Indians For Guns

http://www.ammoland.com/2009/04/22/usa- ... dian-army/
EveryTown, USA - -(AmmoLand.com)- In just 3 months Americans bought enough guns to outfit the entire Chinese and Indian army’s combined.

You also bought 1,529,635,000 rounds of ammunition in just the month of December 2008. Yeah that is right, that is Billion with a “B”.


wtf what do they know?.

They do, because they can... we don't because we can't....

I also think its because they fear that Mr.Obama would come out with some strict gun control laws and they want to tank up before it he does it .

Bad Cheetah Out...
Cheetah Bhi Peeta Hai ...

good video

Well I'm certainly doing my part!

warthog wrote: You also bought 1,529,635,000 rounds of ammunition in just the month of December 2008. Yeah that is right, that is Billion with a “B”.

No wonder I couldn't find any

Yes, I do really wonder about this. It is a fact that here in the USA, 7.62 x 39 has not been as available. Before Iraq started, I was buying 1000 round lots of this for less than what is asked for 500 round lots now. Up to the recent election and after, people were buying and hoarding every bit of ammo they could buy, and there wasn't very much of any caliber left. This was a gold strike for the dealers, as everyone was buying on the fears that President Obama would be like Clinton and tighten up on gun restrictions.

Yet, it was clear to me that this was all a bunch of foolishness. Fear ran and is running rampant on gun forums and in private conversation, but the President has repeatedly said that he wasn't going to be messing with guns. My own study of this was that he was telling the truth, since to a large extent, it was gun owners and gun rights groups that sank Clinton's boat in the congressional elections of 1994. At that point, the Republicans took over the House 2 years into Clinton's presidency and he was hamstrung on many issues of his agenda for the rest of his time in the White House. Clinton's big moves after this were usually selling out his own Democratic PArty and agreeing with Republicans, such as in the Telecom Act of 1996, or the very foolish decision to let investment banks into the stock market, the results of which we are enjoying worldwide today.

President Obama is much smarter than Clinton or his wife (which is why he beat them in the primary). A study of his life shows that what he says he's interested in IS what he's interested in: Health care, Education, Research & Development, and Energy independence. He doesn't want to waste his political capital on silly fights he can't win and that will detract from getting these goals accomplished.

This is proven by recent events: the drug wars in Mexico have been heating up and have been quite violent this year. As has always been the case during internal unrest in Mexico, American arms dealers are turning a pretty penny by breaking the law and selling to the Mexican drug cartels. Because of this, Attorney General Holder spoke out and said more stringent gun controls were needed, and the PResident publicly disagreed. Then Sec. of State Clinton made the same statement, and the President disavowed her attempt to make gun policy, too. So, the President has publicly disagreed with two of the most powerful cabinet officers in his Administration, and nothing more has been said since.

However, this number of guns that the USA is buying does worry me:

I am sure that most folks in India are well aware of the fact that when the USA was using the militant tribes in Afghanistan to embarrass the Soviet Union, many AK 47s were bought by the USA from China and shipped to Pakistan for delivery to the Afghan tribes. This was done because the USA could not risk directly supplying the Afghan tribes, which would risk a confrontation with the USSR. I'm also sure that you're aware of the fact that many of these guns were "short stopped" and they never reached their intended goal. And then, I'm sure you realize that our former President Bush's good buddy in "the War on Terror", Pervez Musharraf, was in charge of the Army when those AK 47s bought by my tax money ended up being introduced into the Kashmir conflict.

As an American tax payer, I am very leery of the USA buying lots of guns and war materiel and spreading it all over. Our history has indicated that many of the decisions to do this have been very short-sighted and have come back to haunt us or other innocent parties, as in the example I cited above.

So I'm doubtful of the wisdom of a lot of these decisions. There have been too many foolish ones in recent history for me to be trusting on this matter.

This is proven by recent events: the drug wars in Mexico have been heating up and have been quite violent this year. As has always been the case during internal unrest in Mexico, American arms dealers are turning a pretty penny by breaking the law and selling to the Mexican drug cartels. Because of this, Attorney General Holder spoke out and said more stringent gun controls were needed,

I'd have to disagree with you that excessively large numbers of firearms are being supplied by American Arms dealers to Mexican drug lords. First of all, why would they want the semi-auto weapons available to us when they can use and are using full-auto weapons, grenade launchers, recoilless rifles and "50 caliber sniper machine guns"(You gotta watch this, he really said that!).
Secondly, the BATF lied (well maybe they just skewed the truth) when they testified to the house of representatives.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04 ... -come.html

William Hoover, assistant director for field operations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, testified in the House of Representatives that "there is more than enough evidence to indicate that over 90 percent of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States."

There's just one problem with the 90 percent "statistic" and it's a big one:

It's just not true.

In fact, it's not even close. The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.

What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, "is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."
But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.

"Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market," Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News.

As for Holder, when he asked for more gun control, Democratic congressmen basically told him to stuff it. With Hillary, she herself admitted that there was no way that additional gun controls were going to pass. The President didn't have anything to do with it. I can cite all kinds of references, if you would like but we really shouldnt be talking about American gun politics here.

xl_target, the logic that you are using to take issue with my post is not sound:

I'd have to disagree with you that excessively large numbers of firearms are being supplied by American Arms dealers to Mexican drug lords.

First of all, I challenge you to quote where I said "...excessively large numbers of firearms are being supplied by American Arms dealers to Mexican drug lords..." or words like it in my post.

Second of all, your erroneous quote uses the words "excessively large numbers" and these words are meaningless, since they constitute a subjective, not an objective quantity of guns.

Third of all, if you review again what I said, I said that US gun dealers were making large profits selling illegal guns to Mexico. I then ran down the dissent in the Administration about illegal gun shipments from the USA to Mexico. You are trying to accuse me of saying more or of saying something else, I'm not sure what, but you need to check over what you are criticizing again, in the interests of accuracy and even addressing the point I was making.

Fourthly, I challenge you to explain to me why I am off base in discussing American gun politics here.

Fifthly, the Fox News source you quote is clearly in error also. Newsweek says:

Fox News has put the percentage of guns that have been traced to U.S. sources at only 17 percent, but we find that to be based on a mistaken assumption that throws its figure way off. We can't offer a precise calculation because we know of no hard information on the total number of guns Mexican officials have recovered. But if a rough figure given by Mexico's attorney general is accurate, then the actual percentage of all Mexican crime guns that have been traced to U.S. sources is more than double what Fox News has reported.

(source: Counting Mexico's Guns)

You can find some additional information on this subject here:

WSJ: “GAO Ties U.S. Guns to Mexico Violence”

and here:

GAO Report: U.S. Source For “Large Portion” of Mexican Crime Guns

Seventh, regarding the guns that were not traced by the Mexican government, we do see that these constitute the majority of guns recovered. However, can you provide facts and data to support your assumption that the weapons not traced, but recovered, did not originate in the USA? If there is no data to support their origin, then a claim one way or another must be invalid. Also, can you state that the guns that were recovered are representative of the guns that are still in the hands of the drug cartels, and what is your statistical confidence level for your assertion(s), should you choose to make one?

Eighth, your argument here:

As for Holder, when he asked for more gun control, Democratic congressmen basically told him to stuff it. With Hillary, she herself admitted that there was no way that additional gun controls were going to pass. The President didn't have anything to do with it.

misses my point by quite a wide margin. Again, you appear to be in need of a review of what I said, before you try to take issue with it. The point I was making was within the context of the thread: that there was a large scale buying of guns and ammunition within the USA, and that this was due to the election of President Obama. I was not addressing whether a bill could or would pass in the Congress. You and I both know that the President can cause a lot of mayhem by using Executive Order, and that this power has been widely abused by the Executive over the last few years in the USA. My point was that the President wasn't going to make moves against gun rights and the actions of citizens to clear the stores of guns and ammunition, based on what the President would do, rivaled the silly mania of the Y2K buying spree. So, I find your statement that "The President didn't have anything to do with it" to not have anything to do with any point that I was making.

I'd appreciate a closer attention to the points that I've made, if you wish to respond. It would save both of us a lot of time and effort, not to mention giving our fellow forum members here a clearer and more accurate indication of what's up in the USA.



I would like to add a further postscript to my comments, and it is this:

Gun owners in the USA typically stick pretty close together and speak up for each other. However, this gun owner would throw anyone illegally selling arms to Mexico under the bus in a New York Second. From my point of view, their illegal activities in the pursuit of a fast buck take advantage of the cover provided by legal gun owners asserting their rights of gun ownership, and it is precisely their illegal activities that make life very difficult here for legal gun owners.

I have absolutely no sympathy for those law breakers; may they rot in jail.

timmy wrote: First of all, I challenge you to quote where I said "...excessively large numbers of firearms are being supplied by American Arms dealers to Mexican drug lords..." or words like it in my post.

1. You're correct. I made an assumption that you were agreeing with the current administration's 90% figure. Apparently, I was wrong in that assumption. That was what I meant by the "excessively large number" statement. The impression that the current administration appeared to convey was that 90% of the firearms recovered were of US origin and came through illegal sales made by firearms dealers in the US. I assumed that this was the viewpoint that you were advancing. I apologize for that incorrect assumption if that is not the viewpoint that you were advancing.

2. You're correct again. I should have been more precise. The initial figure was that 17% (later corrected to about 21.6% by the GAO) of the arms recovered by the Mexican government have been traced to the US. Please note that while I am guilty of being subjective, your statement:

As has always been the case during internal unrest in Mexico, American arms dealers are turning a pretty penny by breaking the law and selling to the Mexican drug cartels.

is a subjective statement too. Your statement implies that it is a common practice and therefore there are a number of dishonest dealers. How many dealers are engaging in this activity? One? two hundred? One thousand? Five thousand? How many dealers have been actually prosecuted for these illegal sales?

3. You said that the President publicly disagreed with the AG. That is true. Since it is hard to gage nuances and tone in a post on the internet. I apparently misunderstood you again. What I inferred from you post was that was the only reason that the AG stopped talking about gun control. I was saying that it was because 65 House Democratic congressmen told him that it wasn't going to happen. That is why the President had to say what he did.
Cite: http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index. ... _cont.html

That's why Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, was basically told to zip his lip about any restoration of the assault-weapons ban. Three months ago, he came out for restoration; he had the wild and crazy idea that such a ban might help stanch the easy flow of assault weapons to the Mexican drug gangs who are wreaking havoc at the border. The NRA swung into action, and 65 House Democrats -- many from swing districts -- formally protested Holder's idea. Holder got the memo. By April, he was saying: "I respect the Second Amendment," and little more.

4.

timmy wrote:Fourthly, I challenge you to explain to me why I am off base in discussing American gun politics here.

a. This forum is about "Indians for Guns". Anything that happens on the American gun control scene will not directly impact the vast majority of members here.
b. There probably isn't much interest here in the nitty-gritty of American gun politics and infighting between the legislative and executive bodies in the US.
c. A percentage of members here might feel that we are cluttering up their forums with discussions that have little bearing on the Indian gun scene.

5. You are probably correct that Fox News was under-reporting the percentages. However, no one seems to know for sure. The GAO report says that of the 30,000 weapons seized by Mexican authorities, only 7200 were submitted for tracing. From the link you submitted: http://www.factcheck.org/politics/count ... _guns.html

During a joint press conference with President Felipe Calderón of Mexico, Obama said of the raging violence by Mexican drug gangs:
Obama, April 16: A demand for these drugs in the United States is what is helping to keep these cartels in business. This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border.
Obama would have been correct to say that 90 percent of the guns submitted for tracing by Mexican authorities were then traced to the U.S. The percentage of all recovered guns that came from the U.S. is unknown.

FactCheck also notes: We had great difficulty pinning down the number of guns recovered, and eventually relied on an account citing Mexico’s attorney general, who reportedly said that nearly 30,000 guns had been recovered over the years 2007 and 2008 — a two-year period So maybe Fox was wrong but according to the GAO, they were 4.6% under.
(7200/30000)X100=24%.
90% of 24=21.6%
The truth? No one seems to know what the actual number are for sure.

6. I'm sorry, I don't see a sixth point.

7.

Seventh, regarding the guns that were not traced by the Mexican government, we do see that these constitute the majority of guns recovered. However, can you provide facts and data to support your assumption that the weapons not traced, but recovered, did not originate in the USA? If there is no data to support their origin, then a claim one way or another must be invalid. Also, can you state that the guns that were recovered are representative of the guns that are still in the hands of the drug cartels, and what is your statistical confidence level for your assertion(s), should you choose to make one?

While I can't state categorically that the rest of the weapons aren't of US origins, one must remember that over the years, especially during the cold war, both the US and the then Soviet Union poured arms into South America. There is a good chance that there are quantities of the former Warsaw Pact's arms in South America along with US Govt. supplied weapons. once again quoting the Fox report:

What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, "is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."
But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.

"Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market," Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News.

8. I think I covered most of that in 3.

and the actions of citizens to clear the stores of guns and ammunition, based on what the President would do, rivaled the silly mania of the Y2K buying spree.

I'm sorry I didn't get anything even close to that from your initial post. Apparently. I didn't get the tone but if that is what you meant , you're correct.
You're correct though that the "The President wasn't going to make any moves against gun rights". Not with 65 House Democrats coming out in public against it. If he did pass an executive order that was egregious in the eyes of RKBA proponents, he would have had an open revolt on his hands. He is smarter than that.

Gun owners in the USA typically stick pretty close together and speak up for each other. However, this gun owner would throw anyone illegally selling arms to Mexico under the bus in a New York Second. From my point of view, their illegal activities in the pursuit of a fast buck take advantage of the cover provided by legal gun owners asserting their rights of gun ownership, and it is precisely their illegal activities that make life very difficult here for legal gun owners.

I have absolutely no sympathy for those law breakers; may they rot in jail.

You're absolutely correct and I agree with your last statement 100% but in America, more than most other countries, we like to believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty. I might have missed it but I haven't heard of legitimate arms dealers being prosecuted and found guilty.

Look, I tried to attack your post and not you personally. From reading your posts, I have the impression that you are a rational and mature human being and that I have a lot in common with your beliefs and values. Your posts are generally well thought out and meaningful. The statement you made that I had some problems with was:

However, this number of guns that the USA is buying does worry me:

Why? As long as law abiding citizens are buying guns, why are you worried? According to the initial post, these statistics came from NICS checks. That means that private citizens have filled out 4473's to buy firearms and have passed the checks set forth by law. People who oppose that generally are the gun control people.
I know that you are a gun owner and you probably don't fall into that category. I am not accusing you of being anti-gun but it changed the whole tone of your post for me.

It would save both of us a lot of time and effort, not to mention giving our fellow forum members here a clearer and more accurate indication of what's up in the USA.

That was my intention too but I really didn't think there would be a lot who would be interested in a long winded discussion of the intimate details. If people here object, I'd be more than happy to continue our discussion by PM or email.

Thank you sir, for keeping the discussion civil. Phew! You wore me out!

Your statement implies that it is a common practice and therefore there are a number of dishonest dealers.

My perspective on this comes from a study of the history of Mexico. Rather than begin again, please allow me to briefly quote the explanation I've given elsewhere on this subject:

From The Mexican-American War on, the USA has consistently manipulated the Mexican government to its own advantage, a practice that has never allowed the Mexican Government to truly enjoy the full confidence of its people.

We often discuss WW1 and note how, in Churchill's words, Kaiser Bill and his pickelhaube-jackboot crowd put Lenin on the sealed train from Switzerland, but it is seldom mentioned that the USA did the same thing when we set Santa Ana up for his return on the eve of the Mexican American War.

Those leaders who were intransigent to American demands were invaded, or economically squeezed, or deposed, or any combination of these and many other such dirty tricks.

For instance, when Lerdo de Tejada (after Benito Juarez) proved unwilling to give US businessmen the concessions they desired, those businessmen (chiefly Texans) poured support and materiel across the border to Porfirio Diaz, who overthrew Lerdo de Tejada and reigned for 30 years in the Porfiriato. When Diaz, tired of American business demands, began to cozy up with European businesses (chiefly British) and nationalized the railroads, American businesses backed Francisco Madero in the same way as they had Diaz: they harbored him and shipped guns and butter to him thru El Paso. When Madero proved to slow in backing US business, Henry Lane Wilson, US Ambassador, invited Gen. Victoriano Huerta and Felix Diaz (Porfirio's nephew) to the US Embassy in Mexico City, where the Coup against Madero was planned and the spoils apportioned.

All of Mexico rose against Huerta, and Woodrow Wilson, ever posing as the self-righteous prig, dumped Huerta and played the field. His baiting Francisco (Pancho) Villa ended up causing the Columbus Raid and the expensive and futile chase of Villa by Pershing. Wilson had dumped Villa when he recognized that Villa and Emiliano Zapata would not back the sort of business concessions US businessmen wanted. Given that Texas wielded such power in the Democratic party and Wilson's administration and that it was Texas businesses that had the largest investment in Mexico at stake, it is not too hard to see from whence Wilson's "enlightenment" came.

Wilson then squeezed out Villa, primarily, by sending a huge amount of munitions to the port of Vera Cruz, which the USA had seized on a pretext. When the USA abandoned Vera Cruz, these munitions were left in the hands of the Constitutionalist forces of Venustiano Carranza. The munitions were a key factor in the 5 great defeats Alvaro Obregon inflicted on Pancho Villa's Division del Norte,which broke Villa's back.

Finally, when the dust settled, Obregon was president of a ruined and bankrupt nation. The price for American aid was Obregon's ignoring the provision of the Mexican Constitution (the one he was instrumental in formulating) that retained all mineral ownership for the Mexican Republic.

The only President of Mexico who was given the scope by the USA (or, to be more specific, FDR) was Lazaro Cardenas, who famously nationalized the Mexican oil fields. Cardenas also had the leverage of the looming European war to help him on this matter, but chiefly it was his intelligence and scrupulous honesty that enabled him to outwit the yanqui and ensure a fair share of Mexico's wealth for Mexicans.

I think that you see that I'm not just referring to an event or two: I'm talking about a well-established pattern of US companies profiteering on the backs of Mexican misery for over a century and a half, in such a way as to cause Mexico to remain in the USA's orbit as a near-failed state, never able to develop nationhood without meddling from its neighbor. I think that this concept would be easily understood by folks familiar with, say, the history of the Raj. I'll admit that I cannot quantify how much of a pretty penny is involved here, but I'd still feel quite comfortable with the characterization I made.

But with regard to specifics of today, here's an article that crossed my attention a few months back:

Cartels in Mexico's drug war get guns from US

At the time, I did comment that this article was inaccurate. It spoke of X-Caliber Guns as selling "AK-47s" to the drug cartels in Mexico. I googled "X-Caliber Guns" and came up with articles that were careful to say "AK-47 replicas" and "AK-47-type assault rifles" instead of "AK-47," highlighting the difference between weapons capable of fully automatic fire and semi-automatic fire. Other articles mentioned the number of weapons involved in this X-Caliber gun scam to be 600 or 650. One of the articles said that 650 weapons were involved, but only 250 of these were of the AK-47 type.

I'd note here that 600 or 650 guns is significant, compared to the 7000 or so traced.

I'd also note that if authorities are as good at grabbing illegal guns going across the border as they are drugs, you can well imagine that these numbers are all a drop in the bucket.

The thing we Americans are really good at is looking down our noses at illegal aliens, and protesting that we are a nation of laws. The facts of history and of today indicate something quite different, when one takes into account the amount of illegal drugs we ship into this country and the illegal guns we are shipping out.

You're correct though that the "The President wasn't going to make any moves against gun rights". Not with 65 House Democrats coming out in public against it. If he did pass an executive order that was egregious in the eyes of RKBA proponents, he would have had an open revolt on his hands. He is smarter than that.

President Obama is a very smart man. He's also quite a student of history. He knows, for instance, How Jimmy Carter blew his political capital by alienating Western Democrats on federal water rights. He also knows how Clinton blew a lot of his political capital early on by sponsoring the "Assault Weapons Ban" in 1994 and by the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for the military. Despite what scare-tactic demagogue on talk radio and cable TV news said during the election and still say, the President wasn't going to get bogged down in any of this and it was his intention long before he captured the nomination to steer clear of these issues, as well as abortion. His agenda was made clear early on and he has not altered that agenda. I feel that this choice on the President's part has to do with much more than a group of Democrats in close districts who are worried about keeping their jobs. These kinds of issues can turn the country upside down on their own, and he has other fish to fry.

It is my intention to convey the idea that, while we can expect further assaults on our RKBA here in the USA, for now the focus is elsewhere, despite what some keep harping about with the disinformation they acquire from who-knows-where. In such cases, following the money is always a good idea: There's a lot of money to be made in fear (as Y2K showed).

My personal view is that my comments fit in with the statement: Discussions related to firearms that do not fit in anywhere else. If not, I'm sure that the moderators will pull my ear and align my wheels.

Regarding what the USA has done to Mexico, however, it is with a great deal of exasperation that I hear so many Americans whine on about how nobody likes us. For along with the whining, they never seem to want to hear the words of Auden, who said:

"I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return."

I for one find the discussion mucho interesting. Please do continue

Ashok

My perspective on this comes from a study of the history of Mexico. Rather than begin again, please allow me to briefly quote the explanation I've given elsewhere on this subject:

No one can deny that the history between the US and Mexico is rife with inequities. In fact many Latin American countries have legitimate grievances against American policy in the past. No one can deny that a lot of it was sponsored by the US government. However, here we are talking about the parties in both the Mexcian government and US government implying that most of the guns used in the current Mexican drug wars are being sold to the cartels by legitimate firermrs dealers in the US. While there are more than a few that are making it across the border that way, it is interesting to see that only a percentage of guns seized are handed over for tracing. Is it because we will find that many of these weapons came from the Mexican Army and Police and other sources? Many of the weapons used in the current drug war are weapons that cannot be purchased in a US gun store so they cannot possibly have come from US gun stores.

More interesting reading:
Drug cartels' new weaponry means war
The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.
NRA Rips Weapons Ban Bid: Mexico Drug Gang Links Phony

I think that you see that I'm not just referring to an event or two: I'm talking about a well-established pattern of US companies profiteering on the backs of Mexican misery for over a century and a half, in such a way as to cause Mexico to remain in the USA's orbit as a near-failed state, never able to develop nationhood without meddling from its neighbor. I think that this concept would be easily understood by folks familiar with, say, the history of the Raj.

Once again no one deny that in the past the US govt has interfered in Latin America's internal affairs. However in this case, I saw no Government sponsored interference with Mexican affairs. I saw an excuse by anti-gun forces to use the current situation to their own ends.
It is the use of the Mexican drug war to accuse US gun dealers of condoning illegal acts and patently false statements made by prominent administration officials that have gun rights advocates fearful that the current administration will use this as an excuse to further tighten gun laws. This has sent many more people scrambling to the gun stores for arms and ammunition. The situation wasn't helped when beareaucrats in the dept. of Defense suddenly decreed that all once-fired brass, fired by US armed forces, will no longer be sold to the public but will be destroyed (this was overturned eventually). These incidents seemed to come one after the other and helped continue the gun and ammo buying frenzy that started with the election of the current President. While fringe groups are always ready to suspect the government of any number of real and imagined abuses, the time it looks like many average Americans don't believe the Presidents word that he is not interested in their guns. They are showing it by stocking up on guns and ammo. is this perception correct? Only time will tell but for now there seems to be a remarkable lack of confidence in the worth of a politicians word, whether he/she is a Democrat or Republican.
Who Is Arming the Mexican Drug Cartels?

It is my intention to convey the idea that, while we can expect further assaults on our RKBA here in the USA, for now the focus is elsewhere, despite what some keep harping about with the disinformation they acquire from who-knows-where. In such cases, following the money is always a good idea: There's a lot of money to be made in fear (as Y2K showed).

I agree with you that for now the focus is elsewhere. The time for gun owners to watch out will be if the Democrats retain their majority after the next election. You're correct about Y2K also. I was one of those who was publicly ridiculed on many forums when I said that Y2K would not be a significant event. Much of the fear was driven by companies who had a vested interest in offering Y2K services and new hardware. As far as this crisis goes, the people who stood to make the most money from this; namely gun manufacturers and ammunition manufacturers were caught flat footed as no one anticipated this current state of affairs. It is only in the last few months that they have started gearing up their production facilities to meet the demand.

It is only now, so many months after the election that ammo is starting to be available on the shelves again. I have had a hard time reaching my goal of maintaining a 1000 round supply of 9mm and .22 on hand. While this might seem like a lot, keep in mind that a 1000 rounds of 9mm is about three trips to the range. Taking part in an occasional steel shoot or any kind of competition depletes the ammo chest at a much higher rate. I have also noticed that gun stores finally seem to have a reasonable assortment of firearms on their shelves. I can only attribute this to one of two things, either sales of guns and ammo has decreased or the manufacturers are finally starting to catch up.

No one can deny that the history between the US and Mexico is rife with inequities.

I meet plenty of people who deny just exactly this.

Once again no one deny that in the past the US govt has interfered in Latin America's internal affairs. However in this case, I saw no Government sponsored interference with Mexican affairs.

That is a pretty strong statement, considering that you also cited the article titled Who Is Arming the Mexican Drug Cartels? just below it, and that article states plainly:

When speaking of drug cartels and military weapons, one would be remiss in not covering the involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and their decades-long involvement in worldwide drug trafficking. The evidence produced at the Iran Contra hearings proved the CIA was involved with smuggling cocaine in order to fund the Nicaraguan Contra Army. Is there any question they are involved with the Mexican drug cartels and perhaps facilitating their procurement of military weapons, or better yet, trading arms for drugs?

In 2007, then President George W. Bush, with help from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, was able to get legislation passed that would provide Mexico with at least 1.4 billion dollars for Mexican military and police forces.

In May of 2008, Kristen Bricker wrote of Plan Mexico, "Plan Mexico will provide resources, equipment, and training to the Mexican government, police, and military. It will not give Mexico liquid funds. The US military, government agencies such as USAID, and US defense contractors such as mercenary firms and weapons manufacturers will receive funding to carry out Plan Mexico. Plan Mexico is yet another bill to line the pockets of the military industrial complex."

So my question to you on this matter would be, do you stand by your statement regarding the involvement of the US Government in Mexico, or by the article you cite?

Now on your other citations, particularly those quoting Fox News, I would refer you back to the sources I cited in a previous post. So who to believe? Let's see here: Isn't Fox News a major speaking platform for those who are still claiming that President Obama is not a legal US citizen? The same source that regularly belittles the intelligence of those who believe that the global warming trend has something to do with human activity (which, I might observe, includes the great bulk of the scientific community). I would say that, by resting so much of your argument on Fox News, you certainly wouldn't gain a lot of credibility beyond the 25% of the "true believers" in the USA who still believe that President Bush was a great leader and long for a return to Bush policies.

Regarding the NRA, they do a great job lobbying on the behalf of gun owners, no doubt. But do I believe them in this case? Do I believe that they have no reason to stretch the facts to meet their own agendas?

The problem with the picture these articles you cite are presenting is that they simply don't represent the Mexico that is located on this planet. That people have arms in Mexico such as grenades, grenade launchers, and .50 BMG-firing weapons, i do not doubt. But if anyone thinks that the majority of people in drug related activity in Mexico are toting this sort of iron about with them, then I would say that the place they are speaking of called Mexico is more likely to be a section of an white supremacist shooting range, not the nation of the same name.

There are very sophisticated people in charge of drug activity in Mexico. (And may I stop to remind you where all of their money comes from? Is not the fuel that feeds this fire on our border and extending into our nation nothing other than the American people's willingness to break their own laws, export their "victimless crime" sins to other people, along with great sums of greenbacks?) However, like any organization, there are small numbers at the top and an expanding base, as you go down their pecking order, down to hooligans and goons in their towns and villages. These, the great majority, are not armed with the "weapons of war" you and your cited articles mention. They are there, sure, but the vast majority of the guns the vast majority of the narcos are toting about come from places that have nothing to do with the CIA or arms shipments coming from other nations. They come from places like X-Caliber Arms.

I've been going to gun shows and gun shops for more than one or two or three decades, myself. I'm pretty familiar with the attitudes and the goings on in such gatherings and places. Just like the normal citizen needs to admit that illegal drugs are not a "victimless crime" in this nation, so must gun owners actually submit their opinions, passions, and allegiances to the rule of law. When there are such huge sums of money sloshing around, looking for a place to be spent, can you really imagine that significant criminal activity is not going to be associated with that money?

Read about Carlos Lehder back in the 80s: even then, they had so much cash that it was simply impossible to deal with the bales of bills on their island in the Bahamas. That money and the present drug money, just like the Mafia money of decades ago, has seeped into the pockets of our politicians, bankers, and law enforcement. Why, even some of the wealthiest names in America are associated with old gangster money: Where did Kennedy and Annenberg get their fortunes, for example? Who was Bebe Rebozo, and what was his relationship with Richard Nixon?

But that's old history. Will you tell me it is ended, never to be repeated?

No, I think I can say with certainty that the moral fiber of gun dealers in the USA puts its pants on one leg at a time, just like everyone else here. But whatever! I note that parents who let Little Johnny do whatever he wants never seem to figure out the formula to get him to do what he should. And so long as Americans treat other nations as lesser, and view their own vices as "victimless crime," harmless pleasure, or even political views, rights, and opinions, we will be treated to a steady diet of what we have had: The future will be quite predictable if our behavior is the same as it was in the past.

But there is so much of what I see that looks and sounds the same -- I can't imagine things will change much, though they need to. I can remember the US Navy stopping the Soviet cargo ships carrying missiles to Cuba, for instance, and I went door to door campaigning for Barry Goldwater in 1964. I've got a lot more perspective on "conservatism" than these johnny-come-lately types that call themselves "neocons" and spout their stuff on cable TV and radio. But given that the attention span of the average US citizen is about that of a 2nd grader and that the average American is much happier hearing about Michael Jackson than about the debate on national health care policy, can it be any wonder that snake oil salesmen can dupe them almost every time?

If there are things you like about the USA, and there are plenty of them, my advice is, don't blink. Reconsider your knowledge of what happened to Britain and where Britain is today, and think about what that means to us here today.

In summary, I'm not buying all of this stuff these people are saying on news channels about what's going on. I've seen this kind of stuff happen over and over and over in the past, and the last liar we had at the helm was probably the sans pareil for for ignorance and arrogance existing symbiotically. Despite my hopes and admiration for our present leader, I am not so naive to think that Humpty Dumpty is ever going to be put back together again. Considering the profligate way that we've wasted our wealth and advantages, can a case be made that we deserve different?

That is a pretty strong statement, considering that you also cited the article titled Who Is Arming the Mexican Drug Cartels? just below it, and that article states plainly:

Iran-Contra was 22 years ago.
The other two incidents were support for the Mexican Government. How can that be viewed as interfering with the functions of the Mexican Government?

timmy wrote:They are there, sure, but the vast majority of the guns the vast majority of the narcos are toting about come from places that have nothing to do with the CIA or arms shipments coming from other nations. They come from places like X-Caliber Arms.

I don't believe that the vast majority come from US arms dealers. Of course some of those guns are going to come from the US. That can't be helped as we're right next door. I'd be very surprised if some of them didn't. Since you don't like Fox, let me cite some others:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-sarge ... t-come-u-s

According to the Mexican Attorney General, in the last two years, they've recovered about thirty thousand, twenty-nine thousand weapons in Mexico. They have submitted about only one-third of those to the United States for tracing. And according to testimony that we have from the special agent in charge, in Phoenix, of the ATF, only about six thousand of those were successfully traced, and about ninety percent of those came from the U.S. But basically, the bottom line here is that according to our figures, which we got from them, eighty-three percent of the guns that have been recovered in Mexico at these crime scenes are not from the United States.

timmy wrote:Regarding the NRA, they do a great job lobbying on the behalf of gun owners, no doubt. But do I believe them in this case? Do I believe that they have no reason to stretch the facts to meet their own agendas?

Ok, I won't post any more articles from the NRA but I didn't find any obvious falsehoods like I found in the statements made by members of the administration.
How about something from GOA. They offer suggestions for where some of the other weapons come from.
http://gunowners.org/op04132009aw.htm

So where do all the non-US weapons in Mexico come from?

They come from all over. They are brought by sea by the boatload. They are brought overland from Central America (where weaponry galore is left over from the civil wars there).

There are weapons in Mexico from South Korea (fragmentation grenades) and China (AK-47s). There are rocket launchers that came from Israel, Spain and the former Soviet Union.

There are Russian Mafia groups in Mexico which are sources of weapons. The Tijuana Cartel has an alliance with the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), which is another source of weapons.

A lot of weaponry comes up through Guatemala. A recent bust on that border, reported in the Guatemalan press in late March, confiscated grenades and AK-47s.

Many Mexican army deserters, of whom there have been a staggering 150,000 in the past six years, have brought their weapons with them (including M-16s).

Certainly the U.S. should do what it can to stop the smuggling of the weapons that do go from the U.S. to Mexico. A more secure border would help. But then the Mexican government doesn’t want the U.S. to control illegal immigration, and shrieks to high heaven when there is any attempt to control or reduce it.

The problem is, if you’ve got a porous border it’s going to be porous for guns, drugs and illegal crossers. You can’t have an open border for illegal aliens and a closed border for weapons.

timmy wrote:I've been going to gun shows and gun shops for more than one or two or three decades, myself. I'm pretty familiar with the attitudes and the goings on in such gatherings and places. Just like the normal citizen needs to admit that illegal drugs are not a "victimless crime" in this nation, so must gun owners actually submit their opinions, passions, and allegiances to the rule of law. When there are such huge sums of money sloshing around, looking for a place to be spent, can you really imagine that significant criminal activity is not going to be associated with that money?

I never said anything about the use or the selling of illegals drugs being a victimless crime. Using that to answer my arguments is a specious argument.
Of course, gun owners must obey the laws. Of course there are a lot of rednecks toting guns but I don't believe that most of them are breaking the law. I'm sure that there are some that do break the law but do you honestly believe that most legal gun owners and gun dealers in America break the law?

But there is so much of what I see that looks and sounds the same -- I can't imagine things will change much, though they need to. I can remember the US Navy stopping the Soviet cargo ships carrying missiles to Cuba, for instance, and I went door to door campaigning for Barry Goldwater in 1964. I've got a lot more perspective on "conservatism" than these johnny-come-lately types that call themselves "neocons" and spout their stuff on cable TV and radio. But given that the attention span of the average US citizen is about that of a 2nd grader and that the average American is much happier hearing about Michael Jackson than about the debate on national health care policy, can it be any wonder that snake oil salesmen can dupe them almost every time?

What has this got to do with our argument? Or are you suggesting that I'm one of those dupes? If so, there is no need to get personal.

If there are things you like about the USA, and there are plenty of them, my advice is, don't blink. Reconsider your knowledge of what happened to Britain and where Britain is today, and think about what that means to us here today.

Absolutely agree here. What has happened to gun owners in the UK could happen here. That is why it is more important to support organizations like the NRA, despite some of their obvious faults.

In summary, I'm not buying all of this stuff these people are saying on news channels about what's going on. I've seen this kind of stuff happen over and over and over in the past, and the last liar we had at the helm was probably the sans pareil for for ignorance and arrogance existing symbiotically. Despite my hopes and admiration for our present leader, I am not so naive to think that Humpty Dumpty is ever going to be put back together again. Considering the profligate way that we've wasted our wealth and advantages, can a case be made that we deserve different?

I agree with your statement. I don't buy a large percentage of what is said in the news media. I like to think that I've got enough intelligence to separate at least some of the wheat from the chaff. Also please note that I have not said anything derogatory about the current President. Most of my comments have been directed at his underlings.

Sir, once again let me reiterate, this is going nowhere. You have your beliefs and I have mine and I doubt we're going to significantly change our positions. You are a knowledgeable individual where guns are concerned and I would prefer to continue to impart of your knowledge. So before this degenerates into name calling and worse, I propose we call this debate off, at least in this forum.