Dobbs falsely claimed Holder had "no empirical basis" for suggesting Mexican cartels are using weapons from America
SUMMARY: In a February 25 press conference, Attorney General Eric Holder asserted that "reinstitut[ing] the ban on the sale of assault weapons" would "have a positive impact in Mexico." The next day on Lou Dobbs Tonight, correspondent Bill Tucker stated that "as you well know and we reported here often," drug cartel members are "often armed with weapons that were issued by the Mexican military." Dobbs responded, in part: "Eric Holder has no empirical basis for anything he's saying. The man is completely at sea on this." In fact, U.S. agencies have repeatedly acknowledged that drug cartels have illegally trafficked firearms from the United States into Mexico, and Dobbs himself acknowledged in August 2008 that "victims on both sides" of the border "have been killed by weapons smuggled from the United States."
During the February 26 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, host Lou Dobbs responded with a false attack to Attorney General Eric Holder's comment that "reinstitut[ing] the ban on the sale of assault weapons" would "have a positive impact in Mexico." Holder made the statement during a February 25 press conference detailing the arrest of alleged members of a Mexican drug cartel. Dobbs said of Holder's comment, "Eric Holder obviously does not know anything about which he's speaking when it comes to Mexico." In response, correspondent Bill Tucker stated that "as you well know and we reported here often," cartel members are "often armed with weapons that were issued by the Mexican military." Dobbs replied, "Absolutely. And there again, Eric Holder has no empirical basis for anything he's saying. The man is completely at sea on this." In fact, U.S. agencies have repeatedly acknowledged that drug cartels have illegally trafficked firearms from the United States into Mexico. Indeed, Dobbs himself has previously reported that "victims on both sides" of the border "have been killed by weapons smuggled from the United States."
During the press conference, in response to a question about whether he had "offered some sort of help to prevent" assault weapons from "go[ing] to the Mexican cartels," Holder stated that the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is "doing all that it can to ensure that we stanch the flow of those weapons to Mexico." As a follow-up, Holder was asked, "I understand Mexico is interested in the U.S. reviewing the enforcement of its assault weapons regulations. Are you doing something about that?" He replied: "Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons. I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum."
According to a September 2008 ATF "Fact Sheet," "Mexican DTO [drug trafficking organization] infrastructures have become the leading gun trafficking organizations operating in the southwest U.S.":
Most of the firearms violence in Mexico is perpetrated by drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) who are vying for control of drug trafficking routes to the United States and engaging in turf battles for disputed distribution territories. Hundreds of Mexican citizens and law enforcement personnel have become casualties of the firearms-related violence. DTOs operating in Mexico rely on firearms suppliers to enforce and maintain their illicit narcotics operations. Intelligence indicates these criminal organizations have tasked their money laundering, distribution and transportation infrastructures reaching into the United States to acquire firearms and ammunition. These Mexican DTO infrastructures have become the leading gun trafficking organizations operating in the southwest U.S.
The fact sheet further reported: "In the past two years, ATF has seized thousands of firearms headed to Mexico."
Indeed, Michael Sullivan, the acting director of the ATF, reportedly said in August 2008 that investigators have traced 90 percent to 95 percent of the weapons found in Mexico to the United States. According to an August 11, 2008, Associated Press article:
Nearly all illegal guns seized in Mexico come from the United States, the head of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said Monday.
ATF acting director Michael Sullivan said investigators have traced 90 to 95% of the weapons found in Mexico to the U.S. Generally, only law-enforcement officers or military personnel can legally possess guns in Mexico.
Sullivan, speaking at the fifth annual Border Security Conference at the University of Texas at El Paso, said the weapons are being traced as part of an effort by the U.S. and Mexico to stop the illegal flow of guns south.
[...]
Many of the weapons being found in Mexico have been traced to smuggling points in Southern California, Arizona, Texas and New Mexico, Sullivan said. But he added that weapons are being traced to sellers in "virtually every state, as far north as Washington state."
Sullivan said recent successes in tracking guns thought to be fueling an increasingly violent drug cartel war are attributed to an "e-trace" system that allows officials on both sides of the border to quickly track weapons.
Additionally, the Mexican government has also partnered with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the information-sharing Armas Cruzadas program. A June 9, 2008, press release for the program quoted Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for ICE Julie Myers as saying, "Armas Cruzadas partners U.S. and Mexican law enforcement agencies to share information and intelligence in an effort to comprehensively attack the growing gun violence in Mexico. ... Faced with an explosive, high-caliber threat, we knew we needed an equally effective, high-caliber response to thwart the illegal export of weapons into Mexico." Indeed, Dobbs reported on the launch of the Armas Cruzadas program on the June 9, 2008, edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight and -- contrary to Tucker's suggestion that Lou Dobbs Tonight had reported only on cartel members "armed with weapons that were issued by the Mexican military" -- said: "The drug wars now claiming victims on both sides of that border. Many have been killed by weapons smuggled from the United States."
From the Federal News Service transcript of Holder's February 25 press conference (retrieved from the Nexis database):
Q General Holder, the attorney general for Mexico, I understand, expressed their concerns about the increasing number of weapons, heavy weapons (and guns ?) and large armored vehicles. Have you offered some sort of help to prevent that these weapons go to the Mexican cartels and continue this war against the Mexican -- (off mike)?
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: In our conversations yesterday and in a phone conversation I had with the attorney general, I guess in the week before, that was a concern that he raised, about the number of illegal weapons that are finding their way to Mexico; not only the number, but I guess the caliber, the size of the weapons that you see in Mexico.
ATF is doing all that it can to ensure that we stanch the flow of those weapons to Mexico. As good partners, I think that is one of the things that we have to do. If Mexican authorities, Mexican law enforcement personnel are going to put their lives on the line, we in the United States, it seems to me, have a responsibility to make sure that they are not fighting substantial numbers of weapons or fighting against AK-47s or other similar kinds of weapons that have been flowing to Mexico.
And it was also one of the reasons why -- and you'll forgive me for the Spanish that I use -- to try to express to our friends, our colleagues in Mexico, in their language, our determination to stand with them in this courageous fight that President Calderon and the attorney general have started.
Q A follow-up on that one? I understand Mexico is interested in the U.S. reviewing the enforcement of its assault weapons regulations. Are you doing something about that?
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand.
Q The enforcement of the assault weapons regulation in the U.S. Are you reviewing that? Because Mexico, (I think understandably ?), wants it.
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons.
I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.
From the February 26 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
DOBBS: Outrage tonight over claims the Obama administration is trying to weaken our rights under the Second Amendment. As we reported to you here yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder is willing to sacrifice our gun ownership rights under the Constitution for the benefit of a foreign government, in this case Mexico. The attorney general, who apparently thinks we're a nation of cowards when it comes to race, seems to believe that we're also a nation of cowards and fools when it comes to our constitutional rights. Bill Tucker has the report. Bill.
TUCKER: Well, Lou, to say that the attorney general set off a firestorm among gun owners and those who believe in our Second Amendment rights to bear arms might be an understatement. This is what Attorney General Holder had to say yesterday.
HOLDER [video clip]: As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons. I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.
TUCKER: Now, there are lots of things that are offensive to gun owners and some national security experts about their quote, starting with there's no evidence that banning semiautomatic firearms would stem the drug cartel violence in Mexico.
FRED BURTON (Stratfor vice president for counterterrorism and corporate security) [video clip]: You can shut the door of the weapons flowing south all you want. They have the financial resources inside of Mexico to acquire these weapons through the gray arms up through Guatemala, from Belgium, from Israel, from China, from South Korea.
TUCKER: Now, what often confuses people in this debate outside of the gun community is the use of the phrase "assault weapons." The phrase often conjures up images of automatic weapons fire, machine gun fire, for example. You might be interested to know those types of guns have been heavily regulated since 1934. And in 1986, President Reagan took the law even further, making it illegal to own or possess an automatic weapon that was not made or registered before May of 1986.
When Attorney General Holder and President Obama used the phrase "assault weapons," they're referring to semiautomatic guns that are styled to look like their fully automatic military counterparts. Now, President Clinton had signed a law banning such guns, but that law expired in 2004. And Lou, just how big a tempest in the teapot this caused -- Attorney General Holder's comments cause? It was evident today in the House, where House Speaker Pelosi could not back away from the comments fast enough, throwing cold water on it, saying maybe we ought to start with just enforcing the gun laws we have right now.
DOBBS: Enforcing the ones that we do have. Eric Holder making it very clear, and it's one of the reasons that he was -- well, gun ownership groups all over the country opposing him, and then here in less than -- in just over a month in office, he is out doing exactly what they feared he would do. And by the way, we should point out, Eric Holder obviously does not know anything about which he's speaking when it comes to Mexico --
TUCKER: Right.
DOBBS: -- because the Mexican government will not even provide serial numbers that they say come from American weapons that have brought -- been brought in from the United States, leading a lot of people in law enforcement to think that they're lying through their lovely little teeth on this issue. Not providing the serial numbers. No one can figure out why they won't provide those serial numbers.
TUCKER: Well, and as you well know and we reported here often, they're often armed with weapons that were issued by the Mexican military.
DOBBS: Absolutely. And there again, Eric Holder has no empirical basis for anything he's saying. The man is completely at sea on this, and by the way, again, believes that the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights is the only non-individual-right amendment.
Mr Holder has security clearance and access to the facts, Lou Dobbs doesn't and probably is making stuff up thinking he sounds smarter by using words like ' empirical ".
First off, we have no jurisdiction in Mexico - how is a weapons ban going to dramatically sever a weapons smuggling operation? Instead of using weapons from the US, they'll just use weapons from Mexico.
I suppose it is OUR fault that America makes the best weapons.
It's our fault that we have states where you can buy as many guns as you want at one time. I'm not familiar with the gun laws of every state, but I've heard that in Texas, you're limited only to the amount of money you have.
Y'all are both wrong. For once I agree with dobbs. Weapons from America? HAH! Uzi's are made by Israeli's, every gun owner knows that.
Isreal does make some mean uzi's. Fortunately, I don't need one but if I did, I would probably buy an Israeli one. :)
Good choice, but go with the Belgian FN FAL. Chuck Norris made the Uzi look good, but real soldiers made the FN FAL look good!
What caliber is that? It looks like 5mm.
its a 7.62. those are sniper rifles.
You've been sucking your gun barrel again -- the lead-caused brain damage is showing.
OR are you simply yet another ignoramouse attempting to be an expert in an area about which you know nothing not fed to you be the gun industry-front NRA?
The Mexican cartels are buying guns WITHIN THE US from US GUN DEALERS. Get the facts before popping off, or STFU.
Sure, let's change the American constitution for the benefit of Mexico. Nice. I don't think some of you stand back and listen to your arguments. Maybe Mexico should patrol their own border? Oh I forgot, they LIKE Mexican's to come into America so somebody can send that money back home.
"Sure, let's change the American constitution for the benefit of Mexico."
Who is proposing that we change the Constitution?
Banning assault rifles seems to contradict the 2nd Amendment. As long as they are not automatic weapons, which I find extremely dangerous, I don't understand why we would ban assault weapons just because they end up in Mexico from time to time. If I lived in the country, on a ranch, by myself, I would probably own the scariest assault rifle money could buy. I like to think I could if I wanted to.
One more thing: I think there would be a lot more Democratic voters if democrats would stop supporting these stupid gun bans.
So you think someone is proposing a law that "contradicts" the 2nd amendment? Sounds like something that will end up being decided by the courts. Regardless, "contradicting" the Constitution and changing the Constitution are two different things.
"I don't understand why we would ban assault weapons just because they end up in Mexico from time to time."
I not so sure the ban would help the situation in Mexico either, but it's apparent that you don't understand the actual extent and severity of the situation. This is not a few assault weapons that "end up in Mexico from time to time." Thousands have died in the drug cartel wars in Mexico and these wars are being fought with weapons from Texas and gun shows in Arizona. Mexico has very strict gun laws and smuggling is the only practical means for cartels to arm themselves. And with a veritable smorgasbord easily available in the US, why go anywhere else?
"The high-powered guns used in both incidents on the evening of Sept. 24 undoubtedly came from the United States, say police [in Tijuana], who estimate that 100 percent of drug-related killings are committed with smuggled U.S. weapons."
"I think there would be a lot more Democratic voters if democrats would stop supporting these stupid gun bans."
At this point in time, I don't think it's the Democrats who need to worry about votes.
I appreciate your respectfulness of me even though we have some disagreements. Let me ask you a question. Don't you think the Mexican cartels would get their weapons from other places if not from America? You are right, I am not very knowledgeable about the Mexcian drug cartels BTW. I just don't think that the cartels would be without arms if they didn't have American guns.
Zam. no offense, but why is that important? Seems to me that the US should start with ensuring they aren't suppliers and finishing with making sure they police the area to make sure others aren't backfilling the "need". The so called war on drugs never addressed that issue which is why it is a laughable failure.
I must apologize for jumping in on that question to pete, but I like hunting, and really hate seeing guns abused by those who don't appreciate them for the sport.
The cartels would find ways to arm themselves, but the weapons would not be as prevalent because I think they would likely be more difficult to obtain in the same dizzying quantity from which they get them in the US.
I would, however, welcome the day that police in Mexico start saying that most of the illegal weapons in the drug war do not come from the US, and I think even the most stauch pro-gun American would welcome it as well.
*Staunch*
So since they can get guns from somewhere else anyway then it is okay if they get them from us? So I guess it would be okay if terrorists got nuclear weapons from us because they can get them from North Korea or Pakistan. We might as well make some money off them. Why should North Korea get the sale?
If they were not able to get the guns here. Where would they get them. Obviously they are cvoming here to get them because it is easy. Do you think they are going to get tehm from their southern neighbor. Have you also not read the reports of the increased danger in the border towns in the US. AMericans will be alot more up in arms when more AMericans are killed by Mexicans with US weapons.
A gun ban would also benefit the US by decreasing the number of these rifles off the US streets.
your right, they would get their arms from somewhere else. and ya know what. european guns in many respects are far better than ours. just look at the ak-47 and 74's.
Now my honest rebuttal. I like hunting. I hate hunting with idiots who think they need a machine gun to hunt, and detest idiots who can't do something as simple as crossing a stream with a loaded weapon. I can only speak for down around texas, but I've seen way too many ignorant idiots in the bush who think shoot first, ask questions later is a good way to hunt deer. You would think that a party that demands personal responsibility would first start with guns. The NRA once served a useful purpose, heck, if it weren't for the hunter's safety class I took I could have been one of those fools, but that was 40 years ago. Today, I can go to the texas parks and wildlife fair and after a 10 minute talk be popping off 12 guage shotgun shells at flying clay pidgeons. Ya lose a lot of credibility on the personal responsibility front with this glaring, gaping sore on your forehead.
I don't like machine guns either. I don't even like assault rifles, really. The only guns I have are some old hunting rifles that I inherited from my grandfather. They are in the attic in a very nice hiding place and out of reach from the wrong hands. I guess my biggest problem with too many gun regulations is knowing that criminals are still going to get the guns they want. I like knowing that criminals still have to fear the possibility that the next guy they decide to rob might be packing a .45 himself.
We better flag each other, because our reputations would never suggest we are on sides we'd never be accused of defending!
I love hunting, and I really do enjoy firing everything from machine guns to sniper rifles. I just don't like the idea that any yahoo off the street can lock and load. Idiots who think they are automatic experts just because they watched the delta force with chuck norris really have no business having a gun. That's my humble opinion.
I do not hunt but do not have a problem with people who know what they are doing going hunting. What I object to is the over kill of automatic and semi-automatice guns. Unless you are in the armed forces you should not need either of these. I think that every time you buy a gun you should have to pass a one day safety course of that exact make and modle of gun. Also the amunition should be regulated to ban hallow point (cop killer) bullets.
One of the problems is the definition of Semi-Automatic, I think. Any weapon that automatically ejects the spent shell and loads a live round at each trigger pull is a semi-automatic. To continue to fire with a single trigger pull makes the weapon automatic. I see little problem with semi-automatic shotguns, or rifles (with limited clip size), or even handguns. But there are those out there who, if their intent is to inflict bodily harm on humans could just as easily do it with a single shot weapon. I no longer hunt, but I will "sport" shoot on occassion at a firing range and see no problem with that. What makes any weapon dangerous is the mindset of the individual in control.
I'm in agreement with you Snoop. Although I've never been hunting for animals and haven't touched a gun in 39 years, I have no problems with other people hunting. It would be hypocritical of me since I'm a carnivore.
I respect people like you, who are a principled gun user. Not one of these clowns who just want the biggest gun they can find. My problem is with the Ted Nugent types. Gun dealers and gun owners need to show some responsibility, not just hide behind their second amendment rights.
I spent ten years driving down a narrow, winding road through a salt marsh to get home from working the overnight shift. And yes, there were mice.
During hunting season, on both sides of the road, I'd see half asleep hunters with their rifles pointing towards the road, not the marsh. To me this was irresponsible. I'd be willing to bet that they'd be the first to raise hell if someone were pointed a gun towards them.
"My problem is with the Ted Nugent types"
You mean the types that kill what they need and use the meat purposely? You mean the type that prmotes gun safety? Or do you mean something different and that you really didn't know how to say it?
I mean a scumbag who soiled himself for 30 days before his draft physical in order to keep his ass out of Vietnam. I mean a guy who prances around on stage inciting gun violence against presidential candidates.
I know exactly what I'm saying.
Once again, you excerpted one sentence from my post and ran with it. did you not read the point I made about not having a problem with responsible gun users hunting? Did you not read where I said it would be hypocritical of me to condemn hunting since I'm a meat eater?
Are you saying that it's not hypocrisy for Nugent to advocate for the right to carry a gun in our country at the same time he refused to carry one in defense of this country?
"Once again, you excerpted one sentence from my post and ran with it."
Ha ha ha. You are funny. What else was there to comment on? And, where did you say "responsible"? You hide behind some political whine about ONE gun user then try to equate it to general gun safety when TN's political stance has nothing to do with gun safety (which, BTW, was what your entire post was about).
You've proven that your reading comprehension skills are poor. My original comment was to Snoopy. I stated that I respected him, because he seemed like a "principled gun user".
That phrase can be interpreted to mean "responsible gun user". And my "political whine" about one gun user was about the Fox News poster boy for unrestricted gun rights with absolutely no responsibility. He is the premiere spokeschild of the infantile subset of gun owners who brag about killing and their firearms prowess yet showed true cowardice when asked to defend their country.
"He is the premiere spokeschild of the infantile subset of gun owners who brag about killing and their firearms prowess yet showed true cowardice when asked to defend their country."
Yet, you're proud of the cowards like Clinton and the rest of the leftwingers who 'skipped' your war to rid the world of communism. How did the 'rid the world of communism' mission go? Did you get the job done or was it mission accomplished? BTW, TN teaches gun safety-first, then shoot anything that moves. Not the left-wing lie that you promote that he only promotes unrestricted/unlawfull gun use. But, I guess you do what you do best... lie.
Nice job. You rebut points I never made and defend a coward.
You're not able to discuss and reply in a reasonable fashion so you insult the 2,500,000 people who served in Vietnam.
i dont consider ted nugent much a hunter anymore. he has property and goes on canned hunts.
me, when i go hunting. i go to state game land with my rife, which is a lever action and hold six rounds in the magazine. but i only ever have one round with me. cause i was trained in using only one shot and tomake that count. and i stalk and i walk around the game lands. i dont go on some fenced in property where the animals areplaced there
amen
I like knowing that criminals still have to fear the possibility that the next guy they decide to rob might be packing a .45 himself
The old wild wild west analogy strikes again. Sorry, but we're in the 21st century now. Take your High Noon nonsense somewhere else.
What are the criminals supposed to fear, then? They get liberal lawyers to free them early and usually with little or no compensation to the victim. Liberal judges free the rest of the criminals that the liberal lawyers don't get off. And criminals are supposed to fear something? Oh, wait, this is the liberal 21st century ... criminals go free and victims are punished.
Don't you realize that despite all those liberal lawyers and judges that the US has the highest incarceration rate of any country IN THE WORLD?! How's that workin' for ya?
And like a good wingnuttie, your whole sphere of thought is based on fear not facts.
Yeah? Well, while you're at it, why don't you provide the racial breakdown of those incarcerations? Why don't you whine about racism before you try to whine about gun law unfairness as for the cause of that? Then we go back to those judges/lawyers who keep the minorities in the prison system. You got an explanation for that one, after you agree about "all those liberal lawyers and judges"?
You can't bring the breakdown, fog? Let snoopy help you, he seems up on racial division. Maybe you're afraid to bring actual evidence related to your whine, huh?
so ratcheting up the body count will deterr them? how smart is that?
The Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with "individual" anything -- far-right lunatic fringe Scalia's anti-Constitutionalism notwithstanding.
Nor does the Second Amendment "protect from" rule of law -- Scalia said so. Ratification of the Bill of Rights was completed on December 12, 1791. SUBSEQUENTLY, on May 8, 1792, Congress enacted the "Militia Act" in order to provide the "well regulated" required both by the Second Amendment and US Con. Art I, s. 8, c. 15 and 16.
Know what you're talking about before popping off -- or STFU.
"The Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with "individual" anything."
You could say that about any Amendment, including the First.
No you can't.
-- The Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with "individual" anything -- jnagarya
The current commander-in-chief, Pres.Obama says otherwise:
-- As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. -- Pres.Obama
That's good for him but I disagree.
Another day, another load of nitwit nonsense from gun nut nation. Gee, what are the odds.
Sure, just like prohibiting yelling FIRE! in a crowded movie theatre "seems" to be a violation of the first amendment, little fella.
The Constitution always begins and ends with the second part of the second amendment with you nra nitwits.
This just in. You have a right to bear arms. It is not, however, an absolute right, free from any and all restriction and regulation any more than the first amendment is, so spare me your psychotic slop about how the founding fathers not only wanted you to have free and unfettered access to weapons grade plutonium and to walk down the street with a frickin' flame thrower in one hand and an RPG in the other when they wrote the second amendment, but you're doin' us all a big favor by walkin' around armed to the teeth because it's just plain, unadulterated, horsebrit hume.
All they've gotta do to solve the illegal immigration/drug problem with you lou dobbs loons is go tho the border, pitch a tent, open a flea market, call it a gun show and you nra trash would be goin' on and on about your new best buddies, Osama, Juan and Jesus and their right to buy and bear arms with no questions asked to beat the band.
As long as they're puttin' money in your pockets or givin' you randy weaver wannabes a good deal on an AK, you brain-dead bigots become the most colorblind, open borders, tolerant trash on the face of the earth and you're as happy to see Osama and Jesus as lou is to see them muck the stalls and clean up after his little princess on the horse show circuit.
Just so long as gun nut nation and the timothy mcveigh wing of the republican party are free to buy and sell guns like tupperware, not only are you happy as pigs wallowin' in your own gop-slop, but the rest of us are supposed to thank you for the "protection" you're allegedly providin' us.
Go cheney yourself. You're doin' us a favor like the Nazis did Germany. Thanks. I'll pass. You gun show trash are a bigger threat to this country than al qaeda could ever dream of being.
Funny thing how "time to time" becomes more and more frequent every day.
Right. And as long as it's not enriched, Ahmadinejad should be able to have all the uranium he wants. After all, it's a lot easier and a helluva lot cheaper to enrich uranium in aluminum tubes with HOOVER stamped in them than it is to convert an assault weapon to full automatic. Sure thing, schmuck.
You really need to stop "thinking" so much, little fella. Like the rest of gun nut nation, clearly, it's not your strong suit.
Here's some sensible gun legislation for ya, little fella. If your brain rattles around in your head like a BB in a damned box car like, oh, say, the clueless-cretin likes of you, for example, then you're too damned stupid to own a bleepin' BB gun.
It's been fun.
There are certain responsibilities that go with each of our rights and that is too often overlooked in any of these discussions. (I almost agreed with you, Coop, the sky must be ready to fall).
It says "a well regulated militia for the security of a free state" How would that rule out restricting extreme weapons that threaten security?
zam in a way you are correct. but understand one thing about the 2nd amendment. when it was written the primary weapons of the time were the flintlock musket. which you could fire maybe, if you were good with it, 3 rounds a minute. now for the time was a reasonable amendment to have. no way in hell did the founding fathers anticipate weapons that could fire 500 rounds per min.
i have no problem with the second amendment but something needs to change. i myself have a hunting rife, a 30-30 lever action Marlin rife, and a 12 guage Mossburg pump action shootgun. i would like to get a pistol for myself but i would never in a million years want any kind of high cyclic rate weapon. besides whats more dangerous in a person. someone who has a m-16 and cant hit the broadside of a barn, or someone with my kind of rifle but knows very well how to use it.
LOL. Silence. Looks like I've got you standing back and listening to your own argument.
Oh there you are. Sorry.
This is the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment. Tell us how the final clause of it -- which was VOTED DOWN -- stipulates an "individual right" to own guns:
"The right of the people [PLURAL -- as in, "We the people"; it is not, "We the individual," or "I the people"] to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringe; a well armed, and well regulated [BY LAW] militia being the best security of a free country: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [IN THE MILITIA] in person."
Congress debates -- not the NRA -- is the legal authority on the intent of those who debated AND WROTE the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment is irrelevant to your fanaticism.
Heard a report on the radio this morning that made it sound like Ciudad Juarez is more dangerous at the moment than Iraq. Don't know where the guns are coming from, could be Mexico, could be US, could well be off-shore somewhere. Hear the cartels down there are also into the machete thing, so outlawing the sale of "assault weapons" may cut down on the deaths, but will not eliminate them. Just as in the US, we could outlaw "assault weapons" but around 20,000 people/year will still be killed by alcohol/drug impaired drivers.
That can be arranged, with the use of an assault weapon. J/K
That would probably infer that it would be empty, what good would that do anyone to take it at that point?
Zamfir
I've never understood this argument that banning a specific type of gun violates the Second Amendment. "Right to bear arms" neither states nor implies that the definition of "arms" can't be determined by the government. Even if you ignore the conditional clause regarding the militia (which is vital to interpretation), there's nothing to say that assault rifles are protected.
Or tanks or granades or RPGs. Does the constitution protect my rights to get those.
Steve
Exactly. Flamethrowers and bazookas can be considered "arms" too. And you never know what's going to come around in the future either. In a hundred years or so we might have science-fictionesque weaponry that vaporizes people. Would those be considered "arms" that are protected by the Second Amendment?
That may seem to be an extreme argument to some, but we should bear in mind that heavier-than-air flying machines were once thought to be impossible as well.
Foghorn
I like the assertion that "liberal" lawyers set criminals free. Anyone accused of a crime gets a defense in our system, so defending people has nothing to do with ideology. I guess that means that conservative defense attorneys are just plain incompetent.
Once again the liberal promoted straw man of gun control rears its head...this time deflecting the argument from a Mexican problem of escalating violence by the drug cartels...to an American issue of gun control as a root cause.
The root cause is an inept and corrupt Mexican government...not "assault weapons".
-- Military-style semi-automatic firearms (so-called assault weapons) do not differ materially from non-military style semi-automatic firearms (one bullet is fired for each pull of the trigger) and are no more powerful than other semi-automatic weapons.
Further, a bullet fired from a semi-automatic weapon is no more powerful than one of the same caliber fired from a corresponding non-semi-automatic handgun, rifle, or shotgun. In fact most assault weapons are less powerful than hunting rifles. For example, the AR-15 which is a semi-automatic version of the military's rifle (M-16), is a .223 caliber rifle. --
The expired 1994 legislation banning "assault weapons" was just a phony, feel good piece of junk legislation. It banned weapons that merely looked like full blown automatic assualt weapons.
The issue is about stopping the illegal exporting of weapons to Mexico...which requires cooperation between Mexico and the US...and not about constricting gun ownership rights in America.
Oscar hinted at the same issue when he talked about traffic related deaths...the issue is not about the car...it's about human behavior. The lawful and safe possession of a weapon by American citizens should not be abridged becasue of a corrupt, impotent Mexican govt. and a leaky eforcement of gun laws by U.S. enforcent agencies.
I'm skeptical as to the effect of an assault weapons ban on the Mexican drug war, but there's no need to purposely revise history on the assault weapons ban.
The assault weapons ban was very specific in its intent. It was about capacity, not power. Assault weapons have the capability for more deaths and injuries in a minimum amount of time without having to reload. The ban also included semi-auto shotguns with more than a five-round capacity and it also banned high capacity magazines for every type of firearm.
Like Dobbs, you have to distort or mislead in order to make a point. Dobbs wants us to believe that the cartel weapons are not coming from the US. You want us to believe that the assault weapons ban was a misguided policy that was intended to outlaw more "powerful" weapons.
Let's have our healthy debates over firearm laws, but can we at least do it without making ***t up?
Powerful or fast loading...makes no difference to me. The law was specific about capcity as well as looking like an automatic assault weapon. It identified ominuous but no more effective definitions like pistol grip and a folding stock.
However, I'm not going down the rabbit hole of the debate on American gun control issues...because of a Mexican problem...that's the straw man promoted by liberals using the Mexican drug problem as a platform.
I'm with you on a healthy debate over gun control...but it is a separate issue from escalating drug violence in Mexico and somehow assigning blame on the US gun control policies.
I didn't mention anything about loading speed, but any way...
The capability of people to buy as many guns as their wallet will allow at one time in the U.S. is exacerbating the gun smuggling problem. Regardless of a lack of enforcement, our gun laws are playing a part in making the US complicit in the cartel violence. It's for this reason that I think an ban on assault weapons, much as a favor it, is not going to make a significant impact. I think restricting the purchase quantity of such weapons to one within a specific time period would be a worthwhile step.
So be it. I hear what you're saying...we just have some disagreements on gun control policies.
Yet, the blight on America...caused by sharing a border with a corrupt country like Mexico...is the real travesty...not debating our right of gun ownership because of their ineptness.
From being a major source of illegal drugs in the US...to the over-running of our borders with illegal aliens...to drug cartels making the border a killing zone...it's Mexico that is the source of many of our problems...not the level of gun control in the US.
We've been debating this forever.
You are ignoring the problems in the U.S. by singling out Mexico. Like it or not, there are plenty of scumbags in the U.S. who are more than willing to aid and abet the Mexican cartels.
Some day Dobbs will figure out that we're all in this together. Just blaming Mexico won't solve anything.
Sure there are the scumbags you described...and we have law enforcement agencies charged with stopping them...and by some accounts doing a pretty lousy job.
But that has little to do with American's right to legally own guns...it's just an excuse by the left to pound the drums for more restrictive gun rights because of a corrupt Mexican country.
I'm convinced that the US has lost it's decade old "War on Drugs" because of it's own corruption. I doubt that there'd be as big a problem today if we had made examples of corrupt lawyers, judges, policeman and politicians.
The focus has been mostly on the end user rather than on the facilitators of the drug barons.
king,
I'm not as pessimistic...but I agree with your prosecution statement.
End users are easy prey and pad the enforcement statistics while a lot of the big fish get away.
I really don't understand your argument in favor of legalized assault rifles Wes. As someone else noted, would grenade launchers be acceptable? They too fire one round for each pull of the trigger.
Where do we draw the line if at all?
How about one nuke per person, as long as each person can only fire one round at a time? Should we also limit the range of each missile? Would that infringe on someone's second amendment rights?
Of course, each of these is ridiculous. We need to enforce the laws presently on the books, but we also need to limit the quantity and type of firepower we allow in this country.
On the one hand, we've got idiots like beck and hannity talking about an armed insurrection now. But I try to look at the positive side of things. Something tells me bubba is easily sidetracked...
Porn in the USA: Conservatives Are Biggest Consumers
8 of Top 10 Porn-Consuming States Voted Republican in 2008 Presidential Election
By EWEN CALLAWAYFeb. 28, 2009
You haven't seen me promoting the legal ownership of "assault weapons". What I have taken exception to is the ambiguous use of the term "assault weapon" on firearms that only look like automatic assault weapons...and that's in the law.
What I have taken exception to is the attempt to promote American gun control issues because of a Mexican problem.
I know you remember Lucas McCain...who was pretty deadly with a 10 shot lever action rifle that could be chambered for 44mag...I wonder what ol Sgt.Preston used?
Would you have a problem with him stating the ban would have a positive effect in America and Mexico or you don't want the positive effects in Mexico mentioned at all?
Lou Dobbs is probably the best example of what's really wrong with how wealthy Americans are treated in this country. He gets an hour a night to spew a bunch of inane observations on things he doesn't understand because he's very rich.
Guns are legal in the US. Guns are not legal in Mexico. Does it take a rocket scientist to figure out which way the gun trade flows?
I don't know if a rocket scientist would be an expert on weapons trafficking. I mean, that's like a botanist being an expert on the economy.
;)
We buy their drugs, they buy our guns. What's the problem?
Our own experiment with prohibition might give a clue.
Mexico looks at the gun supply from America as a large problem. Dobbs opinion counts for what and is for who's advantage?
The problem:
"The drug-related murder rate in Mexico doubled in 2008 from just one year before, and as the violence escalates, the power of the drug cartels has destabilized Mexican authority to the point of threatening national security."
Nice link. Here's another one detailing the violence of the drug cartel...and sweet jesus...it's a real horror story.
Where is Klatu when we need him?
thats Gort....not Klatu
I know. But without Klatu, we just have the stark consequences of ignorance. Klatu gives the warning...
"to the point of threatening national security."
I just want to revisit that for a moment. Our southern neighbor, the one that gets Americans so uptight when its desperate peasants come here looking for work, could be facing a downward spiral into social chaos. You know what such a thing could mean? One word....REFUGEES. Something for the gun-loving, not-our-problem conservatives to think about.
Exactly. Saying that this is not our problem is like saying that the overall drug problem down theres is not out problem. You know where most of our drugs come from? Our weapons are just making the drug lords more powerful and the ability to get nore drugs into the US.