Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Gouging out your own eye to help your neighbor see better

Gun control debate hangs over U.S.-Mexico violence

WASHINGTON – Members of Congress may be alarmed by the surge in Mexican drug violence and its potential to spill across the border, but they grow silent when the talk turns to gun control as a solution. [Yup, nothing like fear of not winning re-election to shut a politician's mouth; so, these creatures can be taught simple tricks, eh?]

With related kidnappings and killings occurring in the U.S., the Obama administration is likely to shift dozens of enforcement agents and millions of dollars to the fight against Mexican drug cartels. [A losing proposition, as the War on Drugs is unwinnable, and those without a vested interest in keeping it going (law enforcement, to name one) and a scintilla of sense know that.]

Underscoring the Obama administration's concern over the violence and the potential for a large-scale spillover into the United States, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will travel to Mexico on Wednesday to show support for its crackdown on drug cartels. [Oh, "the potential" for violence to come to the US. Yes, let's legislate on the "potential" of something that hasn't happened. Sure, why not? It helps distract attention from the FedGov's abject failure to protect its citizens from financial fraud, and it makes the pols seem like they're efficient go-getters, when, of course, they are not.]

Mexico has long tried to get the United States to curtail the number of guns — many purchased legally — that wind up south of the border, where gun laws are much stricter. The State Department says firearms obtained in the U.S. account for an estimated 95 percent of Mexico's drug-related killings. [So, in essence, what this paragraph is saying is that strict gun laws do not prevent murders (so why have them?). Also, I like how the word "estimated" is thrown in there. Whose estimate is that, what's it based on, and from which orifice did they pull that figure? Nonsense like this is easy to see through, unless you're a weak-minded dolt, and we have millions of them in the US--basically anyone who votes Republican or Democrat because they think there is no alternative.]

"If President Calderon's policies to roll back organized crime are to be successful, we need to defang the power of the drug syndicates to inflict damage upon our state, local and police forces," Arturo Sarukhan, the Mexican ambassador to the United States, said in January. "The best way we can do that is for a real ratcheting up of the United States' capabilities of shutting down the flow of weapons." ["Flow of weapons," could you please quantify that? Heck, one or two guns (or knives, or baseball bats, etc.) could be a "flow of weapons." You know, I agree with the ambassador on one point: we should ratchet up the US' capabilities by building a wall from one end of the border to the other, patrolling it incessantly, and shooting any Mexican citizens who happen crawl over or under it. That would cut down on the imaginary "flow of weapons" in one direction and the very real flow of illegal immigrants in the other.]

"I don't think the solution to Mexico's problems is to limit Second Amendment gun rights in this country," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, chairman of the Senate GOP's election committee. "What we can do is help our Mexican friends enforce their own laws." [Now here's a politician with his finger firmly in the wind. He's right, except about the part where "we" (the US) should help Mexico enforce its own laws; I missed that part of the US Constitution.]

For his part, Obama has signaled a willingness to tighten restrictions on guns, calling the flow of drug money and guns "a two-way situation." Yet 65 Democrats said in a letter to Holder that they would oppose any attempt by the administration to revive a ban on military-style weapons. ["Obama has signaled a willingness to tighten restrictions on guns." Really? Just a "willingness?" I'll bet he's foaming at the mouth at the prospect.]

Tom Diaz, an analyst at the Violence Policy Center, a gun [banning] control group, said cartels use military-style weapons such as the Armalite AR-50, a .50-caliber sniper rifle. ["Military-style weapons"...so the guns just have to look like military weapons, but not really be military weapons? Now we're talking about cosmetics?]

Semiautomatic rifles used by the cartels [Why would a drug-runner use a semiautomatic rifle when fully-automatic rifles are readily available from former Eastern-bloc countries, and corrupt soldiers in the Mexican army itself? These drug gangs have enough money to get practically anything they want, so why would they mess around with the relatively slower firepower of a semi-auto? The answer is they wouldn't.] are imported legally into the U.S. as "sporting" weapons, a policy that was stopped for years but revived under President George W. Bush. [I see, lay the blame at Bush's feet. The policy was "revived" because its ten-year lifespan expired--Bush had nothing to do with it. Not that I'm a fan of Bush, I'm glad he's gone, but let's at least try to act like an unbiased reporter, okay SUZANNE GAMBOA?]

Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., who chaired a hearing on guns going to Mexico, said he is not seeking widespread gun control [No, that would be too ambitious. Just another nick in the Death of a Thousand Cuts gun owners are enduring will do.] but Congress must do something. [Even if it's the wrong thing. Hey, portraying a situation with an aura of desperation demanding extreme exigence worked like gangbusters for the TARP fiasco, so why not trot out the ploy again for this circumstance? If you really want to do something, as I said above, make the border as impenetrable as humanly possible. Until you do that, Tierney, you're just wanking around.]

"We don't want to get distracted by the gun industry lobby of the NRA trying to talk about (how) every attempt to bring some sanity to the situation is somehow an attempt to get rid of everybody's Second Amendment rights," he said. "That's a red herring." [I see. So any discussion that runs contrary to the course of action you've already decided upon should somehow be dismissed as a distraction? Further suppressing the God-given and Constitutionally-guaranteed rights of US citizens is somehow bringing "sanity" to a situation? No thanks, fool.]


Honestly, if this is the best ploy the Obama administration can come up with to further suppress our rights, and I don't want to get over confident, but I believe we have little to fear as gun owners. If this is the best argument they can proffer for another AWB, then this is a sorry, incompetent administration with such a paucity of ideas that they may make the Carter administration look good.

Take care.

1 comment:

Milwaukee Condoman said...

Guns and drugs will always be a problem but with the current situation that the administration is facing, problems that have been inherited from Bush's administration and years, years back I think this is a very important issue that should also be taken into consideration.