Preparing The Battlefield
By Mitch Berg
President Obama and his supporters have said many times that, never mind that he has a history of gun-grabber appointments, positions and votes, the new Administration has no designs on gun control.
Flash back to 1994; the Clinton Administration used the “war on drugs” – a largely manufactured crisis – and “domestic terrorism” and “militias” – as motivation for history’s largest peacetime assaults on the civil liberties of law-abiding American citizens, the 1994 Crime Bill and the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.
Of course, the “war on drugs” – which has killed more Americans than the Vietnam and Korean wars put together – could be solved tomorrow by decriminalizing the more harmless recreational drugs. And “Domestic terrorism”, despite a few highly-publicized incidents (and, of course, the horror of the Oklahoma City bombing) was controlled fairly handily by existing measures.
Nonetheless, the government used both as pretext for an assault on our civil liberties.
With that in mind, consider the current meltdown in Mexico; armed narcotraficante gangs are pretty much screwing up the program throughout northern Mexico.
They’re as nasty as Al Quaeda, and they’re armed like a small army:
They were armed to the teeth. Their arsenal ranged from semi-automatic rifles to rocket-propelled grenades. When the smoke finally cleared and the government had prevailed, Mexican federal agents captured 540 assault rifles, more than 500,000 rounds of ammunition, 150 grenades, 14 cartridges of dynamite, 98 fragmentation grenades, 67 bulletproof vests, seven Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifles and a Light Anti Tank (LAW) rocket
Now, when they say “assault rifles”, bear in mind that they’re talking about the real thing – the German G-3s that arm the Mexican army (which the gangs have heavily infiltrated), and the AK-series weapons, which come from all over the world, including many parts of Latin America, where communists funded insurgencies for many ears.
But that’s not the angle the media is going with (with emphasis added):
This is modern Mexico, where the leaders of the powerful drug cartels are armed to the teeth with sophisticated weapons, many of which are smuggled over the border from the United States.
Let’s make sure we get this straight, since all too many even in the conservative media get this wrong; the narcotraficantes have access to the real thing, the stuff that armies all over Latin America use; fully-automatic weapons, rockets, machine guns, explosives.
But what is the only source mentioned in this (and, anecdotally, any) story on the subject?
“Americans are understandably focused on the flow of drugs and migrants into the U.S. from Mexico,” says Andreas Peter, author of “Border Games: Policing the U.S.-Mexico Divide.”
“But too often glossed over in the border security debate is the flow of weapons across the border into Mexico,” he told Foxnews.com in a statement via the Internet.
The cartels are obtaining arms from America by using “straw man” buyers, who legally purchase weapons at gun shops and gun shows in the U.S. The weapons cross into Mexico, where border security is much weaker heading south of the border than it is going north.
And onward, and onward. Read the whole story.
Look for a lot more media stories about “the flow of guns to Mexico” in the near future.
And then look for a raft of gun control proposals – to stop the “flow of guns to Mexico”, naturally – to come up sooner than later.
February 5th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Mitch, my only comment would be that the ‘war on drugs’ was not a ‘largely manufactured situation’ – the crime rate in 1995 was the highest (in Minnesota) ever, with murder more than double today’s levels.
While I don’t really doubt guns from the US are flowing to Mexico, we make a LOT of guns – I also have no question that they’d get them from anywhere else if they didn’t get them from us, so stopping them from us will have no effect.
The real question is, what are we going to do about Mexico?
BTW, stopping Domestic terrorism with ‘existing measures’ – hmmm, like law enforcement? I agree. I also agree that many of our most draconian laws were and are done in the name of other types of enforcement – such as the confiscatory policies of the 1994 and (iirc) 1996 bills – those were an anethma to liberty.
February 5th, 2009 at 9:07 am
You can buy LAW rockets in the US with a strawman buyer? That is so cool. Go USA!
February 5th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Yeah, you know I hear about people using straw buyers to obtain LAW’s, grenades, RPG’s and fully automatic weapons all the time.
Hell, you can probably just go to e-bay and use the “buy it now” feature if you’re in a hurry.
February 5th, 2009 at 10:00 am
There goes another paycheck. In addition to beefing up my handgun arsenal, I now also have to splurge on that 30-06 I had my eye on, before they all disappear.
BTW, there is a waiting list to buy 4510! Taurus cannot keep up with demand! And waiting lists for LCP are closed – way too many takers. This is of course if you want to pay retail.
February 5th, 2009 at 10:09 am
I know what you mean about the 4510 (The Judge). When I finally found a store that had one I also found the price a little more dear than I expected. I had set the Judge down and was considering a Taurus 85 that was about $90 less when a guy and his wife came up to the counter and asked the owner “do you have The Judge’. I quickly picked it back up and said, “I’ll take it.”
The shop owner said he searches all over the ‘net to find a distributor that can ship him the gun and when he finds one he orders five – and gets one.
February 5th, 2009 at 10:10 am
Is it legal to put a shotgun round in a pistol? What’s the difference between a 4510 and shotgun with the barrel & stock shortened?
February 5th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Terry: it’s legal juju. You don’t need the extra Class II spells if you make the thing as a handgun initially. A short-barrelled shotgun with a pistol grip or an short-barreled rifle require extra spells and Class I licensing to avoid the cooties.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Oh…I see: ‘Gun grabbing’ = limiting citizens to 12 firearm purchases per year–what a chilling assault upon civil rights. And the author still can’t spell our President’s name? (These righties never cared much for book learnin’.)
February 5th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
limiting citizens = limiting freedom
What next? limiting citizens to 12 cases of beer per year?
Why are you so afraid of law abiding citizens, Gavin?
February 5th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Mitch, you need to go back and check some spelling in this. There are some errors that a simple spellcheck would let through.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
LTB: enchantment on 1911 colt, +12 spirit, +18 agility, Disemboweling Blast of 410 Gauge. Paying 10G. PST.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
“Gun Grabbing” is limiting the rights of legal gun owners to no useful end. So yes, Gavin, “limiting citizens to 12 firearm purchases per year” certainly qualifies.
If you don’t think so, please describe the specific “danger” avoided by outlawing a 13th gun purchase by a legally qualified citizen in a years time.
Is an exaggerated opinion of oneself a common trait among “lefties”? Or is it just you?
February 5th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Somehow I thought ‘gun-grabbing’ ought to entail actual reductions in individual arsenals. ‘Firearm rights’ is not a civil rights issue, in any case.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
The 13th gun has a mind of its own, Troy. It’s gonna getcha.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Why are you so afraid of law abiding citizens, Gavin?
February 5th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Gavin,
We don’t want to give firearms rights. We’re not like the left-leaners.
We don’t want the government to infringe upon the rights of citizens to own weapons.
The Founders are behind us.
February 5th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Peev,
You’re just…
…um…
…right.
Wow. 🙂
Gavin,
I’m going to approach your comments in reverse order:
Somehow I thought ‘gun-grabbing’ ought to entail actual reductions in individual arsenals.
No, “gun-grabbing” is common usage for infringing the rights, and eventually arsenals, of the law-abiding citizen.
‘Firearm rights’ is not a civil rights issue, in any case.
According to the Heller case, it most certainly is. The right to keep and bear arms is as individual a right as speech, press, faith, assembly, voting, a jury trial, the whole enchilada.
Oh…I see: ‘Gun grabbing’ = limiting citizens to 12 firearm purchases per year–what a chilling assault upon civil rights.
Sarcasm isn’t exactly “argument”, and I’m not aware that purchase limits were even part of this discussion, but let’s run with it, since it highlights the illogic of Gavin’s approach.
Presuming I’m a law-abiding citizen, why should you care? If I buy fifty guns this month, am I any more likely to commit a crime than if I buy one, or none, or a hundred? Indeed, how many criminals arrested for gun crimes have “arsenals”? How many have legally purchased guns at all?
The issue isn’t, and has never been, the number of guns purchased. It’s what one does with them.
And since with all civil rights and liberties there’s a presumption of innocence, why do you limit my access to my civil liberty? It makes no more sense than limiting you to 12 posts about Rep. Paulsen (Hey, it’s enough, isn’t it?).
And the author still can’t spell our President’s name? (These righties never cared much for book learnin’.)
Um…huh?
February 5th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Gavin,
While MANY commenters on this site have challenges putting aside ideology, becoming one too doesn’t make you better.
I am a conservative (in the sense that I’m Democrat) Democrat – sometimes Independent.
Let me reply with the single biggst problem I see with restricting gun purchases. It begins the process of legitimizing restricting individual gun ownership. While I’m not fully comfortable with Heller, in that it seems to enshrine hunting as a right – which I consider extraordinarily activist – Heller clarified one point, like it or not, and that is ‘the people’ means individuals, not militias (only).
If we assume that a defined purpose of the 2nd amendment is to establish the right of the people to form irregular forces in time of invasion, and that’s hardly an assumption, it’s virtually spelled out in Miller v. US 1939 – then how, should someone choose to forearm themselves for that purpose, can we logically argue that if they desire to stockpile against that need by buying 100 AR-15’s or any other serviceable weapon “of the type in common use”? In my opinion, we cannot, you cannot.
This fundamental liberty is of no less importance than your right to dissent against George Bush for invading a country which was not involved in 9/11 and not involved WITH Al Qaeda. This right COULD be the preservator of your rights of speech, due process, assembly, and intrusion from the Government without cause. It is a bed-rock liberty, and must be upheld against any incursion where the ultimate result could be the dissarming of the citizenry OR the prevention of the citizenry to form irregular forces as needed.
February 5th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
BTW – Mitch, I’m right a great deal of the time 🙂 – neener.
February 5th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Wow, I agree with Peev. Except for hunting, it is a right as specifically described in our Constitution, MN, amended.
As for Heller, not bad if that is your only nit to pick.
Breaking News:
Justice Ginsburg has pancreatic cancer surgery
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/scotus_ginsburg
I pray for her health and hope for the best. I had pancreatitis once, intense pain, on a scale of 1 to 10, its a 9.9.
The scary thing about Heller was it was a 5-4 decision thanks to President Bush’s appointments to SCOTUS.
February 5th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
K-Rod, Heller was a SCOTUS decision, our MN Constitution would therefore be, irrelevant as you undoubtedly grasp.
February 5th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
My hunting right is specifically protected by our Constitution. 8)
February 5th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Depends on whether Heller is incorporated, peev.
February 5th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
OMG the irony!
Terry, Really?!, you don’t say? 🙂
Considering a. I was the one who introduced the idea on this subject (of incorporation) and b. argued that Heller was both arguing for it, but excluding it, and named the reasons they shied away…
Let me just say I think I do understand. but.. thanks.
February 5th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
It makes sense that some gun afficianados and collectors might have cause to buy (or sell, privately for that matter) more than 12 guns a year.
But is it also not conceivable that the intent, however it might miss the mark, of ‘gun grabbing’ legislation is to reduce the number of individuals who could and would buy large numbers of guns for illegal private resale?
Not supporting it, just pointing out one of the logical intentions to limiting large numbers of gun transactions…. in view of the concern over large numbers of guns and other weapons going not only over the border to Mexico, but also to other locations in Africa where there are civil wars, etc.
February 5th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Actually, peev, I can’t see where you mentioned ‘incorporation’ at all.
February 6th, 2009 at 1:03 am
DG, I’m not a 2nd amendment absolutist. I can think of no good reason why someone would not be satisfied with being able to buy just one handgun a month.
However I wonder how much of a problem this really is. All the evidence I’ve seen so far is anecdotal. Are there really a lot of people who buy several handguns each month and then sell them on the black market?
The anti-gun crowd has used so many dishonest tactics over the years I take every anti-gun-trade article with a bucket of salt.
February 6th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Terry, I think you make a very good point (as you so often do), one that could conceivably provide a very good basis for a legal challenge.
My impression – I am NOT a lawyer! – is that where a law restricts or limits the rights of citizens, there is supposed to be some legitimate reason or problem addressed by that limitation that benefits the public good. Restrictions and limitations are not supposed to occur based on guesses and assumptions. Anectdotal accounts are probably not sufficient basis for a restriction. It would be worth it for someone unable to buy more than the allowed hand guns to pursue.
If there are not significant numbers of people buying huge numbers of guns, and if there are not significant numbers of those people who in some way abuse their gun ownership property rights, like an illegal activity with those guns, then …why is this limitation in place?
February 7th, 2009 at 8:11 am
Often anecdotal accounts are sufficient to regulate activity. It’s a political, not a scientific decision. If I was a gun-controller, I would want to set a limit on the number of guns an individual could purpose because that limit can always be reduced at a later time.
October 25th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
[…] part of my prediction, I noted that it was highly unlikely that Mexican narcotraficantes, with access to generations worth of guerrilla-surplus weaponry and […]