EDITORIAL: Global gun control (Washington Times)

[stevie_d_64]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... n-control/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Monday, March 16, 2009

There may good reasons for deploying the National Guard along the U.S.-Mexican border, but illegal firearms isn't one of them.

The administration recently launched a study to examine whether soldiers should patrol the Southern border to staunch the flow of firearms headed for drug dealers in Latin America. The silence you hear is the concern about armed drug gangs headed here. In short, the administration seems more concerned about the guns going south than the non-citizens streaming north.

"We're going to examine whether and if National Guard deployment would make sense," the president said. We look forward to seeing the study.

(in other words we are gleefully deciding if the time is right to enact our gun-control agenda at this time...)

Stopping vicious Mexican drug gangs is surely a noble goal, as those gangs killed an estimated 6,000 people in Mexico last year. We also have a serious gang problem. The U.S. Department of Justice now estimates that 80 percent of U.S. crime is linked to gangs and drugs.

Yet, at least part of the president's plan is doomed to fail: Stopping Mexican gangs from getting guns will prove as difficult as stopping them from getting the drugs that they sell.

We are losing the drug war. Despite Mexico's strenuous efforts, our neighbor hasn't been able to stop the transnational flow of drugs through Mexico from other Latin American countries. Our own government hasn't done much better stopping contraband.

We won't do any better with guns. The drugs are extremely valuable and drug lords have many enemies, ranging from governments to rival gangs. So gangs have powerful incentives to own guns-to defend their lives and property-and access to vast smuggling networks.

Even digging a moat between the U.S. and Mexico wouldn't stop the flow of guns. Consider the experience of island nations -Ireland, Jamaica, and the United Kingdom- all of which saw murder rates climb after guns were banned. In the land of the disarmed, the one-gun man is king.

Certainly the Mexicans deserve our help when they investigate and prosecute gun murders in their country (no they don't, they want us to "feel" guilty about their problems), just as we deserve their aid when we prosecute drug kingpins here. If we are going to talk about deploying armies on the border, shouldn't the administration ask the Mexicans to deploy their army to stem the tide of migrants headed here?

Do you get the notion we are about to get setup???

[nuparadigm]

I believe that we've already been "set-up". Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos, Jose Compean and Gary Brugman were the first three victims of the scenario. The Bush administration has some inexplicable (and still undefined) tie to Mexican politicos that prevented him from pardoning them. It appears as if Obama might have similar issues of control.

Now, the scene shifts from persecution law enforcement to the desire for the possibility of the suppression of citizens' rights in this country. I can understand that Mexico doesn't want arms going South, but the Obama administration would be selling us down the river (no pun intended) if it didn't demand a total cessation of illegals coming North.

Don't get me wrong, I'm willing to continue to deal with the illegals no matter what. It's just that even the mention of suppression of our civil rights without asking for reciprocity from the Mexicans reaffirms my belief that Our Leader is worse than inept: he doesn't even know how to haggle!