jakeswensonmt
New member
I just watched a "news" cycle on one of the Obama propaganda networks (MSNBC.) Not a word about the AWB, just more glowing Obama butt-smooching and lies.
Holder, Obama want new AWB
- Thread starter azredhawk44
- Start date
- Status
Evan Thomas
Inactive
dabigguns357
I think this is what maestro pistolero was referring to in his post on media propaganda, about which he's quite right, BTW.
Of course, this still leaves the question of who's feeding the media this "OMG GUNS ARE GOING TO MEXICO!!" stuff...
I think this is what maestro pistolero was referring to in his post on media propaganda, about which he's quite right, BTW.
Of course, this still leaves the question of who's feeding the media this "OMG GUNS ARE GOING TO MEXICO!!" stuff...
Wildalaska
Moderator
Do ya love the infighting here:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news...n-reviving-assault-weapon-ban-2009-02-26.html
Pelosi knows there is an election cycle coming up and she wants to keep her seat..
Attention corrupt dealers in the great southwest.....they know who you are, watch indictments come left and right
WildcloseemdownAlaska ™
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news...n-reviving-assault-weapon-ban-2009-02-26.html
Pelosi knows there is an election cycle coming up and she wants to keep her seat..
Attention corrupt dealers in the great southwest.....they know who you are, watch indictments come left and right
WildcloseemdownAlaska ™
I don't know. If he has, I haven't seen it. I guess I made the mistake of "assuming" he'd follow suit with the democratic leadership and sign onto it. I guess we'll have to see. Does anyone have any examples of public statements made by Dingy Harry regarding assault weapons and the banning of same?
That sure came a lot faster than I expected. Not surprising, but I thought they'd wait a bit to gage next election prospects and make this either an end-of-term or second-term initiative. I don't take Pelosi's resistance as an indication she's suffering from an acute infection of common sense, but rather that she realizes the smorgasbord powergrab going on is burning all the Dem's political capital about two years too early.
Hopefully the bill would/will get smacked down. I don't want to bank on getting a ruling favoring bayonet lugs and pistol grips.
So who's going to give Gaffemaster Joey a buzz and let him know that Beretta makes hi-cap handguns and carbines? (Are we still in violation for talking politics if the administration forced the hand? It's only self-defense, right?
)
Hopefully the bill would/will get smacked down. I don't want to bank on getting a ruling favoring bayonet lugs and pistol grips.
So who's going to give Gaffemaster Joey a buzz and let him know that Beretta makes hi-cap handguns and carbines? (Are we still in violation for talking politics if the administration forced the hand? It's only self-defense, right?
)Mike Irwin
Staff
"The Second Amendment," said the attorney general, "is certainly not designed to arm and give fire power to organized crime abroad."
And I don't recall our Constitution being written in a manner conducive to helping a foreign nation control its criminal elements when, in fact, they have never been able to do so.
And I don't recall our Constitution being written in a manner conducive to helping a foreign nation control its criminal elements when, in fact, they have never been able to do so.
rantingredneck
New member
To the President:
To Senator Richard Burr (NC-R), Representative Howard Coble (NC-R) and Senator Kay Hagan (NC-D)
I cribbed a bit from Mike Irwin (apologies Mike, but it was good)
.
To Senator Richard Burr (NC-R), Representative Howard Coble (NC-R) and Senator Kay Hagan (NC-D)
I cribbed a bit from Mike Irwin (apologies Mike, but it was good)
.Evan Thomas
Inactive
azredhawk44
Moderator
Yeah, we've got lots of class 3 dealers doing a brisk trade in new full auto weaponry and grenades down here...
AZRedhawkdidyoureadthedescriptionofthegunbattles?thisisZetasandexMexicanmilitarydoingthefightingwiththeirowngear44
at least fox is giving the other side a far say..
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/02/26/lott_holder_gun/
February 26th, 2009 1:11 PM Eastern
A New Assault Weapons Ban Will Not Reduce Crime In This Country
By John R. Lott, Jr.
Author, “Freedomnomics“/Senior Research Scientist, University of Maryland
It is pretty hard to seriously argue that a new so-called “assault weapons” ban would reduce crime in the United States. Even research done for the Clinton Administration couldn’t find that the federal assault weapons ban reduced crime.
There are no academic studies by economists or criminologist that find the original federal assault weapons ban reduced murder or violent crime generally. There is no evidence that the state assault weapons bans reduced murder or violent crime rates –and there’s even some evidence that they may have caused murder to actually rise slightly. Since the federal ban expired in September 2004, murder –and overall violent crime rates– have remained virtually unchanged.
If Holder thinks that it is so easy to control drug gangs’ access to guns, one way to show it is by proving that he can stop drug gangs’ access to drugs.
In fact, when the assault weapons ban went off into the sunset in September 2004 there was no explosion of murder and bloodshed as gun control advocates feared. Immediately after the law expired murder rates fell and they fell more in the states without state assault weapon bans than the states with them.
But yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder offered a new justification: “I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.”
Mexico does have a horrible drug gang problem. Despite Mexico’s strenuous efforts, they haven’t been able to stop the flow of drugs into their country on their way to the United States.
The problem is that even if all our guns disappeared in the United States, there is no more reason to expect the flow of guns to Mexico to stop than there is to believe that we can stop the flow of drugs.
The drugs that these gangs sell are extremely valuable. They want to protect these drugs not only from the Mexican government but also from other gangs. Just as these gangs have a huge incentive to smuggle in guns, they have a huge incentive to smuggle in the guns used to protect them.
Even island nations — such as Ireland, Jamaica, and the UK — that can’t remotely begin to blame their crime problems on the United States have seen large increases in murder rates after gun bans at least in part because of increased drug gang violence.
If Holder thinks that it is so easy to control drug gangs’ access to guns, one way to show it is by proving that he can stop drug gangs’ access to drugs. No one should hold their breath for him to accomplish that task.
John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland. Click here for an archive of Mr. Lott’s previous FOXNews.com columns.
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/02/26/lott_holder_gun/
February 26th, 2009 1:11 PM Eastern
A New Assault Weapons Ban Will Not Reduce Crime In This Country
By John R. Lott, Jr.
Author, “Freedomnomics“/Senior Research Scientist, University of Maryland
It is pretty hard to seriously argue that a new so-called “assault weapons” ban would reduce crime in the United States. Even research done for the Clinton Administration couldn’t find that the federal assault weapons ban reduced crime.
There are no academic studies by economists or criminologist that find the original federal assault weapons ban reduced murder or violent crime generally. There is no evidence that the state assault weapons bans reduced murder or violent crime rates –and there’s even some evidence that they may have caused murder to actually rise slightly. Since the federal ban expired in September 2004, murder –and overall violent crime rates– have remained virtually unchanged.
If Holder thinks that it is so easy to control drug gangs’ access to guns, one way to show it is by proving that he can stop drug gangs’ access to drugs.
In fact, when the assault weapons ban went off into the sunset in September 2004 there was no explosion of murder and bloodshed as gun control advocates feared. Immediately after the law expired murder rates fell and they fell more in the states without state assault weapon bans than the states with them.
But yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder offered a new justification: “I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.”
Mexico does have a horrible drug gang problem. Despite Mexico’s strenuous efforts, they haven’t been able to stop the flow of drugs into their country on their way to the United States.
The problem is that even if all our guns disappeared in the United States, there is no more reason to expect the flow of guns to Mexico to stop than there is to believe that we can stop the flow of drugs.
The drugs that these gangs sell are extremely valuable. They want to protect these drugs not only from the Mexican government but also from other gangs. Just as these gangs have a huge incentive to smuggle in guns, they have a huge incentive to smuggle in the guns used to protect them.
Even island nations — such as Ireland, Jamaica, and the UK — that can’t remotely begin to blame their crime problems on the United States have seen large increases in murder rates after gun bans at least in part because of increased drug gang violence.
If Holder thinks that it is so easy to control drug gangs’ access to guns, one way to show it is by proving that he can stop drug gangs’ access to drugs. No one should hold their breath for him to accomplish that task.
John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland. Click here for an archive of Mr. Lott’s previous FOXNews.com columns.
MikeIrwin said:
But it's not not written to say that, either! Durr! Wait, what?
It's an interesting justification that they might be invoking to circumvent the domestic constraints on their power. Perhaps a shared international policy, treaty or [tinfoil hat] new continental order would make gun bans more reasonable. While the supremacy clause has been interpreted in a couple court cases to preclude treaties eroding constitutional protections, it could still be an attempt to hide the ball and come up with new justifications. It's not impossible to thwart precedent with a couple new tricks and aggressive wordsmithing.
A long shot, for sure. But I can't see why else they would harp on this, as I have trouble believing it's really an issue that deserves any airtime in terms of its scale in comparison to all the crime in Mexico, and in view of our pressind domestic issues.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Come on Az, you know dang well there are a bunch of corrupt dealers feeding this crap
WildandhtefedsknowittoAlaska ™
vranasaurus
New member
A few questions for anyone that buys this Mexico nonsense:
Why would Mexican Cartels settle for semiautomatic weapons when they can easily get the non-nuetered versions?
Why doesn't Mexico enforce their own gun laws? If those laws worked wouldn't it stand to reason that these gangs wouldn't have weapons?
Why doesn't Mexico stop the flow of drugs and illegal immigrants from coming across our borders? If they expect us to stop guns shouldn't we expect them to reciprocate in some way?
If cartels can smuggle drugs, wouldn't they also be able to smuggle guns?
Why would Mexican Cartels settle for semiautomatic weapons when they can easily get the non-nuetered versions?
Why doesn't Mexico enforce their own gun laws? If those laws worked wouldn't it stand to reason that these gangs wouldn't have weapons?
Why doesn't Mexico stop the flow of drugs and illegal immigrants from coming across our borders? If they expect us to stop guns shouldn't we expect them to reciprocate in some way?
If cartels can smuggle drugs, wouldn't they also be able to smuggle guns?
azredhawk44
Moderator
Yep, and one of them just down the road from me about 3 miles got shut down a couple months ago.
But he still wasn't selling the full auto rifles or the grenades. Maybe some AR's, SKS's, AK's and handguns, but that's it.
I don't see that there's a lot of reason to get anyone's knickers in a twist over our domestic weapons supplies and their relation to Mexican drug wars until Mexico can control its own military-apportioned arms supply. Considering the heavy recruiting that the Sinaloa/Gulf/Zeta groups do with current Mexican military and the high level of corruption or defection, our guns are the least of their problems.
Mexico, control your own guns before you start pointing fingers at us.
AZRedhawkZetasalsouseradiojamminggearagainstminutemenpatrolsandBP44
Kreyzhorse
New member
This is some of the best advice I've seen on here ever. I'm already a member, but now is a great time to donate a few extra bucks to the cause.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Ar15 plus machine shop equals M16 in 20 minutes. Same with AK
Because they are corrupt
Becasue they are corrupt
They do. They straw man guns from dealers in the US. They buy them at gun shows in the US.
Let go of the gunwoobie. Crritical thinkers KNOW there is a problem with corrupt FFLs down there feeding this trade. So do the Feds. We may differ on the solutions, but lets not pretend the problem exists.
I could solve a good deal of the problem without even changing the law
WildbecauseiusecommonsenseAlaska ™
Wildalaska
Moderator
You know, I could care less what goes on down there. But if in any fashion we are contributing to the problem (and it becomes a problem for uswhen it spills over to the US), then we need to stop it.
No man is an island, etc.....
Good. Lock him up
WilditsbetterfortherestofusAlaska ™
- Status