Page 1 of 2

interesting read on fox

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 11:32 am
by DONT TREAD ON ME
Stephen Clark wrote:The Obama administration's plan to force new reporting requirements on thousands of gun dealers near the Mexico border is under fire from members of his own party.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01 ... z1B1nOvicq" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: interesting read on fox

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 11:37 am
by RPB
Hmmm ... maybe some want to get re-elected and are using the reins on the runaway horse to try to achieve that goal.

Re: interesting read on fox

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 11:39 am
by DONT TREAD ON ME
RPB wrote:Hmmm ... maybe some want to get re-elected and are using the reins on the runaway horse to try to achieve that goal.
Maybe but most if not all the Dems that oppose it are from gun friendly states, Alaska and Montana.

Not all Dems are against RTKBA just like not all Repubs are for RTKBA. I think it matters on where you are from.

Re: interesting read on fox

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 2:40 pm
by Katygunnut
The article says "Mexico's drug war has claimed more than 30,000 lives since President Felipe Calderon launched a crackdown on the powerful drug cartels shortly after assuming control in late 2006. ATF tracks the weapons found in Mexico and has linked tens of thousands of recovered guns to U.S. dealers."

Aside from the incorrect implication that the ATF tracks all weapons "found" in Mexico, the number is blantantly incorrect, I believe. All other sources I have seen show the number of weapons seized in Mexico and successfully tracked to US sources as just over 5,000. I didn't expect this type of blatant error in a Fox News article.

Also interesting is this quote from the Brady Bunch guy:

"It makes sense that law enforcement should be alerted if someone is buying five, 10 or 100 assault weapons, when it's likely that those guns could be headed to drug cartels in Mexico," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign."

Almost seems like he is offering a compromise requirement to only report if someone buys say 10 "assault weapons" at a time. Personally, I would agree with the reporting requirement on 100 or more in one purchase, but that's as far as I would go.

Re: interesting read on fox

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 2:45 pm
by RPB
I still bet that Mexican criminals can get them cheaper in Brazil. Venezuela, and Argentina without paying the US taxes and doing the paperwork here. I'm thinkin many of the 5,000 found were legally purchased and stolen in burglaries maybe.

A plight which wouldn't occur if they weren't invited guests, oh I mean here illegally.

Re: interesting read on fox

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 2:56 pm
by Katygunnut
RPB wrote:I still bet that Mexican criminals can get them cheaper in Brazil. Venezuela, and Argentina without paying the US taxes and doing the paperwork here. I'm thinkin many of the 5,000 found were legally purchased and stolen in burglaries maybe.

A plight which wouldn't occur if they weren't invited guests, oh I mean here illegally.
Someone may correct me on this, but I believe that the 5,000 were sourced to the US in general, not specifically to US gun dealers. I'd expect that the vast majority of those were given to the Mexican military by the US government and then somehow found their way into the hands of the drug cartels.

Re: interesting read on fox

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 3:00 pm
by RPB
Katygunnut wrote:
RPB wrote:I still bet that Mexican criminals can get them cheaper in Brazil. Venezuela, and Argentina without paying the US taxes and doing the paperwork here. I'm thinkin many of the 5,000 found were legally purchased and stolen in burglaries maybe.

A plight which wouldn't occur if they weren't invited guests, oh I mean here illegally.
Someone may correct me on this, but I believe that the 5,000 were sourced to the US in general, not specifically to US gun dealers. I'd expect that the vast majority of those were given to the Mexican military by the US government and then somehow found their way into the hands of the drug cartels.
You may be right, I hadn't thought of that.... wouldn't be the first time our Gov't supplies other countries with weapons which get used against us.

Re: interesting read on fox

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 3:30 pm
by woodsong
Katygunnut wrote: I'd expect that the vast majority of those were given to the Mexican military by the US government and then somehow found their way into the hands of the drug cartels.
The Mexican military doesn't use AR and AK -- they're HK. It's the Mexican police who use AR's -- and are the source for the drug cartels.

Re: interesting read on fox

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 3:34 pm
by RPB
woodsong wrote:
Katygunnut wrote: I'd expect that the vast majority of those were given to the Mexican military by the US government and then somehow found their way into the hands of the drug cartels.
The Mexican military doesn't use AR and AK -- they're HK. It's the Mexican police who use AR's -- and are part of, and in "cahoots with" the drug cartels.
ca·hoots/kəˈho͞ots/
Noun: Colluding or conspiring together secretly.



fixed it for you :mrgreen:

Re: interesting read on fox

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 3:36 pm
by philip964
There is no crime and gun deaths in Mexico, as guns are illegal in Mexico.

All we have to do to make the US as safe as Mexico is to ban all guns.

Re: interesting read on fox

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 3:42 pm
by A-R
RPB wrote:I still bet that Mexican criminals can get them cheaper in Brazil. Venezuela, and Argentina without paying the US taxes and doing the paperwork here.
I really wish a conservative publication with the resources to do this - are you listening Wall Street Journal? - would send reporters down to Mexico's southern border to prove that our assumptions are correct. Of course, then you still have to get all the other MSM sources to admit they were wrong and run WSJ's reporting. But hey, gotta start somewhere.

Re: interesting read on fox

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:48 pm
by PappaGun
Katygunnut wrote: ... Personally, I would agree with the reporting requirement on 100 or more in one purchase, but that's as far as I would go.
I disagree.

Today 100, then 31, then 30, then 10, then each and every stinking one.

Give em an in and you will regret it.

Re: interesting read on fox

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 2:31 am
by DONT TREAD ON ME
PappaGun wrote:
Katygunnut wrote: ... Personally, I would agree with the reporting requirement on 100 or more in one purchase, but that's as far as I would go.
I disagree.

Today 100, then 31, then 30, then 10, then each and every stinking one.

Give em an in and you will regret it.
:iagree:

Re: interesting read on fox

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 4:39 am
by Bullwhip
More dead bodies just to keep people from choosing their recreational drugs.

Once upon a time "drug gangs" peddled liquor. They stopped shooting each other in 1933 when prohibition stopped. Other drug gangs still do it because other drugs are illegal.

"Drug control" is just like "gun control", it only stops the law abiding people, and the black market gets more expensive and more violent to supply the demand.

Re: interesting read on fox

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 5:06 am
by DONT TREAD ON ME
Bullwhip wrote:More dead bodies just to keep people from choosing their recreational drugs.

Once upon a time "drug gangs" peddled liquor. They stopped shooting each other in 1933 when prohibition stopped. Other drug gangs still do it because other drugs are illegal.

"Drug control" is just like "gun control", it only stops the law abiding people, and the black market gets more expensive and more violent to supply the demand.
I don't think that "drug control" is just like gun control. I also do not think that all drugs should be illegal. The majority of drugs should remain illegal but not all. I will not go into which ones I think should be one what side but there are good reasons that most drugs are illegal and they should stay that way.

Legalizing all drugs is not, IMO, the way to handle this nor will it stop the violence.