaning your average person cannot even legally purchase something that would "shred a burglar". You cannot develop reasonable laws if you don't even ground your comments in reality. Quite honestly the "assault" weapons ban was a bad joke and only effected legal gun owners. Part of the ban included bayonet lugs for god's sake..
But Obama will not be burning any of his political capital on legalizing marijuana. He has bigger fish to fry at the moment. And can you imagine the field day the right wingers would have with that? Absolutely no chance. Should have voted Kucinich.
Unfortunately, the most logical candidate NEVER wins.
Never...
Obama is someone we can move...
We need to be that Logical animal.. the candidate is irrelevant.
Like FDR said to the Labor Unions ..
"I agree with everything you say .. now make me do it!"
First step in democracy is get a representative you CAN push.
Second step is PUSH.
!
Obama and Holder have declared the medical marijuana issue will be left to the individual states to decide.
I see it as a step toward "local option" with regard to ALL use, sales, growing and distribution of marijuana .. just like alcohol sales in most states, and prostitution in some.
One step at a time .. maybe in my life time ..
Maybe, .. just maybe.. In this decade!
Some guy wrote a small book some time ago, I'm sorry I can not recall his name, (Maybe someone can help me with the guy's name) that in very simple terms outlined how the benefits of the cannabis plant could help save the world from many of it's economic problems. He made it so clear and easy to understand one was forced to wonder why it was not being taken seriously. Of course the answer is money (By being kept illegal) It was amazing.
and will continue to win.
The guy's name is Jack Herer -- The Book is Emperor Wears no Cloths.
jackherer.com
I dunno. My 80-year-old-father has seen their flaws and supports de-criminalization now, today. He's a lawyer and a conservative.
that Herer's book is full of half-truths and blatant speculation not based on any horticultural realities.
We are never going to fuel the world with hemp oil. For one, the talk about not needing fertilizer/herbicides for industrial hemp production is BS. Canadian hemp farms fertilize at the same rate as wheat crops. And hemp only out competes weed growth when it's grown for fiber (which is based on how it's planted, not any intrinsic nature of the plant). Seed hemp has to be spaced, leaving room for weeds to grow.
And his little thing about "prove me wrong for $100,000" is disingenuous. He needs to prove his assertions.
Hemp would be an excellent crop, but its function would be rotational rather than as a main crop. It doesn't matter what you grow; planting the same thing in the same place season after season will lead to soil deficiencies...plain and simple.
He made it so clear and easy to understand because he was being either A. untruthful or B. willfully ignorant.
Peter Tosh
Legalize It
Legalize it
Don't criticize it
Legalize it, yeah, yeah
And I will advertise it
Some call it tamjee
Some call it the weed
Some call it Marijuana
Some of them call it Ganja
Nevermind, got to legalize it
Don't criticize it
Legalize it, yeah, yeah
And I will advertise it
Singers smoke it
And players of instrument, too
Legalize it, yeah, yeah
That's the best thing you can do
Doctors smoke it
Nurses smoke it
Judges smoke it
Even the laywers too
So you've got to legalize it
Don't criticize it
Legalize it, yeah, yeah
And I will advertise it
It's good for the flu
It's good for asthma
Good for tuberculosis
Even numara thrombosis
Got to legalize it
Don't criticize it
Legalize it, yeah, yeah
And I will advertise it
Birds eat it
Ants love it
Fowls eat it
Cooks love to bake with it
So you've got to legalize it
Don't criticize it
Legalize it, yeah, yeah
And I will advertise it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6HESjH-Zsg
(From the excellent Documentary .. The UNION)
The first audit of Arizona AIMS testing that shows a drop in scores along with a rise in hooch possession/use in schools will be the end of the pot business.
...should be pardoned immediately. Or is that too many black men out and about?
-
I wonder how many Three Strike victims would never of even been to a Gladiator academy in the first place if it was not for possession of a drug..
You know how it goes.. You get busted with some grass, while you got pulled over because you were driving while black..
You get strike one..
You go to prison... Defend yourself from getting RAPED by shanking some thug.. Strike two..
etc...
Prison is a training ground for real criminal behavior that hurts other people, instead of self-harm pretended-crimes we punish-- criminally.
Not just pardoned, but their convictions stricken from their records. There are many people who would have no criminal records without marijuana convictions.
Their lives, and their careers, would no longer be impeded by phony convictions.
bullets do! Let them keep the guns, just take all the bullets away!:-)
Guns don't kill people. Schmucks who say, "Guns don't kill people" kill people.
you're right you could beat someone to death with a gun and no bullets! We better take away all the baseball bats while we are at it!
At least it's harder for someone to kill you with a baseball bat when he's standing on the other side of the street.
Guns make it easy to kill; OJ killed two people with a knife. Simple solutions for complex problems are not the answer. Societies problems must be salved at the roots!
I'm smoking a joint out of the barrel of my .38 to celebrate this thread.
Consider a vaporizer, instead of smoking. More of what you seek, less of what you don't.
<*!*>
"...ear"
My friend is a Medical user in the UK.. and he adores his Volcano..
They are a bit pricey... but for him 100% worth it.
I think he said he has saved so much money from using it that he could of purchased two and still had change in his pocket
I have one sitting five feet from me. I tried, but the high is different and it irritated my lungs. I'm sure there are better quality ones, but I have tried three and none of them were as good as my old fashioned plastic fantastic loving bong.
It seems to please a friend of mine.
Enjoy your water pipe.
"...ear"
i read the other day there has been 1000 murders in mexico this year. there are 5 drug cartels battling in mexico for dominance in the u.s. it's a 300 billion dollar business. i also heard on npr these drug cartels kidnap people for ransom. this also rid of bodies by dropping bodies into an acid bath. it's a very serious situation.
I read the other day there has been 1000 murders in mexico this year.
That'd be about right: 1000 in two months.
Your tax dollars at work, via NAFTA.
But you don't hafta feel too bad. The cartels are a LOT more careful about 'collateral damage' than is the USer military in Afghanistan. So prob'ly the carcasses are mostly "bad guys."
You know, former "peon" farmers driven off their land and away from their subsistence livelihood by corporatized agriculture in the wake of NAFTA, and the fuelization of corn, come to the border to see if they can scratch a living.
Check into the story of the maquilladora girls being serially, and systematically stalked and slaughtered in Juarez. WAY over 100 of them. Their bodies turn up in fields, empty lots. Brutalized, raped, murdered.
Didja ever hear of a book called "The Devil In The White City?" There are seeming parallels...
Enjoy!
The US, the gun store for the rest of the world. We can blame the NRA and their deep pockets. They're noting but a terrorist organization by making it easier for people to get weapons to kill other people.
NRA - PR Front, Lobby and Political Action Committee for the US arms industry.
The NRA: Nimrods and Retarded Assholes
Except they are using rocket launchers, grenades and full-automatic guns, none of which we can currently purchase.
They aren't getting these from gun shops, most likely the military is supplying them.
wouldn't end til pot was at least decriminalized and the gun-trade was stopped.
That's been the dirty secret all along.
Nobody ever talked about it before, but the math's p[retty simple: For every ton of weed that came a el Norte, an equal weight of fire-power went South. Weapons, ammo, armor. Drug gangs in Juarez had a shoot-out with rpg's a couple of weeks ago.
And by the way, Ginrul Barry McCafferty sucks donkey dongs.
People WITH guns who believe in gods kill people.
has long been useless. Have you ever heard of anyone who wanted drugs being unable to get any? The only thing this "war" has accomplished is to put huge amounts of money into the pockets of the worst elements of society.
around the election...lol
The "War on Drugs" has nationalized and globalized the safety net for the international drug trade, and thereby makes a major contribution to the corruption of local police and all levels of law enforcement, including local, state and federal courts.
It's bad enough what the "War on Drugs" does to users: incarceration, etc. for a (usually) victimless "crime" ..
But the corrosive effect it has on our society as a whole is perhaps even a worse effect of the so-called "War on Drugs."
"Both President Obama and AG Eric Holder have said they want to reinstate the assault weapon ban, hopefully they will be successful"
No, I hope they WON'T be successful on this. If they are, you can kiss the Dem majority in Congress goodbye.
There is something genetically stupid about both parties when it comes to two things: With the Dems, it's gun control. With the Republicans, it's Social Security. The majority of Americans love both, and neither are going anywhere. No matter how many elections are lost over attempts to get rid of SS and ban guns, idiots in both parties keep re-visiting the issue.
Ok, gun banners....Start posting "statistics" from the VPC and the Brady Campaign to "refute" my position on this.
www.liberalswithguns.com
There should be more 'liberals with guns'!
I am with you man.
The more LWGs the better!
You do know that the assault weapons ban really did nothing. The guns you can buy today were still able to be sold during the ban. The only thing the ban did was not alow a pistol grip and it could not be sold with a clip over five rounds. The inner working of the gun is the same. Thats it. Now if the guns used by the cartels are full auto current law bans the selling of this guns to regular folks, you need a special license to buy this guns. You can put all the bans on guns you want, but it has no effect on the black market.
It is estimated that the U.S. government spends around $75 billion in direct and indirect funding of the "War on Drugs", which includes monies to foreign governments. Figure that the states spend another $25 billion or more in enforcement, judiciary and the jailing of the convicted.
By legalizing, regulating and taxing the sale of marijuana, you not only remove $75 billion in expense from the federal budget (enough to pay for SCHIP twice over without the need to raise the taxes again on cigarettes), you could raise billions in taxes to pay for things like bailing out our morbid economy. It would also decrease crime overall and allow local law enforcement to focus on real crimes. The courts wouldn't be full of drug defendants and the jails would have lots of room for white collar criminals.
It is way past time to do the sensible thing. The question is, will the "greatest generation" get the fuck out of the way for this to be accomplished?
Thank you. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Please take the time to read my post on this here Legalize Drugs?. I have been a cop for twelve years and I have seen what drugs to first hand. This is the wrong way.
[Deleted. It's one thing to link to your own blog when your post is germane to our post. Don't blogwhore every time, when it has nothing to do with what we're saying-Sitemonitor]
Get the to thy rhetorical dictionary, and prepare for an assault consisting of false equivalencies, straw men, begging the question, and ad hominem arguments.
The guy may be/have been a cop. Now he's a tool.
never mind...
As a retired 34 I'am here to let you know you are full of shit, who's paying you to put crap like this out there? If you are indeed a police officer,what division did you work for? traffic? juvenile,crossing guard?,public relations perhaps? Any working beat cop will tell you that far more harm is done by the drug laws than any good it might do,which is na-da. The rate of addiction has not changed since the 1920s in spite of laws or enforcement policies. Working in records div or as an office aid to some watch commander gives you no standing at all. I think you're making money off it somehow,other wise why the web-site? just for the public good huh? I got a set of cuffs for you bull-shit artist and info troll. And by the way,you are not the majority, so use your right to remain silent.CEO,citizens,eyes,open.
Unless all citizens are regarded as pre-emptively conscripted to the nation's defense, and ALL citizens are both armed with and trained in the proper, "safe" use of such weapons, there is no reason to allow any one person to exercise the peremptory power that an automatic confers.
I don't trust the folks who want 'em not to turn 'em on me.
Average citizens can't own automatic weapons, so what are we talking about here?
Do you want to ban semi-automatic weapons wholesale? That would pretty much limit lawful gun owners to revolvers and bolt action rifles. Or are you talking about a total ban on all guns?
Isn't that a rather extreme position? How many of your neighbors are lawful gun owners? Have they ever turned their guns on you?
Let's get real here..
I cannot foresee the need of any more fire power than would be supplied by a decent 30-06, or a .357 revolver, unless the guy after me has a semi/automatic. There aren't any animals that I am aware of which are nos susceptible to a single, well-placed round.
Criminals are armed with automatic weapons. So I can't have a glock or a .45?
Who are you to decide what gun a law abiding citizen should own?
I am not suggesting that we be allowed belt fed machine guns or rpgs, but I'd at least like something from the last century.. Besides, a revolver fires one bullet per pull just like a semi auto pistol. What's the difference?
doen not allow the ownership of guns greater than 22 caliber. And look how messed up THEIR society is today.
So following with England the next step would be a sword ban..
Look here:
http://www.autoweapons.com/
Machine guns for collectors and users. [Right on the internet.]
ALL PRICES IN US $$CHECK OR MONEY ORDER ONLY.
PRICES QUOTED WILL HOLD UNTIL 12:00 MIDNIGHT EST OF DAY QUOTED
NO CREDIT CARDS ACCEPTED FOR OUT-OF-STATE CLASS 3 PURCHASES.
ALL SALES FINAL. 50% CANCELLATION FEE APPLIES
Do you want to purchase a Class 3 item? These include Silencers, Sort barreled rifles, and Machine Guns
http://www.autoweapons.com/pagelinks/buyandse...
It's not that simple.
can you imagine how much worse that shooting at the Knoxville Universalist church could have been or the more recent shootings in Portland, Oregon or Miramar Beach, Florida...
With the increase in skinhead activity, how much less safe will our President be with assault weapons around?
Just saying..
By the way, civilians can't own assault rifles or fully automatic weapons generally. As I've been saying.
So what weapons are you talking about?
Of course, I think we should be locking up skinheads wholesale. I've despised their ilk since my days as a skater in the 80's. They spread nothing but hate and violence. There shouldn't be any problem finding reasons to put them away, most are shady as hell, totally criminals.
..that the government never will?
Stay in line for work-camp assignments.
Another uninformed argument.
This is not about AUTOMATIC weapons. Do you even know the differences?
Perhaps you ought to learn what makes a weapon an automatic, semi-automatic, and the cosmetically applied "assault" weapon.
Personally, I think the US is long overdue in reassessing it's stance on certain illegal drugs, maryjane in particular. While, the current policy benefits a number of institutional entities (private prison operators, law enforcement agencies, and criminals), the revenue lost from possible taxation of controlled substances is staggering. Such revenues could go a long way in curing the financial and budgetary crisis' our nation faces. Legalization makes sense on many levels, but perhaps the best argument is financial.
Now on the other side of the coin; I view with extreme skepticism the view of the ATF / FBI that civilians are providing mexicans with illegal arms. The drug cartels are heavily armed with fully automatic weapons and military ordinance (such as grenades, bombs, and RPG's) that are not available to common Americans.
There are only a few states, such as Nevada, that allow private ownership of fully automatic weapons and only after a full ATF background check. Those weapons are registered and tracked and their sale is strictly regulated. In most states, only people with a certain class of gun dealer license may possess automatic weapons.
It is far more likely that US organized crime organizations are providing their counterparts in Mexico with these weapons. It is also possible that US Arms manufacturers are involved in these illicit sales (which are likely very profitable).
By and large, only semi-automatic weapons are currently available to civilians in the USA.
This brings me to my issue with the proposed reinstatement of the 'assaut weapons ban'. The question is "what is an assault weapon?"
Essentially, where such a ban fails is in a murky and subjective view of what an 'assault weapon' is.
I'll pose a question here; lets say I have two rifles that are both semi-automatic (meaning one pull of the trigger fires one bullet) and both fire .762 ammunition. One of these is a rifle of a traditional configuration (paddle shaped shoulder stock with no pistol grip) and the other is a civilian spec (semi-auto) AK47 clone. How are these two rifles functionally different?
They shoot the same ammo and neither are capable of fully automatic fire. So, why should a person seeking to legally own a semi-automatic .762 rifle be able to buy the one but not the other? They are functionally the same.
What really makes a long gun a bona fide 'assault rifle' is select fire, or the ability to fire semi or fully automatically (meaning one pull of the trigger can empty the magazine) with the flip of a switch. These types of guns are generally unavailable to civilians.
Where the prior AWB failed and was unjust, was in restricting the ability of law abiding citizens to own certain guns based on nothing more than their configuration. The whole idea was absurd and it certainly didn't stop criminals (here or in Mexico) from obtaining automatic weapons. Those weapons have been restricted for decades in the US.
Now before you think me a troll, I have to say I am a life-long democrat and have voted as such in every election since I was eligible ('88). However, this is the one issue where the rank and file progressives loose me. I just totally disagree.
Law abiding citizens should not be prevented from owning the firearms of their choice (within reason). I see nothing wrong with restricting fully automatic weapons, as there is no need for civilians to own those. However when you are banning one weapon that is functionally identical to another legal firearm, simply because of its configuration, that makes no sense at all.
Further more criminals tend not to use legally obtained guns (registered and traceable in their names). As such, laws like the AWB only limit the rights of lawful gun owners. This is not fair.
That said, I do think much more rigorous enforcement of current gun laws are definitely in order. I also see no problem with limiting the amount of firearms an individual can buy in a given time period or imposing longer waiting periods or background checks.
This might be a minority opinion here, but I am sticking to it.
Charming- ignorance and hidden agenda leaped right out at me as I read this post. As you imply... the "assault weapons ban" did not really ban anything... anyone who writes the nonsense written above about the assault weapons ban does not know the first thing about firearms... the author is claiming that a ban on nothing lifted has caused all kinds of mexican narcos to obtain guns and kill people...
What I am saying is that the Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) did not stop the cartels in Mexico, Street Thugs in Compton, or Organized Crime in Chicago, or criminals anywhere from obtaining fully automatic weapons. Nor have similar measures in other countries.
Those types of weapons have always been available to criminals, via the black market, before, during, and since the Ban. There have always been organizations and individuals ready to meet the demand for illegal firearms. Illicit gun trafficing is a highly profitable black market, no different from the drug one. Hence the two going hand in hand.
I also highlighted the fact that US Civilians have generally been unable to obtain fully automatic weapons in this country for decades in nearly all 50 states, without a certain class of Gun Dealer License, background checks, etc. The kinds of automatic weapons used by the Cartels and Crime syndicates have never been available to average US Civilians.
The AWB was pure politics, banning one rifle because it had a pistol grip and a military 'look' while allowing a mechanically identical weapon without said features. All it did was abridge the rights of law abiding citizens and restrict their ability to obtain certain types of firearms. It never stopped the criminals.
There's no agenda here. Those are the facts.
..that the drug cartels have only been using fully automatic weapons and other military ordinance since 2007 when the assault weapons ban expired?
Seriously..
Great comment. thanks for clearing it up for the gun-ignorant.
...and other drugs, and making them cheaply available, will take care of Mexican drug lords buying weapons from US gun dealers. The only reason that the drug trade has become so ruthless is because drugs are illegal. Because they are illegal, drug providers can charges many, many times what drugs are inherently worth. The war on drugs has done nothing but create an unrealistic pricing structure, in which cost of production and distribution is low, but profits are extreme. It's capitalism,ganster style. If something this profitable is illegal, and you have an arm of the government whose only effectiveness is in making sure there is no competition, it's going to be too big a temptation for criminal types like the gangsters (or the CIA) to resist. They're going to go for broke. Minimum costs, moderate risks, profits beyond the dreams of greed and avarice. Capitalism at it best.
You want to take the criminal element out of the equation, legalize marijuana, and whatever else people demand. Legalize it, but make it so readily available, and cheaply available, that the extreme profitablility evaporates. End of criminal element involvement. They will have to go into another business,and it's not likely to be so obscenely profitable that they wage wars over it. This is exactly the situation we had with organized crime back during prohibition.
Gun bans aren't going to stop any of this, so long as drugs are illegal and the artificial supports created by that legal status remain. They've got the money, and the weapons market is global. It will take them only about 5 seconds to adjust, if that long.
I'm not a gun owner, but I think that when at least half of the elected politicians are dedicated to the idea of a police state that allegedly is created in order to "protect" freedom, it's a stupid idea to be weakening the right to bear arms...not with the patriot acts, military commissions act, loss of posse commitatus, habeus corpus, indefinite detentions, remissioning of military combat commands for operations against the American public, FEMA detention facilities or a president who is reserving the rights of a "unitary executive" for himself and thinks things like spying on Americans is an acceptable idea. Far as I'm concerned, citizens should be able to own any weapon that would likely be used angainst them by a government that's forgotten what it is supposed to be about.
Thank you! I thought I was totally alone here.
I think were just about all on the same page here.
withour firearms in the hands of resposible citizens americans are at the mercy of the government! no thnx i dont trust any government! ill keep mine but thnx for the concern!
I trust my neighbors more than politicians.
Watchfully.
I don't know if he's got any experience with a gun.
I have.
But if he goes off, my experience isn't really gonna help me, izzit?
Full autos (UZIs, Tech-9s, etc.) are already illegal or "fee-prohibitive". The "assault weapons" ban does not do what most people think. The name sounds so "common-sense" doesn't it? Just like the "PATRIOT" act. Assault weapons...mmm,yes..bad. Just making a something that looks "evil" illegal will do nothing but alienate a huge block of gun owners to the Democratic party. Oh, wait...it will also drive up prices and create a black market. Sound familiar? Someone who favors drug legalization should know better.
There are too many issues that I do agree with, which is why I vote democratic 100% of the time. This is despite my views on gun control. I am not a 'one issue voter', however, many people are. Especially avid gun sportsman. Some of them may otherwise agree with progressive priciples, be pro labor/union, pro universal healthcare, etc. Those folks definitely get alienated.
your personal armory ain't gonna do you shit for good.
Ruby Ridge? Waco? Hey, they're all dead, guns and all. Din't do 'em shit for good. If the State wants you, they're gonna getcha.
OTOH, I cannot think of a single animal that I might encounter, and that might pose a mortal threat to me, sufficient that I might have to kill it to survive, which I couldn't dispatch with a fully-loaded 30-06 or .357/9mm. Not one. Can you?
actually know our neighbors. I take my chances walking past the brown bears.
nt
i can take a few with me!thats better then nothing!
i'm betting, as far as killers go, you're not in their league...
I know i'm not, and I've had some training..
very true. I wouldn't want to tangle with some SWAT team..
me to korea 52 t0 55, i know my way around weapons !
Your dead meat in the street...
no offense...my war was a decade later, and I'd be dead meat in the street...
wont be on the streets ever heard of gorrlia warefare!besides my leggs arent broke and im as good with a piece as i ever was , and love to camp out!
More than a few folk I know have a pack ready to grab for unexpected events.
If you wanna go play red dawn, enjoy.
you'll die...
s'okay...
Woody are you saying that if yoiu run away you will die tired?
seconds in which i shall have either to kill an antagonist or escape. After 30 seconds, at the adrenaline rate require, my heart will explode.
gonna die anyway!
that, once exposed, people are more addicted to guns than marajuana.
to deferring to external authority rather than thinking for themselves
they respect the gun.
I'm not stoned and I still can't figure out what you mean.
'strue.
Tyree?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHB-vWLZNu8&fe...
... that assault weapon ownership likely causes the government. Anything that would give pause to would be despots.
As for the state coming after one person, sure. It's not going to do the individual much good. Same for if the state goes after a few. But there would reach a point were there would be a backlash. People would start going after the state.
just when do you expect it?
but, with the laws and executive orders that are on the books, it could happen at any time, under any administration. All that's needed is the provocation or the excuse.
Myself, I saw all the fighting and killing I ever want to see when I was in the service. If it came to something like the police state finally dropping the jackboot, I'd just leave the country.
I totally agree.
I haven't shot "at" living thing in 40 years.
I remember the last thing I killed: a magpie, on the wing, with that .22 i mentioned earlier, at about 100 yards. Lucky shot, really. I'd just got back. I felt sick.
Have no desire to start again.
exactly paul even storm troopers dont want to die!
So what? What if I just want to go down to the range and shoot.
For the fun of it.
I don't want to own an arsenal. Hell, I don't own any guns at all.
I am not interested in my own personal 'ruby ridge'. However, I could see getting into it as a hobby. I've had fun when offered the chance to shoot a gun. When, done safely, its a hoot.
What's your problem?
I shoot too.
Won the usaf marksman's badge, way back.
usta be a pretty good shot.
i have a .22 with an 18-round tube feed.
izzit an assault rifle?
if i were assaulting a scout troop...
That's funny.
That's what I was referring to.
Kudo's on your USAF Service.
though i displayed no valor at all...
One thing, though: vets share something somebody who hasn't done it won't likely ever understand.
not 'good' nor 'bad', but really different, out of the ordinary...nobody ever forgets bootcamp
Honorable nonetheless. (valor or not)
BTW - I wasn't trying to be a prick with my commentary.
I just think a more balanced approach to the gun issue would benefit my (our) party and I think the AWB isn't just policy for the reasons I cited.
Do I think the average guy needs a .50 cal desert eagle?
Nope, but I bet it would be fun at the range!
As said, I don't own any guns. There are a couple I'd like to own, just to have & shoot every now and then. However, they'd probably get banned if the AWB was reenacted.
I really like SIG arms new 522LR, which is a 22 cal semi-auto version of their classic 556. (see here) I just think it looks cool and it would be a nice 'starter rifle' for me. I also really like the FS200, from Fabrique Nationale. It has a real futuristic look to it with a compact bullpup layout.
I don't want to start a war or commit a crime. I just think they're cool.
Is it a semi-auto? If so, it can be. Ever heard of inertial firing?
either we all get our own personal nuke or get rid of the state.
they'll stone you when you're trying to be so good
They'll stone you just like they said they would
They'll stone you when you're trying to go home
They'll stone you when you're there all alone
But I would not feel so all alone
Everybody must get stoned
...some memories.
;)
"Since George Bush allowed the assault weapons ban to expire, the gun smuggling trade in the U.S. has skyrocketed and many of these weapons are ending up in the hands of Mexican drug lords and are responsible for thousands of murders."
The "assault weapons ban" did not really ban anything... let me get this straight... you are claiming that lifting a ban on nothing has had some kind of profound impact on gun violence in Mexico? That is more than a stretch...
Other than that... I say leagalize it!
Why does the world's "capitalist" leader, always blame other nations for their citizens habits? Without a "demand" there would be no "supply".
The latest fearmongering fingerpoint articles, is the US State Dept, saying that the problem with Ecstasy, is it's all coming from Canada.
Canada is No. 1 source for ecstasy in U.S., State Department says
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/02/27/can...
I read that article, and then read some of the comments in the comment section. This one caught my eye. What do you think?
Over 200 people hifived this post!!
201
202
We forgot the notion of accountability a long time ago. It is gone at the national level and from many individuals as well.
there is a cognitive disconnect when one country hands out the death penalty for suppliers, while the next country hands slaps hands or legalizes it for consumption.
That is why when the drug war ends in california, it by necessity needs to end in south america, afghanistan, etc.
So, are the principles here that a citizen should be allowed to spend their money on whatever they want, as long as they do not commit a crime in the process? And that we should respect others who choose to do so in a different manner than ourselves?
Or do we just want to control other people by criminalizing the ownership of inanimate objects that we disapprove of?
If your principles do not hold just because you change the noun from “drugs” to “guns” (or vice versa), then they are not principles, they are hypocrisy.
You have a point there. Better said than where I was going..
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?st...
Above is a profound article on the problem in foreign policy by Sam Quinones
"Goddard points out that the vast majority of the drug cartel's income comes from the sale of marijuana which begs the questions - is it time. . ."
I just hate it when people mistakenly use "beg the question." The issue is *Petitio Principii*; it doesn't mean to be urged to ask a further question.
Petitio principii!
the proper usage would be "Invites the further question," or something.
I am immediately uspicious of the education of ANYONE who misuses that one. Fuukin PARVENUS...
no, i am NOT joking
serious as a heart attack.
It's a dead cert "tell," what they call it in poker.
Somebody misuses that trope, I know from the jump I'm talkin' to a poseur...Gay-Rawn-TEED, cher...
I'd trade in a gun for a bag of pot any day. At least, you can't kill a person, or yourself, with a joint.
Login or Register to post comments.