PDA

View Full Version : The "90% myth" comes from Obama, now


HarrySchell
April 17, 2009, 06:17 PM
I am getting a little worried. The "90% of Mexican cartel guns come from the US" meme has been discredited by Mexican authorities, BATF, Holder has backed off on pushing it, in the last week or longer(?)...and Obama repeats it again today.

Is he out of touch? Is he unable to learn any fact that doesn't support what he wants to do? Stupid? Unbalanced? Willing to lie blatantly if he thinks he will advance his agenda? Thinks no one notices when he lies through his teeth or is blatantly and clearly doesn't know the facts of an issue?

If this is a taste of what is to come, we are in for some hard sledding. You cannot make public policy based on facts that don't exist and expect to have ANYTHING work out well. The whole dialogue of what to do is corrupted, on any issue, not just this one.

The DHS report on us right-wing 2A supporters makes more sense than this, but maybe it is all of a piece with the leftist wonderland these clowns occupy. Only problem is these wingnuts control much of government. They have a lot of guns, a lot of power.

Past frustrated, now spooked. What the hell is going on?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


MEXICO CITY | Meeting face-to-face with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, President Obama on Thursday said the U.S. is to blame for much of Mexico's drug violence, and he set up a major congressional gun-control battle by calling on the Senate to ratify a treaty designed to track and cut the flow of guns to other countries.

Mr. Obama said he wants to renew a ban on some semiautomatic weapons but that it is not likely to pass Congress. Instead, he called for the Senate to ratify a decade-old hemispherewide treaty that would require nations to mark all weapons produced in the country and track them to make sure no weapons were exported to countries where they were banned.

"I will not pretend that this is Mexico's responsibility alone. The demand for these drugs in the United States is what's helping keep these cartels in More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border." business," Mr. Obama said at a joint news conference with Mr. Calderon. "This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States.

Read more at:
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/17/obama-blames-us-guns-in-mexico/

KLRANGL
April 17, 2009, 06:31 PM
The demand for these drugs in the United States is what's helping keep these cartels in business.
Oh, the libertarian in me is crying out in pain right now...

Dont you think its ironic that if you ban all military style rifles in the US, the cartels would benefit by getting something else to illegally import for profit?
Or maybe im just crazy...

HarrySchell
April 17, 2009, 06:36 PM
KLRANGL,

Even if they don't bring them in and sell them, these cartels transport tons of illegal drugs across continents.

The idea of a gun ban in the US keeping weapons out of their hands doesn't pass a giggle test. Fantasy. But Obama does ride a unicorn... :barf:

Brian Pfleuger
April 17, 2009, 06:37 PM
Is he out of touch? Is he unable to learn any fact that doesn't support what he wants to do?

Dude! They just haven't updated the teleprompter yet, give it another week.:rolleyes:

KLRANGL
April 17, 2009, 07:29 PM
KLRANGL,

Even if they don't bring them in and sell them, these cartels transport tons of illegal drugs across continents.
Im not sure how that applies to what I said... :confused:
Of course they transport illegal drugs across continents. I was just pointing out the irony that if you ban "assault rifles" then they can illegally import (and profit on) those as well.

HarrySchell
April 17, 2009, 09:02 PM
Klrangl,
You are right, my comment doesn't apply to your observation, which is dead nuts on. And I expect it would occur...gangs here need auto and semi-auto weapons, maybe the market would open up to smugglers more if Bama and Holder get their dream done.

I figure that relatively few gun dealers consciously sell weapons to felons, much less AW's. So, if my thought is accurate, the supply of AW's in criminal hands is either pretty small and already involves some nature of illegal activity, though I suspect it is unlikely people are smuggling semiauto AR's INTO the US.

I suspect the supply is pretty small, because the use of AW's in crime, I believe, is very small, though any use...think Oakland (which involved an SKS legal in CA if not in the hands of a felon)...gets lots of media attention. And CA has effectively an AWB, since 1994. CA DOJ does everything they can do to eliminate AW's. If you have one (registered, of course) and die in CA, they take the weapon and destroy it. Relatives? Last will and testament? Say what? We gotta get that evil rifle before it kills someone.

But you are right, to the extent criminals want the weapons, the cartels will meet the need and make money from it. Same for cigarettes, with the new fed taxes on them. As the British will not admit, guns are freely available in London if you know the right people. And Britain is an island, with all semi-close coastlines belonging to states which have "stronger" gun controls than the US. Um, it don't work, this lovely idea we all will get along just for the heck of it. Evil is. Guns are for killing (as well as sport) but killing bad guys also happens. It is not always that guns are used for crime and mayhem. Brady et. al. only see one side of the issue. That is the best way to embarrass them.

The irony is bittersweet, for the misery created by general "who cares" attitude about law, truth, etc. The overall social compact of trusting another person degrades as more people look with amusement at the efforts of lawmakers to control the world and bend it to their tiny minds.

The descent of our daily mores is pretty clear, and the efforts of mindless politicians to lie their way out of tight spots (Chris Dodd and Barney Frank come to mind as the most recent, but the best one was the guy who redefined "is", and got away with it) only emphasizes the advantages of a slickly presented but amoral outlook on life. No wonder the trial bar makes a four page agreement from 1990 into 24 pages today.

The rebuild of Ground Zero in NYC is decades away because there are 93 (?) different "stakeholders" (people who must be pleased but who have nothing except their own satisfaction at risk) trying to make themselves happy.

To bring this semi-rant back onto point, Obama today repeated the "90% of cartel guns come from the US" crap, after it has been decisively disproved so that his own AG won't repeat it. When POTUS either is delusional, uninformed or a damn liar, what responsibility devolves to the rest of us to get our facts straight and think rather than emote?

A fish rots from the head down, say the Chinese. I think they are right.

Ironic indeed that the dunce Obama would enrich the cartels with weapon sales in the US.

Forgive me for bringing a lot of other issues into this. I think we have a general problem, the role of law and government. It touches everything, not just our right as humans to effective self-defense. I expect I am off-point for what is intended for this forum, but IMO we cannot look at the right of self-defense (as opposed to "gun rights"...see the difference?) in isolation to the general political trends in this republic with regard to the role of government(s) and citizens.

Jim March
April 17, 2009, 11:16 PM
This is bad. If Obama is willing to flat-out lie on a point like this, it means he thinks he has most of the media with him no matter what he does.

That has implications far beyond guns.

Re4mer
April 18, 2009, 12:36 AM
What I find to be so ridiculous is that for as long as I can remember liberals have been against any kind of Mexican boarder control even though for years tons of drugs have come across our boarder from their country. Yet now that some guns from the U.S. are being smuggled and hurting their people its all of a sudden a big problem. The hypocrisy is unreal. Where were all these do-gooder politicians when American was being overrun by a flood of illegal immigrants and drugs from Mexico?

JohnKSa
April 18, 2009, 01:22 AM
... liberals have been against any kind of Mexican boarder control...And they still are. They don't want to tighten up the border, they want to limit gun sales in the U.S.

Tain't about border control, it's about gun control.

freakintoguns
April 18, 2009, 01:56 AM
IMO self defense is being wahsed out in this country, or at least attempts are being made to wash it out. 10 years ago i graduated high school, 14 mid school. in mid school if someone came up and punched, kicked, slapped, or did what ever to me, i could defned myself and not get in trouble. in high school i would have got suspended for a week( which happened several times because i was raised if someone hits you, you hit them back harder and faster and make it count.) now, if someone hits you and you hit them back, you both get arrested for assualt and battery. what???? how exactly does that work? some moron can come up and clock me one and i cant defend myself??? what in the hell is that teaching kids? and also, look how they attempt to crucify people that use a gun to kill some worthless scumbag that breaks into there house! i have very little respect for criminals. I understand they have families and that their families love them because i have criminals in my family and i love them, however they are still criminals and if they get hurt and or klilled commiting a crime im not going to hold that against the person that they tried to rob/rape/steal from/whatever. (i realize this is off topic, but its more of a response to acomment about self defense)

also i live ina border state that just did away with the death penelty. GREAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT when the juarez drug wars spill over into my state and MAYBE just maybe the cops do their job and catch some of these scum, by golly! my tax money get to go to keep em alive for 50 years, not to some kids education or to fix our ****** roads god i love it!
rant off sorry!

Mike Irwin
April 18, 2009, 07:56 AM
"More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border"

Interesting!

This is a bit of a change from the way it's been worded in the past.

Now it's slightly more... vague. In weeks past we were led to believe that virtually all of the guns that were seized in Mexico were SPORTING-type guns.

Now if you read Obama's statement, it's only that the guns are MADE in Mexico.

Given that the US government supplies, or has supplied, VAST quantities of American-made military rifles, handguns, and other hardware to Mexico, and the Mexican government has a HUGE desertion problem, is it, in fact, the United States Government that is supplying most drug dealers weapons?

If so, the United States government should take immediate sanction against itself...

THEZACHARIAS
April 18, 2009, 08:01 AM
I love how they throw out these numbers without mentioning the number of illegal weapons that have found their way into America via mexico and south america...

Ive never heard of a gangbanger who could pass a background check, yet somehow they get their hands on a lot of automatic weapons. Weapons that still smell like the coffee and banana crates they where smuggled into the country in...

Re4mer
April 18, 2009, 08:36 AM
And they still are. They don't want to tighten up the border, they want to limit gun sales in the U.S.

Tain't about border control, it's about gun control.

Yes I understand this.

I'm not sure you got my point, my point was that it is hypocritical for them to complain about guns crossing the boarder when huge amounts of drugs have been coming over here for years. Obviously this is just an excuse to get rid of guns we all know that.

Catfishman
April 18, 2009, 08:41 AM
The first time I heard the 90% quote it didn't pass the smell test. Can anyone provide a link showing where this number came from and a link disputing the number.

Our President is everything we were afraid he was, an elitist, extreme left wing liberal. I think it is interesting that even though he has over half the American public, the media, the house, and the senate in the bag, he stills knows better than to try to mess with the right to bear arms. He and our Secretary of State have basically said they would like to ban assault weapons but know it is politically impossible.

JWT
April 18, 2009, 09:04 AM
Obama is doing his best to lull gun owners into believing he won't push for additional gun control. Don't buy it, it's a ruse. Get gun owners to relax and stop pushing against a new AWB, etc. and he and his cronies will charge ahead with one. His background clearly shows he's extremely anti gun..

An international treaty to track guns can, and would, be used to further efforts to outlaw guns globaly. Something Soros and friends would gladly support.

HarrySchell
April 18, 2009, 01:03 PM
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/obama39s-bogus-gun-statistics-mexican-crime-is-not/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?ProgramId=HP-A-41601 (This is mostly about concealed carry and the DC gun law bouncing around in Congress, but John Lott gets inot the Mexican gun situation at the end of it.) (An interesting video to watch about the efficacy of gun buns, too.)

obxned
April 18, 2009, 01:31 PM
If the firearms in question did come from a US source, then by tracing the serial numbers they can find where that firearm was last legally transferred. With that information, there would be thousands of arrests.

How many such arrests have we heard of?

Bartholomew Roberts
April 18, 2009, 01:37 PM
Dont you think its ironic that if you ban all military style rifles in the US, the cartels would benefit by getting something else to illegally import for profit?

On the bright side, you would have full-auto military style weaponry and ammunition as cheap and as available as drugs are now. That would actually be an improvement over the current market in pretty much every respect.

Jofaba
April 18, 2009, 04:10 PM
I actually found myself calling him a liar out loud in an empty room. I watch a lot of news, hours a day, and have been watching his overseas work, mostly pleased. When he spouted that blatantly false "factoid" I just became very disappointed with him, mostly because he's obviously keeping the AWB beyond arms reach right now. So why lie? It makes no sense. I wish a reporter called him on it.

Facts aside, it's even beyond logic. It's too expensive and logistically difficult to legally purchase large amounts of semi-auto "assault weapons" here, where they're insanely priced at top market retail, pay off who they need to in order to get them into mexico, then convert them, all the while being smart enough to do all this but too dumb to file off the serial numbers and thus putting their apparently "cheap and easy" source (the USA) in jeopardy.

SwampYankee
April 18, 2009, 04:18 PM
I actually found myself calling him a liar out loud in an empty room.

That's OK. I spent the past 8 years doing the same thing everytime George Bush came on the TV. The names and the policies may change, but the quality of the people probably doesn't.

44 AMP
April 18, 2009, 05:32 PM
Willing to lie blatantly if he thinks he will advance his agenda? Thinks no one notices when he lies through his teeth or is blatantly and clearly doesn't know the facts of an issue?


POLITICIAN...Hello!!!:rolleyes:

On the bright side, you would have full-auto military style weaponry and ammunition as cheap and as available as drugs are now. That would actually be an improvement over the current market in pretty much every respect.

except for the whole going to jail thing when you get found with them.

You know, they could be (technically) correct, at least for part of what they are saying. If you recover 100 guns, and 90 of them are US made M16s, supplied by US aid to Mexico, and stolen from the Mexican govt, then the 90% made in the USA is technically correct. Misleading and deceitful, certainly. Out of context, certainly. But technically correct, in the same way one former president was technically correct claiming "he did not have sex with that woman".

Tinfoil hat time: Consider that it may just be that some people really want the drug war violence to spill over the border. It would be a fine excuse for taking away what few remaining rights we have. If they can get that result by appearing inept, they still get that result!

B. Lahey
April 18, 2009, 05:45 PM
Tinfoil hat time: Consider that it may just be that some people really want the drug war violence to spill over the border. It would be a fine excuse for taking away what few remaining rights we have. If they can get that result by appearing inept, they still get that result!


No foil required. The Bush administration let the low-intensity conflict on the border slide for nearly a decade, probably out of ineptitude, but whatever the reason he left a situation ripe for exploitation and gave the current administration a blueprint for the destruction of rights at the same time.

What was that quote about reaping and sowing....

HarrySchell
April 18, 2009, 06:45 PM
I actually found myself calling him a liar out loud in an empty room. I watch a lot of news, hours a day, and have been watching his overseas work, mostly pleased. When he spouted that blatantly false "factoid" I just became very disappointed with him, mostly because he's obviously keeping the AWB beyond arms reach right now. So why lie? It makes no sense. I wish a reporter called him on it.

Facts aside, it's even beyond logic. It's too expensive and logistically difficult to legally purchase large amounts of semi-auto "assault weapons" here, where they're insanely priced at top market retail, pay off who they need to in order to get them into mexico, then convert them, all the while being smart enough to do all this but too dumb to file off the serial numbers and thus putting their apparently "cheap and easy" source (the USA) in jeopardy.
Today 11:37 AM


Yup. That is what is bothering me, the lack of logic or even slight covering fire. His own AG has been routed publicly on the same issue. ATF numbers don't support it, nor even Mexican numbers. It is I guess a matter of faith, in Marx. Can't control the sheep if they can hit back, and if criminals are pounding them day in and day out, they will be even more cooperative.

I guess the treaty will provide cover for executive actions along the lines of a AWB...anything semiauto.

When the facts don't matter...public policy tends to suck, at least from the viewpoint of those not connected and protected by the political class.

shortwave
April 18, 2009, 07:37 PM
Speaking of lies... Why doesn`t the Mexican gov`n. take lesson`s off the U.S. gov`t and declare a so called 'war on assault weapons' and they(Mexican gov`n) can make billions. Same as the U.S. gov`t. does on the so called 'war on drugs'. For years(and many administrations) the U.S. supplied arms to a corrupt Mexican gov`n. which has turned its head to the billions of dollars the drug cartels have been making off the US smuggling their drugs here . In the speech the Mexican pres. made, he remarked about the appetite for illegal drugs in the US. Wonder why the Mexican gov`n has never stepped up to the plate when it comes to border patrol. To much money to be made by corrupt Mexican officials in the drug business thats why. Their drugs have been killing people here for years , now arms we gave them are ending up in the drug cartels hands through passed/present corrupt Mexican gov`t.:barf:. I just hope Obama knows what he`s doing going to these different countries, thinking he can just waltz in, talk to the heads of these countries and things will be ok. Hope he`s all that.

toybox99615
April 18, 2009, 10:12 PM
"President Bush said yesterday that the United States should work to stop the movement of guns across our southern border into Mexico." http://www.infowars.com/bush-says-america-should-work-to-stop-guns-from-entering-mexico-from-us/ So it would appear the American gun connection statements did not start with Obama. Back in April 2008 "U.S. gun stores and gun shows are the source of more than 90 percent of the weapons being used by Mexico's ruthless drug cartels, according to U.S. and Mexican law enforcement officials." http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4695848&page=1

In 2007 this statement appeared at http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=ae0f349b5a2797fa94e4da7f5022104f “We are concerned about the number of weapons coming into Mexico and Central America illegally from the United States,” Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said last month when he was attending a conference in Cuernavaca, south of Mexico City. “There is more that we can do, and we are looking to do, to try and stem the flow of illegal weapons into Mexico.”

Hey I don't like the probable issues with gun control that could affect gun ownership. But I also will not pretend the issue of America and guns getting into Mexico are a pretence that begin with Obama when I can easily find reference going back through the eight years of the last administration.

HarrySchell
April 18, 2009, 10:30 PM
"President Bush said yesterday that the United States should work to stop the movement of guns across our southern border into Mexico." http://www.infowars.com/bush-says-am...exico-from-us/ So it would appear the American gun connection statements did not start with Obama. Back in April 2008 "U.S. gun stores and gun shows are the source of more than 90 percent of the weapons being used by Mexico's ruthless drug cartels, according to U.S. and Mexican law enforcement officials." http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4695848&page=1

In 2007 this statement appeared at http://news.newamericamedia.org/news...e4da7f5022104f “We are concerned about the number of weapons coming into Mexico and Central America illegally from the United States,” Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said last month when he was attending a conference in Cuernavaca, south of Mexico City. “There is more that we can do, and we are looking to do, to try and stem the flow of illegal weapons into Mexico.”

Hey I don't like the probable issues with gun control that could affect gun ownership. But I also will not pretend the issue of America and guns getting into Mexico are a pretence that begin with Obama when I can easily find reference going back through the eight years of the last administration.

Bad data is BAD DATA. Decisions made on bad data are usually BAD DECSIONS. That Bush was wrong so Bama can be wrong is idiotic. IMO.

Do you care if good decisions are made or Bama is no less uninformed that Bush?

I thought Bama was about hope, change, transparency, reversing the errors of the past....

toybox99615
April 18, 2009, 10:50 PM
the 90% nonsense has been around for more than a couple of days and the fact it was around long before Obama was even a presidential candidate. Do you believe Obama sought new data from the ATF for the 90% number or would you expect him to rely on the ATF data being tosses about by former AG Gonzales? Why was there no uprising when Gonzalez made the 90% reference? Or when George made the same references?


I despise the notion that the US is the source of these weapons being used in Mexico. I realy think only a fool believes the cartels can bring pounds of drugs into Mexico but they have to rely on some gun shop in the US for the supply of AK-47s.

Has anyone been in one of these magical gun shops where you can just walk in and buy an unlimited number of fully automatic AK-47s or MAC 10s? Then without any paperwork or required tax stamp (1934 NFA requirement) walk out with the same arms. And all the while no Fed is going to be watching the sale of multiple weapons to a single purchaser.

shortwave
April 19, 2009, 05:07 AM
Just a bunch of public mind softening gov`t/media anti-weapon tactics being used to gain political support so this administration can make our gun laws more strict with the blessing of the general public. Nothing more, nothing less. As Obama stated himself(I hope people remember this) "we have current gun laws to stop these so called illegal weapons transactions. Just need to inforce them". We also have drug laws in this country and I hope the Mexican gov`t will help enforce them and keep the flow of drugs from coming across the border. Has to be a two way street. To date, Mexico`s assistance at the border is all but non-existant and IMO will probably stay that way due to the fact that to many Mexican officials and policia are on the take and making more money in one year with the payoffs from the drug cartels than it will take them 4-5 yrs. to make doing their jobs without the payoffs. Also, stands to reason the bloodshed will increase if the legit Mexican authorities start putting pressure to oust the dirty officials. Thats a burden Mexico will have to bare and other than making sure no illegal arms transactions come from the US, no other laws should be put into place affecting US citizens. Just enforce existing laws.

Kmar40
April 19, 2009, 08:28 AM
It's not Obammy's fault. He just says what the teleprompter tells him to, and right now the teleprompter want's gun control.

alloy
April 19, 2009, 08:40 AM
He just says what the teleprompter tells him to, and right now the teleprompter want's gun control.

:)

HarrySchell
April 19, 2009, 10:47 AM
This is a drive -by, just adding an article which sheds more information on the issue, I believe.

See:http://armsandthelaw.com for the original:

More thoughts on guns and Mexico and cartels
Posted by David Hardy · 18 April 2009 06:17 PM
As noted earlier, everyone from President Obama to the Mexican ambassador is claiming that 90%, or even 95% of criminal guns recovered in Mexico come from the US. The fact that 90% of guns submitted to ATF for tracing trace to the US, but the Mexican government only submits guns that it thinks came from the US; a while back FoxNews ran the numbers and concluded that only 17% of guns recovered in Mexico came from the US. Now Factcheck.org reruns the numbers and concludes it's more like 34%, still a minority.

One mystery remains: the difference between the two sets of numbers is explained as the smaller one reflect guns that could be traced to a particular State, the larger one includes those that couldn't be. A successful ATF trace at the very minimum tracks it to retail dealer, thus you know the State. If they couldn't report the State, it probably means an unsuccessful trace -- we know that Colt made it in the US, but can't trace it to the dealer. Unsuccessful traces are disproportionately traces of sales long ago -- those made before the 1968 GCA are about hopeless, and even subsequent to that, the farther back in time, the more likely records have been misplaced.

Which would suggest, at least, that about half of the traces relate to very old gun transfers. Say a gun was sold at retail in 1960, has gone thru 2-3 legit owners since then, a burglar steals it and fences it across the border -- that'd go down as a gun "traced to an American source," and be portrayed as if it was a straw man sale or crooked dealer.

The other possibility is that guns not traced to sale in a particular State include guns not sold in the US at all, but exported. In 2007, American manufacturers exported 10,530 handguns and rifles to the Mexican Ministry of Defense. Think the cartels have enough money to get their hands on as many as they want?

cold dead hands
April 24, 2009, 03:33 AM
Is he out of touch? Is he unable to learn any fact that doesn't support what he wants to do? Stupid? Unbalanced? Willing to lie blatantly if he thinks he will advance his agenda? Thinks no one notices when he lies through his teeth or is blatantly and clearly doesn't know the facts of an issue?

1. Yes!
2. Facts should never affect your agenda.
3. Stupid? In my view...yes.
4. He is "balanced" in a way that scares me me. He is his own fulcrum point. This not good.
5. You didn't read the article about his pathological narcissism did you?
6. Doesn't care about (and hates) those who know the truth and had 55% of the voters convinced he was the answer to their prayers. Sadness all around. Most who voted for him had no concept of logic or a willingness to deal with the facts.

JuanCarlos
April 24, 2009, 04:18 PM
6. Doesn't care about (and hates) those who know the truth and had 55% of the voters convinced he was the answer to their prayers. Sadness all around. Most who voted for him had no concept of logic or a willingness to deal with the facts.

[citation needed]

jammin1237
April 24, 2009, 09:35 PM
i know this is a firearms forum, but we sometimes have to stop, sit back, and think of a larger picture...all of these problems have very little to do with the firearms, they are nothing more than one tool in a very large toolbox...

drugs and illegal aliens... stop the drug use and illegal immigration, 95% of US issues just simply go away, yet the gov (and us) just will not do any thing about it...we can empower an entire continent to over throw a bunch of idiots over seas costing thousands of lives, but we cant tackle this?

but than again i dont expect it from our "leader" who has vested part of his past in the very things we should be fighting against, duh?....................

"Albert Einstein:

Any power must be an enemy of mankind which enslaves the individual by terror and force, whether it arises under the Fascist or the Communist flag. All that is valuable in human society depends upon the opportunity for development accorded to the individual.

statement, England, September 15, 1933"

"All that is valuable in human society depends upon the opportunity for development accorded to the individual."- now that is what i am talking about, we dont get there by sucking the life blood out of good hard working people and then apologizing to the world "that we americans suck"....

which is what has been happening:mad:

44 AMP
April 24, 2009, 11:05 PM
The other possibility is that guns not traced to sale in a particular State include guns not sold in the US at all, but exported. In 2007, American manufacturers exported 10,530 handguns and rifles to the Mexican Ministry of Defense.

In a country known the world over for having problems with corruption, and a country that has had thousands of deserters from their armed forces in recent years, might not individuals in the Mexican govt itself be the major supplier (although illegally) of US made guns to the cartels?

Also consider the number of guns stolen in the US that are "exported" to Mexico. Sure, they are bought from US gunshops and at gunshows. Bought by us, legally, but then stolen and sent south. Somehow, it just doesn't seem possible that nearly all the guns (90%) in the hands of the cartels were bought by strawmen from US gunshops. A few, sure. Its a crime, and it happens. But so many? I doubt it, strongly.

I'm used to being lied to, I just like it less when the lies are so blatantly obvious.

And it doesn't matter if this was started under Bush, or Eisenhower. Obama's people are the ones pushing it today!

alloy
April 25, 2009, 07:18 AM
"Intellectual activity is a danger to the building of character”
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”
“Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”
“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”
Joseph Goebbels quotes

44 AMP says: I'm used to being lied to, I just like it less when the lies are so blatantly obvious.

Maybe you just recognize THIS type of lie(the 90% number), and see it as mantra. Somebody doesn't think you are capable of critical thinking.
It's a new day comrade, but i don't think elections will do them any favors, and hopefully we can go back to the old lies of the right...far less insiduous toward the individual.
Maybe the stat has been around a while, but i don't remember it being used daily, and not for the current reasons. I guess a fence would be too much to ask.
*stupid me.:)

jon_in_wv
April 25, 2009, 08:51 AM
Isn't the United States the #1 manufacturer of firearms in the world? Don't we sell tons of firearms to Mexico, its Government, Military, and citizens legally every year??? Why are we supposed to buy the assumption that all these guns are illegally smuggled assault weapons? As usual, Obama is lying to push his agenda to disarm us filthy peasants.

Enoy21
April 25, 2009, 12:25 PM
I try and keep my views open and not one sided....

To me , ( and no I did not vote Obahma , nor am I at all for any kind of gun control..... )

He is trying to politically say " We want Mexican drugs out of our country , Mexico want's american guns out of theirs " So he's policitally accepting some responsibility for Mexico's concerns while trying to accomplish our own goals against drugs....


Atleast that is how I read that quote.... As to legitimacy of the claim ? I can't say ...

jrm
April 27, 2009, 07:35 AM
Somehow, it just doesn't seem possible that nearly all the guns (90%) in the hands of the cartels were bought by strawmen from US gunshops.

When I read the I can't help but visualize a scene from Blazing Saddles. The one where all the "bad guys" are standing in line signing up. I can see that little desk sitting on the US/Mexico border, with Slim Pickens selling AWs to Mexican cartel members dressed as Nazi's, KKKs, etc.

jon_in_wv
April 28, 2009, 01:11 PM
HA HA HA. I like that. Very fitting.

We should fire back that all the crime in the US perpetrated by Mexicans can surely be traced back to Mexico and when they do something about that we will do something about their problems. BUT we all know the only reason this is even coming up is to drum up political support for a new "assault weapons" ban in the US.

USAFNoDak
April 28, 2009, 02:50 PM
jrm posted:When I read the I can't help but visualize a scene from Blazing Saddles. The one where all the "bad guys" are standing in line signing up. I can see that little desk sitting on the US/Mexico border, with Slim Pickens selling AWs to Mexican cartel members dressed as Nazi's, KKKs, etc.

Good one jrm. Maybe we could steal another scene from Blazing Saddles and set up a toll both at the border and charge 10 cents to come in. That way, they'd have to go back to town and get a $hitload of dimes. Slim Pickens was so good in that movie. "Anyone got a dime?" Shoot. Someone's gonna have to ride back to town and get a $hitload of dimes". Classic.

Jofaba
April 28, 2009, 06:19 PM
I was watching CSPAN this weekend and Hillary Clinton was at the House Foreign Afairs Committe (for like over 3 hours, I caught around 2 hours of it).

When I heard this exchange, I had to rewind (dvr) and record the audio with the memo program on my wicked old cell phone (hence why you'll probably have to blast your audio all the way to 11).

I don't remember who asked the question, but here it is:
EDIT: Looks like I grabbed that part. It's Congressman Poe from Texas.

jofaba.com/media/audio/90 or 17.wav

And here is Hillary's response.

jofaba.com/media/audio/hillary response.wav
EDIT: If you can't stand listening to Hillary, Poe pipes back in around 1:46.

I found it to be a VERY interesting exchange. Let me know if any of you have problems playing that. My phone records them as .wav, and I don't know how common of a file type that is these days.

HarrySchell
April 29, 2009, 09:09 AM
It occurs to me the debate about how many guns come from the US is the wrong question.

The real question is whether any gun ban in the US will limit access to arms by the cartels.

The answer is that these boyos move TONS of ILLEGAL CHEMICALS ACROSS CONTINENTS and have already accessed considerable amounts of arms which cannot have come from US gun stores.

Mexico's gun ban doesn't work, nor anyone else's in Central and South America. We can't keep our own felons away from guns.

You are going to hinder the cartels? How stupid do you think I am, Mr. Holder?

JuanCarlos
April 29, 2009, 02:09 PM
It occurs to me the debate about how many guns come from the US is the wrong question.

The real question is whether any gun ban in the US will limit access to arms by the cartels.

The answer is that these boyos move TONS of ILLEGAL CHEMICALS ACROSS CONTINENTS and have already accessed considerable amounts of arms which cannot have come from US gun stores.

Mexico's gun ban doesn't work, nor anyone else's in Central and South America. We can't keep our own felons away from guns.

You are going to hinder the cartels? How stupid do you think I am, Mr. Holder?

Answer: Very.


I don't necessarily agree with your comparison to our own felons; they often get guns the easy way, which is to steal them locally from the homes of law-abiding gun owners (or buy ones that were stolen). This doesn't necessarily apply to cartels.

But yes, the idea that we'll "hinder" them any further than upping their costs marginally is absurd. These are organizations that bring in millions upon millions of dollars and apparently have no trouble moving illegal goods across international borders by land, sea, and air. If their guns weren't coming (however indirectly) from a sporting goods store or gun show in the U.S., they'd be coming from a freighter straight from China.

You will cut into their profits, but you will not reduce the violence south of the border. Period.

USAFNoDak
April 29, 2009, 02:30 PM
Juan Carlos posted:But yes, the idea that we'll "hinder" them any further than upping their costs marginally is absurd. These are organizations that bring in millions upon millions of dollars and apparently have no trouble moving illegal goods across international borders by land, sea, and air. If their guns weren't coming (however indirectly) from a sporting goods store or gun show in the U.S., they'd be coming from a freighter straight from China.


I can't remember the year, but I seem to recall it was circa 1997 when our govt. caught a shipment from China of full auto AK-47's coming into Los Angeles on a ship. Who were those for? How many had come in prior to us catching ONE shipment? How many have made it in since then? Who is buying them? Who is selling them? These are questions I never heard answered back then.

Juan, you are absolutely spot on with your analysis. The black market is very adaptable and flexible. If you cut off one arm it immediately grows another if not two. It's a profit and loss market like any legal one and operates on the principles of supply and demand. It also keeps an eye on the "legal" markets to adjust its own behavior. So, if the "legal" market tightens up the supply of guns, while the demand remains the same, the price in the legal market goes up. The black market may then have an opportunity to reap some profits by replacing some of the lost supply to fill the demand. It's econ 101. For the stupid people like Jimmy Carter, what is it that you don't understand about how markets, including black markets, work?


Edited to add: The year was 1996 and it was Oakland, not LA. My error and my apologies for it.

HarrySchell
April 29, 2009, 03:42 PM
don't necessarily agree with your comparison to our own felons; they often get guns the easy way, which is to steal them locally from the homes of law-abiding gun owners (or buy ones that were stolen). This doesn't necessarily apply to cartels.


My point is we have all this law on the books to punish felons in possession, and what has happened because of the law?

Nothing much, so far as I can tell. In CA (and elsewhere), the felons carry concealed without permits (illegal), shouldn't have a weapon anyway, discharge weapons within city limits (illegal)...usually in the conduct of an illegal act.

Criminals usually won't give you a **** in a tin potty for written law. They don't care. People like Obama think that law and talk is really something because they have never done anything else. They are wrong.

None of the written law does anything to prevent this from happening unless a criminal decides for whatever reason to quit being a criminal.

An AWB is not going to have any affect on the cartels, and that should be the point to make in any discussions with anti's...not how many guns go south, IMHO.

JuanCarlos
April 29, 2009, 05:22 PM
My point is we have all this law on the books to punish felons in possession, and what has happened because of the law?

Nothing much, so far as I can tell. In CA (and elsewhere), the felons carry concealed without permits (illegal), shouldn't have a weapon anyway, discharge weapons within city limits (illegal)...usually in the conduct of an illegal act.

Criminals usually won't give you a **** in a tin potty for written law. They don't care. People like Obama think that law and talk is really something because they have never done anything else. They are wrong.

None of the written law does anything to prevent this from happening unless a criminal decides for whatever reason to quit being a criminal.

An AWB is not going to have any affect on the cartels, and that should be the point to make in any discussions with anti's...not how many guns go south, IMHO.

I'll admit right up front that this is nitpicking, but it's just something that bothers me.

Yes, these laws do have an effect. We can argue how much of an effect, but it's non-zero. I have little doubt that if we instituted a nationwide handgun ban tomorrow that handguns would still be available illegally. But, with one major point of supply eliminated (theft from the law abiding) and absent any decrease in demand, the price would go up. Thus less would be able or willing to buy one. EDIT: And with a decrease in demand, thus steady prices, the number of guns on the street would decrease as well.

Laws on the books to bust felons in possession do have an effect. Because now, instead of having to catch them during or after a robbery committed with a firearm, you can prosecute them just for having the firearm. Which means if you find the gun during a random stop prior to the crime, arrest them, try them, and convict them then you have prevented that crime.

Again, it may not be a dramatic effect, but it's non-zero.

Same goes for a theoretical AWB in an attempt to restrict guns to cartels. Take the weapons off the shelves in the U.S., and out of citizens' houses, and you are effectively drying up one supply of weapons to Mexico (whether through straw purchases or theft). Yes, there are other supply routes; however it's pretty obvious that this route is utilized because it is either cheaper or safer (or both) than the alternatives. Force them to utilize alternate supply lines, and obviously you've either increased their costs or increased their risk of interdiction.

Again, the effect may be marginal...but it's non-zero.


The problem with "arguing" with an anti-gun activist is that none of this will matter. See, they put a zero value (or negative value) on firearm ownership (or possibly just some forms of ownership, like "assault weapons")...so telling them that this will have near-zero or even zero impact south of the border isn't going to sway them one bit. You're talking about people who would be fine with the restrictions in and of themselves.

EDIT: And the second you claim it will have no effect you lose any credibility with any rational fence-sitters; because they're going to realize that basic economics suggests it will have some effect, and thus you are pretty obviously wrong.

jammin1237
April 29, 2009, 06:56 PM
laws only effect law abiding people, the cartels and criminals don't care what laws we pass, including anti fire arm legislation - that only inhibits "good legal citizens" from being able to protect themselves...

once again everyone starts trying to feed an aspirin to this headache instead of tackling the real problem... stop the use of illegal drugs and illegal immigrants, it should be hammered into every commercial, tv ad, advertisement, and in classrooms... it should be treated as a major sin against this society:eek:

if every one stopped using the drugs any "cartel" was selling, what would happen?
if actually enforced the laws we have already about illegal immigration, what would happen?

JuanCarlos
April 29, 2009, 07:14 PM
if every one stopped using the drugs any "cartel" was selling, what would happen?

Yes, that's the answer. Just get everybody to stop doing drugs.

...

...

I'm going to resist making lots of sarcastic remarks, likely involving ponies and/or unicorns, and just say that your question is absurd and irrelevant. Well, at least insofar as the only way people will stop using the drugs the cartel is selling is if they can buy them from legitimate corporations because they've been either heavily decriminalized or fully legalized.

if actually enforced the laws we have already about illegal immigration, what would happen?

Didn't you just say that laws only affect the law abiding?

By "enforcement" of laws are we talking about arresting and/or deporting people as we find them? Because that's not going to do much, at least not so far as the flow of drugs and weapons is concerned. If by "enforcement" you're talking about a fence or more guards then, well, good luck. There's real room for improvement, but I have a feeling that guns and drugs will still flow across that border long after we've cut the flow of gardeners and nannies to a trickle.

Jofaba
April 29, 2009, 07:17 PM
Did anyone get a chance to listen to the links I posted? I hadn't seen much discussion about it online elsewhere and was hoping to get your reaction. I thought it was interesting. I recorded it for my father, he's an anti that I'm working on, but was hoping some of you would find it interesting as well.

It's not an advert for my site, I haven't updated it since around 2007 and it was mostly gaming oriented. It's just the server space I have.

USAFNoDak
April 29, 2009, 07:25 PM
Juan Carlos posted:Same goes for a theoretical AWB in an attempt to restrict guns to cartels. Take the weapons off the shelves in the U.S., and out of citizens' houses, and you are effectively drying up one supply of weapons to Mexico (whether through straw purchases or theft). Yes, there are other supply routes; however it's pretty obvious that this route is utilized because it is either cheaper or safer (or both) than the alternatives. Force them to utilize alternate supply lines, and obviously you've either increased their costs or increased their risk of interdiction.

Again, the effect may be marginal...but it's non-zero.


When the UK virtually banned all firearms, what happened to the number of "illegal" guns in the UK? Did the numbers go up or down? I've read that they went up dramatically and now number over 3 million. You would have a very hard time taking all of the assault weapons in America out of the homes. More would get smuggled in to replace many of the ones which were taken away. This is what happened in the UK. The smugglers all of a sudden had a gun free market and there was still a demand for guns. Gun control seldom affects the "demand" side of the equation, only the supply side. The smugglers in the UK were very happy to fill the need. Plus, the black market typically sells much cheaper than the "legal" market because they have no taxes to pay, no upkeep on the buildings, no employees to pay, no heating and electric bills for their business locations, etc. And, they don't even pay wholesale prices in many cases because the guns were obtained at a virtual cost of zero through theft or other corruption in the government.

I agree that gun laws seldom have "zero" effect. However, sometimes the effect is not something the authorities were hoping to accomplish when they passed certain gun control laws.

Here's an example. Lets say you ban handguns and are almost totally successful in removing all of them from society. What happens? The criminals turn to shotguns which can be sawed off and have the stocks shortened so that they relatively concealable. A sawed off shotgun with 00 buck is much more deadly than most handguns at close range. Thus, instead of injuring his intended target if he decides to shoot, the perp will typically kill them.

JohnKSa
April 30, 2009, 12:30 AM
If their guns weren't coming (however indirectly) from a sporting goods store or gun show in the U.S., they'd be coming from a freighter straight from China.

You will cut into their profits,I was with you right up to that last statement.

Before Clinton stopped the import of Chinese firearms to the U.S. it was possible to buy a brand new Chinese SKS rifle for $50 dollars on the retail market.

We may make it less convenient for them to purchase arms, but if we force them to start buying guns & ammunition directly and in quantity from the Chinese they'll actually save money. LOTS of money.

Hunley
April 30, 2009, 01:13 AM
I blame the overly corrupt MexiCAN'T government and military. I'm sure the weapons were made in the US... And then sold to the Mexican government! The latest American Rifleman had a picture of cartel members handcuffed in front of a bunch of Class 3 stuff (fully auto m16s with 40mm grenade launchers, 40mm shells, and hand grenades) and plenty of body armor... ALL with Mexican government/military/police logos on it.