USA Buys Enough Guns in 3 Months to Outfit the Entire Chines

[timmy]

Iran-Contra was 22 years ago.

Come, come! As he says, the CIA has been at this game for a long time! He brushes lightly over the CIA's role in trading drugs during the Vietnam war. What with all the money being spent in Afghanistan, heaven knows what kind of highjinks are occurring there with my tax dollars -- or should I say, the tax dollars we are borrowing from the Chinese?

Give one good reason to believe that the leopard has changed its spots in this instance -- I can see none.

The other two incidents were support for the Mexican Government. How can that be viewed as interfering with the functions of the Mexican Government?

Well, for one thing, you are ignoring the point the author makes regarding this aid being diverted by corrupt Mexican military officials to the cartels.

For another thing, I don't think that there can be much doubt that the Administration of President Calderon was legitimately elected. However, our past and present activities in Latin America and around the world of supporting repressive governments with military aid can and are referred to by people like Chavez of Venezuela, Castro in Cuba, and Morales in Bolivia as being more of the same. In this case, they are not correct, but our history isn't disregarded as easily by others as it is by ourselves. Furthermore, everyone in the world knows that the problem here is directly caused by the USA's willingness to buy these drugs. As I said, it is ultiimately our own dollars that cause the problems we are spending more to solve.

I don't believe that the vast majority come from US arms dealers.

Of course you don't. The point is why you don't. Can such a view be supported by facts? You quoted this:

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.

and when I read this, it sounds no different from two little kids arguing in the back seat of a car about who hit who first. The fact is, people are arguing about the point of origin of a minority of the guns confiscated, which are only a very small minority of the guns in circulation. The sources of information about this very small subset come from groups that have a vested interest in slanting the figures to say one thing, and the groups that dispute the figures have a vested interest in trying to advance a different cause.

You, yourself, seem to have a vested interest in defending the positions of right wing news groups like Fox News and pro-gun lobbies.

I have every reason to back our pro-gun lobbies when they are defending my rights, but just because I also strongly believe in the RKBA, this does not mean that I am going to swallow the story that the moon is made of green cheese and spout the "party line" in this instance. The available data are far too inconclusive to be definative, and the government's track record is too well established for me to accept the fact that our citizens who break the law are not major players in this business.

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

Wonder where these came from originally? Have a guess? Does the name "Oliver North" ring a bell?

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.

If there is any proof that China is directly selling guns to drug cartels, there would be one big international blow up over it. That the stuff that isn't highjacked from our own military shipments comes from somewhere else is obvious. However, I made the point that this is not the equipment that a great majority of the traffickers are carrying. They are not going about like Rambo here. The majority of them are armed with whatever they can get, not with the latest and greatest military hardware. Furthermore, just because the AK-type weapon was made somewhere else does not mean that the nation of origin is responsible for its shipment to Mexico. Do you think that the Israeli government is shipping high tech stuff to Mexico? It is obvious that other entities are involved in arranging such sales. However, again, the bulk of the guns are coming from the USA and are whatever can be sent, since criminals in Mexico will use whatever is available to them.

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.

So what does this prove? The CIA has been active there for ages, sending in all kinds of stuff to deal with unpalatable left-leaning regimes. Guatemala is one of the most violent nations on earth because of this. I personally know people who live here in my area who fled Guatemala because of the violence.

You seem to think that just because you can quote a source that says "AK 47," that this means the USA isn't involved. However, earlier I recounted how the CIA paid for a great deal of AK 47s, which were shipped from China to Pakistan for shipment to Afghanistan in the 80s, but that these AK 47s wound up in the Kashmir conflict during the 90s. Just because these were Chinese manufactured AK 47s, does this mean that the USA had no responsibility here? You are throwing all kinds of factoids about and here in the USA among the gun community, these factoids are always interpreted in the way you are interpreting them. The issue is more complex than this. If you want to cite these kinds of data to win an argument, that is one thing. However, if you want to get down to the root causes of Mexico's trouble, you're going to have to dig deeper than the propaganda that various interest groups use to advance their causes.

There is big big money sloshing around over here from this drug war. Just like the Mafia in the past, it is far more widespread than people realize. Even in the news, you can read of the Mexican cartels growing marijuana in the National Forests right here in the USA. Even here in Dallas, they uncovered a large field in some scrub lands within the city -- far too large an operation for small timers to mount. It is going on all over.

The solution proposed by racist congressmen like Tom Tancredo, who believe that Latinos are a sub-human element, is to build a wall between us and Mexico, like the Bolsheviks did in Berlin. How obscene! That money needed to be spent on increasing the law enforcement efforts in our National Forest and Bureau of Land Management lands, but since nobody sees this (especially the city people in New York), nobody feels it is important.

The money coming from these drug cartels buys our politicians, judges, and law enforcement, just as it did during the Mafia days. It is already permeating society. Various interest groups take advantage of the mayhem to advance their positions, and the NRA is guilty of that here. Go back to your statements: you use the term "AK 47," but what does this actually MEAN? In the sense you are using it, not much, I'm afraid, though I am certain that in a group of USA gun owners, you would get the interpretation that you are trying to foist on me.

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?

I believe that if you could confiscate every gun held by every drug criminal in Mexico at this instant, you'd find that the majority of them came across the border. Of these, some would be obtain from robberies, but most would come from US dealers. This is quite different than what your question implies -- I would hope that we've not returned to trying to put words in my mouth!

What has this got to do with our argument?

I am not getting personal here. I am saying that a significant portion of the US population is too shortsighted and simple when it comes to dealing with these sorts of issues. I am saying that most Americans, whatever their political views, do not care enough to make sure their representatives actually solve their problems. For instance, the NRA suggested that we should vote for George Bush twice. They said he was friendly to the gun owner. Yet, it was the same congressmen you referred to earlier who refused to pass a renewal of the "Assault Weapons Ban," which George Bush wanted to renew as part of his silly "War on Terror." This demonstrated that George Bush was no friend of gun rights, yet the NRA twice recommended that we vote for him. And besides, even if he were a friend of the gun owner, what sense does it make to have a disaster like that man in office? What good are our gun rights if the nation is ruined due to his bungling.

So I am suggesting that these entities will back policies that are short sighted and meant for their own gain, and that the public is too preoccupied with silly pursuits to hold their government to account. I am illustrating this by showing how a lot of these people who are now parading about as "conservatives" haven't the slightest notion of what they are talking about, because they haven't stopped to think about things that happened a month or two in the past that have shaped the public debate on the issues.

I am not singling you out for anything -- but I do put the majority of our public into this category to a greater or lesser extent. If you wish to derive more from this than what I've said, I will leave that to you.

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.

No! I am not at all talking about British gun rights with this statement, though I see you are ready to twist my words to make this so. If the context is always going to be limited to gun rights, you are never going to come to grips with the fact that our own people are sending us down the drain because of foolish governmental policies, policies based on not being willing to admit our own bad behavior as a nation (destabilizing other governments for our own business advantage, refusing to curb our consumption of illegal drugs, and refusing to recognize our own illegal cross-border trade).

The USA is the richest and most powerful nation on earth. The game here is ours to loose. If it is lost, it will not be because of other nations who don't like us (though our politicians will try to demonize others, because it is what we want to hear and believe), it will be because we have squandered what we received from previous generations. And our gun rights will go right down the tubes with everything else.

Regarding our discussion, we can call it off or continue, as you please. However, you needn't worry about this devolving into some kind of name-calling contest. Ad hominem tactics are often used when arguing, but I am keen here to dig down to the root cause of the problem -- something that is not accomplished by mud-slinging. Whenever such tactics are used, you can be sure it is because someone is unable to advance their point on the merits of its logic.

Regarding our President, if he deserves a thrashing, give him one, and I will do the same. I see him acting much like FDR: He's not doing what needs to be done, rather, he's doing as much as he can, given the perceptions of the nation. For instance, when I hear this word "socialism" brought up (a favorite of Fox News, by the way) I often think of that line from George Orwell's The Animal Farm: "Now if it was one thing that the animals were all agreed upon, it was that they didn't want Jones back." However, one can be sure that most Americans do not even know what The Animal Farm is, much less read it.

[xl_target]

Lets go to the beginning; When warthog posted "Americans bought enough guns to outfit the entire Chinese and Indian army’s combined", which were gleaned from NICS check numbers.

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

.You said how this was fueled by foolish fears. It might likely be.

You then said

American arms dealers are turning a pretty penny by breaking the law and selling to the Mexican drug cartels.

This implies that this is a large scale practice and is pretty common. This is the part of your post that I addressed in my reply to you. I cited one source that disputed this. You claimed my cite was biased. Then you cited a GAO report that basically said the same thing (it was off by 4.6 percent). I then mentioned what I thought was the main reason that the AG and Sec State stopped talking about gun control. You couldn't refute that, so how come my cites are no good but yours are?

Then your first post went on about the CIA in Afghanistan and weapons ending up in Kashmir. So what were you implying? That the CIA officers are posing as ordinary citizens and buying these guns to send to Mexico? If not why bring the CIA up when we are talking about NICS checks. Throughout these posts you have brought up the role of the CIA in world wide events. Please explain to me what the CIA has to do with NICS numbers. Before you accuse me, again, of putting words into your mouth, remember, you brought it up.

I then addressed your next post point by point. The first point was that I used the words "excessively large numbers". You then said these words were meaningless. You called them an erroneous quote. I never quoted you. That was the impression I got from your first post. I agreed with you that the words were meaningless. In your last post you said:

I believe that if you could confiscate every gun held by every drug criminal in Mexico at this instant, you'd find that the majority of them came across the border. Of these, some would be obtain from robberies, but most would come from US dealers.

. Why are "most" and "majority" not meaninless words in this context? Furthermore, you have not backed up your belief with any facts.

Well, for one thing, you are ignoring the point the author makes regarding this aid being diverted by corrupt Mexican military officials to the cartels.

. How can the corruption of Mexican officials be construed as US Government interference?


Here you accuse me of twisting your words.

No! I am not at all talking about British gun rights with this statement, though I see you are ready to twist my words to make this so. If the context is always going to be limited to gun rights, you are never going to come to grips with the fact that our own people are sending us down the drain because of foolish governmental policies, policies based on not being willing to admit our own bad behavior as a nation (destabilizing other governments for our own business advantage, refusing to curb our consumption of illegal drugs, and refusing to recognize our own illegal cross-border trade).

This is what you said and this is how I answered:

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.

This is a gun board, what else would you be talking about but British gun rights? Your statement in this context, doesn't lead me to the conclusion that you are talking about anything else. When you make a bald statement like that with no explanation, you should expect nothing less. I'm sorry, I cannot read your mind.

and when I read this, it sounds no different from two little kids arguing in the back seat of a car about who hit who first. The fact is, people are arguing about the point of origin of a minority of the guns confiscated, which are only a very small minority of the guns in circulation. The sources of information about this very small subset come from groups that have a vested interest in slanting the figures to say one thing, and the groups that dispute the figures have a vested interest in trying to advance a different cause.

Isn't this what you are doing here?

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?

I take exception of your belittling the American people. That is a very elitist sentiment. I have lived on three different continents and I have never met a more caring, open and friendly people than the American people. Before you say that I don't have the experience to make that judgement, I have been in the US for 28 years and have lived in three states and have visited many more. As far as US businessmen go, I can go into their shops and purchase services or goods with the reasonable assumption that I will not be cheated. I can't say that about many of the other places that I have lived. I am not naive enough to believe there are no bad apples in the basket but the vast majority of them are honest and operate within the law.

I am not singling you out for anything -- but I do put the majority of our public into this category to a greater or lesser extent. If you wish to derive more from this than what I've said, I will leave that to you.

I like "the average US citizen" and I would not dare to put myself above them by imputing that the rest of them have attention span of a 2nd grader. Hey I can quote Animal Farm too: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". Does this apply to your statement above? See, it was required reading in my high school.

Throughout, these posts where we have talked about Mexican and South American history, the role of the CIA in Afghanistan and Vietnam, Barry Goldwater, Michael Jackson, the Cuban missile crisis, etc. We have gone further and further away from the original post. When I cite sources, you accuse me of defending "right wing news sources". I could go on and on, but whats the point? Sir, I propose to you that this is not a discussion, it is a tirade on your part.

So to get back to the point: I'm tickled that so many legal US gun owners have filled out 4473's and gone through the NICS process and bought guns. I do not believe that the majority of US gun dealers are dishonest and are profiteering by selling guns illegally to Mexican drug lords.


Notes: In the US, when you purchase a firearm from a licensed Firearms dealer, you have to fill out a Form 4473 and then submit to a NICS check. Once your approval from NICS comes back, you can pick up your firearm and pay for it. In other words, if you can't pass the FBI background check on you, you cannot buy a firearm legally. Private sales between individuals don't go through the NICS process. However, some states have various restrictions or conditions that must be fulfilled.

For those not aware. this is what a NICS check is:
http://www.thegunman.com/nics.htm

According to the FBI, NICS "will be a national database containing records of persons who are disqualified from receiving firearms." The NICS computer and analysis center is located in West Virginia, and the FBI is in charge of its operation.
The NICS computerized system is designed to handle most checks in less than 2_ minutes and roughly 150 transactions per minute. It will be open from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Eastern Time, seven days a week, closed only on Thanksgiving and Christmas. (FBI regulations for the NICS system can be found here: National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS) Information

It isn't always 2 minutes. With the heavy load in the last few months, I have heard of NICS being delayed, sometimes up to two days.


This is what a Form 4473 is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_4473

A Firearms Transaction Record, or Form 4473, is a United States government form that must be filled out when a person purchases a firearm from a Federal Firearm License holder (such as a gun shop).

[timmy]

This implies that this is a large scale practice and is pretty common. This is the part of your post that I addressed in my reply to you.

And that is precisely what I meant to imply.

I cited one source that disputed this. You claimed my cite was biased.

No, please return to what I said and read it again. I said Fox News was biased. I said the cite was incorrect.

Then you cited a GAO report that basically said the same thing (it was off by 4.6 percent).

Yes, you are correct about the difference between the GAO report and the figures Fox News reported. Does this change the fact that Fox News was wrong? No, but:

The truth? No one seems to know what the actual number are for sure.

and if they are, they are not telling. So, if your assertion is that nobody really has the exact data (a point that I've made), then why do you keep coming back to this and faulting me for not agreeing with you on this point? You say it is meaningless, yet you keep bringing up my not accepting it as a problem. If the GAO or Fox or anybody doesn't know for sure, then what's your beef on this with my position? Your own statement is an admission that the source you cite (Fox News) isn't valid!

Then your first post went on about the CIA in Afghanistan and weapons ending up in Kashmir. So what were you implying?

I feel it is pretty clear what I'm saying, not implying: that just because Mexican drug hoodlums are toting around AK 47s made in China, that doesn't mean anything about who actually sold them to the drug cartels. I have to believe, from listening to you, that you know that plenty of Chinese-made weapons were imported to the USA before Clinton closed down those imports. I have a number of them myself, all bought after the importation stopped. Just because the weapon is an AK doesn't mean that it came from the Chinese, just like the weapons that were used in KAshmir didn't come from the Chinese -- they came as part of a US purchase. Do you have an issue with this point?

Given that the weapons were purchased to be delivered to the Afghans fighting the Soviets and that so many of them ended up not making it, but instead remained in Pakistan, I assert that the USA engaged in very poor policy making, policy making that caused a lot of harm to people that had nothing to do with the purpose for which the weapons were bought, because those who were carrying out the policy in the USA were not ensuring that the weapons my tax dollars purchased were being used for what they were intended. Do you have an issue with this point?

When I cite sources, you accuse me of defending "right wing news sources"

You have repeatedly cited a news source that is accusing the President of not being a legal citizen. On that basis, yes, I do question the reliability of that news source. I see nothing unreasonable about this at all. People who claim that our President isn't legally an American are totally out of bounds, and when a news source keeps bringing this up, they deserve to be discounted.

Sir, I propose to you that this is not a discussion, it is a tirade on your part.

Propose whatever you wish. For someone who was worried about our conversation devolving into personalities, I find your choice of words interesting. But, I will certainly agree that I'm not happy about our government continually going about pulling dirty tricks. It is exactly why many in Latin America are very leery of trusting us until this day, and this ties our hands greatly when we have a problem, such as with drug gangs. Is this so hard to fathom, that Americans are much quicker to forget the dirty tricks we've played on others than they are?

I take exception of your belittling the American people.

Take issue with it as much as you please. Whether you are a citizen here or not, you have been here long enough to know it is my right as an American to say what I've said, and furthermore, I have good reason to say it.

Since you've been here awhile, I'm sure you are familiar with the significance of John Winthrop and his famous statement:

For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.

And I'm sure you are familiar with President Kennedy referring to just these words when he said:

But I have been guided by the standard John Winthrop set before his shipmates on the flagship Arbella three hundred and thirty-one years ago, as they, too, faced the task of building a new government on a perilous frontier.
"We must always consider," he said, "that we shall be as a city upon a hill—the eyes of all people are upon us."
Today the eyes of all people are truly upon us—and our governments, in every branch, at every level, national, state and local, must be as a city upon a hill--constructed and inhabited by men aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities.

Because it is more recent, I'm sure you are familiar with Ronald Reagan invoking these same powerful words:

The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the "shining city upon a hill." The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.
I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it and see it still.

One needn't ever have visited the USA to recognize that these words proclaim a special, exclusive duty and mission for the USA. However, perhaps someone who's never been here may not realize that this belief is very common amongst Americans. I say, if this is the way we represent ourselves to the world, as having a message, a mission, and a way of life that the rest of the world should emulate, well then, we have the responsibility to not only "talk the talk," but "walk the talk."

So, to take your particular points:

I would not dare to put myself above them by imputing that the rest of them have attention span of a 2nd grader.

You know, I have called you out on twisting my words and putting words in my mouth several times in this conversation -- how long will you persist in this? You have me saying "the rest of them" as if I am saying everyone else but me has the attention span of a 2nd grader, and then you get very pious about how you don't stoop to the same words as your straw man does. I said: "But given that the attention span of the average US citizen is about that of a 2nd grader." That is clearly not everyone: Do you not see that, or do you refuse to? How about you start going back and quoting me, instead of putting words into my mouth? You complain that I'm not treating your citations fairly, how about a little fairness from your corner?

You do it again in the next breath:

Hey I can quote Animal Farm too: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". See, it was required reading in my high school.

You try to twist my words into a personal attack on yourself, when I actually said: "However, one can be sure that most Americans do not even know what The Animal Farm is, much less read it." Look, I may be old, but I returned to college a few years back, and I can tell you: most of our youth don't know what The Animal Farm is, and their parents are little better off. So don't start putting on airs of being insulted or wounded here -- read what I said again. For someone whose accusing me of going off on a tangent, it is hard to square such a protest with your inability to either quote me or give a fair rendition of the meaning of what I said. How about it, now -- can this stop?

I then mentioned what I thought was the main reason that the AG and Sec State stopped talking about gun control. How come my cites are no good but yours are?

Great, and I referred to the things PResident Obama had personally said during the campaign and before, and that these shaped the President's policy, not the Attorney General or the Sec of State. So you've said what you believe and why and I've said what I believe and why. This is what's making you feel picked on here?

This is a gun board, what else would you be talking about but British gun rights?

OK, let's review this again:

I said: "Reconsider your knowledge of what happened to Britain and where Britain is today"

Note: "...what happened TO Britian.

Not what happened in Britain, not what happened to the British, not what happened to British gun rights, but what happened TO Britian.

Do you not see the difference in the wording, and how the choice of my words and the context in which they were said does not make your interpretation a particularly good understanding? Is this too obscure?

I am sorry that it bothers you that I see our relations with Mexico, especially the current drug and gun running that are going on, as part of our overall history of relations with that nation. This is pretty common here in the USA. People don't have an understanding of Mexico, because they don't have an understanding of it's history. They don't have an understanding of its history, because they don't think that there's anything important to discover, or lessons to be learned. That pretty much ensures well keep on doing what we've always done, which is to complain about Mexicans breaking our laws, when the problem rests upon us breaking our own laws and buying illegal drugs. I'd be willing to bet that that is how Mexicans are judging us. Matter of fact, I know it is, because I sat 20 feet away from President Vicente Fox when he said exactly the same thing.

Finally:

I have lived on three different continents and I have never met a more caring, open and friendly people than the American people. Before you say that I don't have the experience to make that judgement, I have been in the US for 28 years and have lived in three states and have visited many more. As far as US businessmen go, I can go into their shops and purchase services or goods with the reasonable assumption that I will not be cheated. I can't say that about many of the other places that I have lived.

Well, that's a pretty impressive set of credentials. For my own, I will say that I have been to several county fairs. However, we differ considerably on our world view. I don't see America's claim to being a "city on a hill" to be valid. I from my experiences, I find that people all put their pants on one leg at a time, that no nation has the corner on morality and decency and integrity -- I've found decent people of every tribe and nation I've encountered. I know the people of the USA aren't any better or any worse than others, and that other nations have sordid stories in their history, also. Out of respect for others, I don't mention those negative things so much (but, on occasion, I have). I do mention what I see wrong with America because I'm an American and these things concern me more than the wrongdoing of others. I also note that nations that have loudly proclaimed their possession of a special purpose or calling are often the ones that have caused the most trouble: such words are often a cloak and excuse for misbehavior. I could list a few, but such a list isn't constructive. PErtaining to the USA, we are on a lot safer ground when we consider ourselves to be subject to the same passions, foibles, and fine motives and actions that everyone else is subject to.

So, perhaps the root of our differences here is that I see America as a nation composed of people, no better or worse than any other nation. According to what you've said, you see America as better people. That is a premise that is commonly held in this country and has caused us a lot of harm, not to mention a Civil War that cost us more lives than all of our other wars, combined -- and yet, we still think this way. That doesn't appear to be a promising learning curve to me.

[xl_target]

This implies that this is a large scale practice and is pretty common. This is the part of your post that I addressed in my reply to you.

And that is precisely what I meant to imply.

And I pointed out to you that it was just your belief and that you couldn't substantiate it.

Then your first post went on about the CIA in Afghanistan and weapons ending up in Kashmir. So what were you implying?

I feel it is pretty clear what I'm saying, not implying: that just because Mexican drug hoodlums are toting around AK 47s made in China, that doesn't mean anything about who actually sold them to the drug cartels. I have to believe, from listening to you, that you know that plenty of Chinese-made weapons were imported to the USA before Clinton closed down those imports. I have a number of them myself, all bought after the importation stopped. Just because the weapon is an AK doesn't mean that it came from the Chinese, just like the weapons that were used in KAshmir didn't come from the Chinese -- they came as part of a US purchase. Do you have an issue with this point?

Given that the weapons were purchased to be delivered to the Afghans fighting the Soviets and that so many of them ended up not making it, but instead remained in Pakistan, I assert that the USA engaged in very poor policy making, policy making that caused a lot of harm to people that had nothing to do with the purpose for which the weapons were bought, because those who were carrying out the policy in the USA were not ensuring that the weapons my tax dollars purchased were being used for what they were intended. Do you have an issue with this point?

Actually I take issue with both those points. How do you know the guns used in Kashmir and currently by the Taliban in Afghanistan didn't originally come from ISI stocks or Pakistani army stocks in Pakistan? After all China is a great friend of Pakistan and supplies them with large amounts of military supplies. Who do you think gave them their nuclear technology? China wants to be the dominant power in Asia. China apparently doesn't want to see a strong India. As an aside, on another board there was a post by a Pakistani claiming that all kind of Norinco branded weapons were being retailed in Pakistan.
One can speculate as much as one wishes but unless one can prove one's assertions, they remain exactly that; just an unsubstantiated belief.

No, please return to what I said and read it again. I said Fox News was biased. I said the cite was incorrect.
Then you cited a GAO report that basically said the same thing (it was off by 4.6 percent).
Yes, you are correct about the difference between the GAO report and the figures Fox News reported. Does this change the fact that Fox News was wrong? No, but:

Ok then I'll agree that they were incorrect but they were just 4.6% incorrect.

Sir, I propose to you that this is not a discussion, it is a tirade on your part.

[quote=""timmy"]Propose whatever you wish. For someone who was worried about our conversation devolving into personalities, I find your choice of words interesting. But, I will certainly agree that I'm not happy about our government continually going about pulling dirty tricks. It is exactly why many in Latin America are very leery of trusting us until this day, and this ties our hands greatly when we have a problem, such as with drug gangs. Is this so hard to fathom, that Americans are much quicker to forget the dirty tricks we've played on others than they are?

This, along with some of your other statements, still doesn't prove to anyone that the CIA is currently selling arms to Mexican Drug trafficers.

And I'm sure you are familiar with President Kennedy referring to just these words when he said:

But I have been guided by the standard John Winthrop set before his shipmates on the flagship Arbella three hundred and thirty-one years ago, as they, too, faced the task of building a new government on a perilous frontier.
"We must always consider," he said, "that we shall be as a city upon a hill—the eyes of all people are upon us."
Today the eyes of all people are truly upon us—and our governments, in every branch, at every level, national, state and local, must be as a city upon a hill--constructed and inhabited by men aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities.

Because it is more recent, I'm sure you are familiar with Ronald Reagan invoking these same powerful words:

The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the "shining city upon a hill." The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.
I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it and see it still.

One needn't ever have visited the USA to recognize that these words proclaim a special, exclusive duty and mission for the USA. However, perhaps someone who's never been here may not realize that this belief is very common amongst Americans. I say, if this is the way we represent ourselves to the world, as having a message, a mission, and a way of life that the rest of the world should emulate, well then, we have the responsibility to not only "talk the talk," but "walk the talk."

You certainly have a point there that it is incumbent on all Americans to "walk the talk" but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China or the very specific issues I outlined in my last post?

I would not dare to put myself above them by imputing that the rest of them have attention span of a 2nd grader.

You know, I have called you out on twisting my words and putting words in my mouth several times in this conversation -- how long will you persist in this? You have me saying "the rest of them" as if I am saying everyone else but me has the attention span of a 2nd grader, and then you get very pious about how you don't stoop to the same words as your straw man does. I said: "But given that the attention span of the average US citizen is about that of a 2nd grader." That is clearly not everyone: Do you not see that, or do you refuse to? How about you start going back and quoting me, instead of putting words into my mouth? You complain that I'm not treating your citations fairly, how about a little fairness from your corner?

You do it again in the next breath:

Hey I can quote Animal Farm too: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". See, it was required reading in my high school.

[quote="timmy]"You try to twist my words into a personal attack on yourself, when I actually said: "However, one can be sure that most Americans do not even know what The Animal Farm is, much less read it." Look, I may be old, but I returned to college a few years back, and I can tell you: most of our youth don't know what The Animal Farm is, and their parents are little better off. So don't start putting on airs of being insulted or wounded here -- read what I said again. For someone whose accusing me of going off on a tangent, it is hard to square such a protest with your inability to either quote me or give a fair rendition of the meaning of what I said. How about it, now -- can this stop?[/quote]


Ha! You got me there. In a way it is kind of a straw man argument but not totally. My choice of the word 'rest' instead of 'most' would be the thing that makes it a straw man argument. However, you did say (I am quoting you, like you suggested, instead of paraphrasing):

I am saying that a significant portion of the US population is too shortsighted and simple when it comes to dealing with these sorts of issues. I am saying that most Americans, whatever their political views, do not care enough to make sure their representatives actually solve their problems.

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?

So obviously you don't consider yourself an "average American citizen". From your posts I would gather that you consider yourself above the "average American citizen"? You said it! To me, statements like that sound awfully conceited. So once again please don't accuse me of putting words into your mouth. Every reply that I have made has been in response to one of your statements. Perhaps that is where I erred. I probably should have ignored anything not relevant to the original post that I made. For example, you come up with a quote from Animal House out of the blue and when I quote something else from there back at you. I'm the one putting words into your mouth? About the animal house quote; Let me add something else that you said (and I quote).

If you wish to derive more from this than what I've said, I will leave that to you.

Now, we have covered , mentioned or touched on: Y2K, The history of Mexico, global warming, President Bush, Carlos Lehder, the Cuban missile crisis, Barry Goldwater, the attention span of the "average American citizen", Iran Contra, drugs being a vicitmless crime, The CIA's role in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Latin America and Kashmir, Chavez of Venezuela, Castro in Cuba, and Morales in Bolivia, "racist congressmen like Tom Tancredo", "That money needed to be spent on increasing the law enforcement efforts in our National Forest and Bureau of Land Management lands", Socialism, Animal farm, President Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, America's claim to being a "city on a hill", the civil war, etc. Oh, let's not forget your first amendment rights, and I'm sure I have missed a few. Was I incorrect in mentioning "going off at a tangent"?

Are the above not a deliberate attempt at obfuscation of my original premise:
1.

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

(we both agreed the phrase "excessively large number" was innapropriate" so lets address your statement:

I believe that if you could confiscate every gun held by every drug criminal in Mexico at this instant, you'd find that the majority of them came across the border. Of these, some would be obtain from robberies, but most would come from US dealers.

You haven't been able to prove this statement

2.

As for Holder, when he asked for more gun control, Democratic congressmen basically told him to stuff it...

You were unable to prove me wrong on this one.

So to get back to the point: I'm tickled that so many legal US gun owners have filled out 4473's and gone through the NICS process and bought guns. I do not believe that the majority of US gun dealers are dishonest and are profiteering by selling guns illegally to Mexican drug lords.

Once again, in the interests of peace on this board, use of bandwidth, and the sanity of the posters here, I suggest a truce and an end to this discussion. Apparently, we are not going to change each others minds and there is enough material here advocating each others points of view.

[m24]

You guys, Timmy and XL, both of you are amazing. Your current discussion, reminds me so much of Lendl-Becker matches, both of them never giving up. Your ongoing discussion gives me an added reason to login everyday, day and night. And an added thanks for keeping it clean.

Keep it up, guys .

Regards

Deepak.

[xl_target]

Thanks Deepak,
However, I think Timmy will agree with me that this has degenerated into a he said/she said match. Despite my differences of opinion with him, I'm more than willing to shake his hand and declare a truce. I'm sure there are other topics we can pick up and discuss.

[m24]

Do it the way, Obama and the scholar and the cop did it, over some beer. Cheers!!!

Deepak

[eljefe]

Bravo Gentlemen!
going by the references and citations, this has been most informative.Yup, Thanks for the reminder about the tonnes of ordnance shipped to the Muj in the 80's coming back into india to cause havoc . an old India Today report quoted a MOD spokesman saying that one season's 'haul' in J&K was -enough AK variants to arm a brigade...
It is a pleasure to see such an erudite discussion, and am sure, going by the tenor, it will not degenerate into a slam dunk , rough and tumble affair.
More power to your elbows
Best
Axx

[timmy]

And I pointed out to you that it was just your belief and that you couldn't substantiate it.

Excuse me, but we've both said that the data is not conclusive. Specifically, you said

The truth? No one seems to know what the actual number are for sure.

, and in such a case, you have no more substance to base your beliefs regarding the sources of Mexican crime firearms on than I do.

Actually I take issue with both those points. How do you know the guns used in Kashmir and currently by the Taliban in Afghanistan didn't originally come from ISI stocks or Pakistani army stocks in Pakistan? After all China is a great friend of Pakistan and supplies them with large amounts of military supplies. Who do you think gave them their nuclear technology? China wants to be the dominant power in Asia. China apparently doesn't want to see a strong India. As an aside, on another board there was a post by a Pakistani claiming that all kind of Norinco branded weapons were being retailed in Pakistan.
One can speculate as much as one wishes but unless one can prove one's assertions, they remain exactly that; just an unsubstantiated belief.

I love this! Can you prove that I actually exist?

How do you know the guns used in Kashmir and currently by the Taliban in Afghanistan didn't originally come from ISI stocks or Pakistani army stocks in Pakistan?

So, you have proof that this is the case?

Who do you think gave them their nuclear technology?

Talk about tangents, red herrings, and just plain old bunkum, this claim qualifies in spades. You need to go back and read about how AQ Khan did it, yourself, rather than throwing around stuff you can't prove.

China wants to be the dominant power in Asia.

And your proof for this?

China apparently doesn't want to see a strong India.

And your proof for this?

As an aside, on another board there was a post by a Pakistani claiming that all kind of Norinco branded weapons were being retailed in Pakistan.

Ah, now here's some proof! Very substantial and hard to refute, indeed! But you know, I know people who say things, too -- lots of things.

One can speculate as much as one wishes...

True enough, and thanks for the illustration!

Ok then I'll agree that they were incorrect but they were just 4.6% incorrect.

I think you need to go do your math over again. The difference between the GAO and the Fox News figures was 4.6%. This means that Fox News figures were off by 11%. It is interesting that you keep bringing this up, since you have already agreed that the figures are meaningless, but even still, you are incorrect in what you have tried to represent.

This, along with some of your other statements, still doesn't prove to anyone that the CIA is currently selling arms to Mexican Drug trafficers.

You evidently have conveniently forgotten that the claim of the CIA selling arms to Mexican drug officers was from a reference you cited!

However, the CIA's activities in toppling the legally elected Allende government in Chile, the actions with the Contras in Nicaragua, and the undermining and overthrow of the legally elected Arbenz administration in Guatemala. Likewise, the CIA's activities regarding Cuba and especially the Bay of Pigs are well documented. Not in Latin America, but a significant problem the USA faces today stems from the CIA's activities in the overthrow of President Mossadegh of Iran and setting up the regime of the Shah.

(However, I will freely admit to you that I can't prove that there actually is a country called Iran, since I've not been there. I have been to Latin American countries, so they did exist, but since I'm not there now, I cannot prove they exist now, either.)

You certainly have a point there that it is incumbent on all Americans to "walk the talk" but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China or the very specific issues I outlined in my last post?

Goodness, surely this point cannot be lost on you, can it? The point is, that you parroted the same widely held "America is special" bunkum that has been such a part of this country's history. This is the same talk that supposedly justified taking 1/3 of Mexico away from Mexico, justified taking almost all of the Native American lands away and wiping out a large majority of them, and now justifies "spreading democracy," "nation building," and other such piffle that is sold to the American public. If you don't realize this, you have no idea of the potency of the concepts you banter about when you talk like that. Such words are well understood to bring with them the justification of all sorts of national and international hijinks, and if you don't understand the burden these words carry, you can hardly blame others for understanding you in this manner when you use them.

So obviously you don't consider yourself an "average American citizen". From your posts I would gather that you consider yourself above the "average American citizen"? You said it!

You know, I've asked you politely to stop putting words in my mouth, but my requests have gone completely unheeded, haven't they? Is this the only way you can make a point, to argue with yourself?

And, just where have I said any of these things?

And how can you even claim to be talking about proof and facts, when you engage in such patently ad hominem attacks as this, and assume you can tell me as some sort of an expert what I think of myself?

This statement of yours is nothing less than a feeble attempt to cloak your claim that some nation, America, is special, and that it has more caring, open, honest, and friendly people than anywhere else you have been. Well, I live here too, and I see plenty of folks beating themselves on the back about how much greater this country is than any other, and you made no bones about repeating these same thoughts. Then, when confronted by such thoughts (which aren't always shared by others on this planet) you try to turn this around and make me out to be the exclusive one? Come now, that is truly shabby!

I can easily see why you were so worried about this exchange getting into personalities, for apparently you know yourself well enough to recognize the temptations you cannot resist.

Every reply that I have made has been in response to one of your statements.

How can we have a discussion when you continually tell me that the moon is made of green cheese?

Time and time again, I've shown where you have misstated what I've said, and now you still assert you are replying to my remarks? You have replied after I've posted a comment, but it's crystal clear that you are replying to your own straw man, not me!

Now, we have covered , mentioned or touched on: ...

Aren't you leaving out China and that nation's intention to dominate Asia and China's intentions regarding India? What about US FFL forms? Chinese nuclear technology?

Finally:

Are the above not a deliberate attempt at obfuscation of my original premise:

I believe that if you could confiscate every gun held by every drug criminal in Mexico at this instant, you'd find that the majority of them came across the border. Of these, some would be obtain from robberies, but most would come from US dealers.

You haven't been able to prove this statement

Is this what you are fussing about? You haven't been able to disprove it, either. You've said what you've believed in response, but you seem to be continually wanting to engage in an argument with straw men you set up. What you feel you prove by twisting the meaning of other's statements and then proving yourself wrong, I don't have the slightest notion. We've both said a long time ago that there was no data available -- I qualified my statement by saying "I believe" to take that fact into account, yet you still feel that there is some point to be made by repeating over and over the differences between the Fox News and GAO data we've both agreed is not conclusive. So, what can you prove, yourself?

As for Holder, when he asked for more gun control, Democratic congressmen basically told him to stuff it...

You were unable to prove me wrong on this one.

Well, I'm afraid you think this because you still have not grasped what I said. Holder's opinion is not the point: The Obama Administration's policies are ultimately made by President Obama, not Eric Holder. You are aware of this, right? And President Obama, as far back as the primary, made it clear he wasn't seeking to strengthen gun control -- are you aware of this? (I'm afraid I must ask, because I've pointed this out before, but it doesn't seem to have fitted into your responses.)

You keep going on about the Congress, and I told you that this wasn't the primary issue: First of all, your premise that opposition in Congress is sufficient to squelch the Administration's submission of a bill is not borne out by history -- Presidents DO have legislation introduced in the USA that does not initially have majority support, you know!

And I've also made the point that President Obama could use Executive Orders to tighten gun restrictions -- such executive orders were sufficiently powerful enough to throw 100s of thousands of US citizens into concentration camps and to deprive citizens of due process regarding privacy.

The point is, President Obama has plenty of recourse available to tighten gun laws on his own without Congress, but he's made it clear for quite awhile that he was not and is not going to do that.

My point was that this was the case and that the gun buying spree (the point that kicked off this thread) was silly because of this. Needing to bother with whatever you are saying about Holder and Congress is as pertinent as discussing how much a pound of butter weighs. I hope this explanation is clear enough, finally!

So to get back to the point: I'm tickled that so many legal US gun owners have filled out 4473's and gone through the NICS process and bought guns. I do not believe that the majority of US gun dealers are dishonest and are profiteering by selling guns illegally to Mexican drug lords.

(Since I brought up Ronald Reagan already, I can't be criticized for doing so anymore than I have been)

There you go again!

I never said that "the majority of US gun dealers are dishonest."

How about you provide a quote and show me where it is that I said that?

Your problem here is that you are arguing with some idea you have or someone else who's tapping your internet line, not me.

To bring the conversation back to reality, please let me inform you that I believe that the majority of guns being used by criminal drug gangs in Mexico come from the USA, from where they have been obtained illegally and illegally taken across the border.

Why don't you tell me now: do you see the difference between what you're claiming and what I am saying, or are we going to have to go around this again and again, before I can get you to actually deal with what I'm saying, rather than the words you continually try to foist upon me?

I suggest a truce and an end to this discussion

Your pitiful cries for peace on this thread remind me of Adm. Jackie Fisher's words, where he said, "All nations want peace, but they want a peace that suits them." If you want an end to this, don't let me keep you from it.

[xl_target]

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.

This is from the first post that you made on this thread. I was wondering if you had any thing to back that statement up?

Excuse me, but we've both said that the data is not conclusive. Specifically, you said The truth? No one seems to know what the actual number are for sure., and in such a case, you have no more substance to base your beliefs regarding the sources of Mexican crime firearms on than I do.

Ah! I did say that the data was not conclusive. I was pointing out that in this instance (the current Mexican drug war) you didn't seem to have anything to base your conclusions on. I wasn't the one who said

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

or

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.

Since you made this statement, isn't it incumbent on you to show why, or how you came up with this hypothesis, when challenged?

I love this! Can you prove that I actually exist?

I'm really beginning to wonder.

How do you know the guns used in Kashmir and currently by the Taliban in Afghanistan didn't originally come from ISI stocks or Pakistani army stocks in Pakistan?

So, you have proof that this is the case?

In response to your statement that these guns came from US stocks, I asked how do you know they didn't come from an alternate source? It was a question.
Since you made the original statement isn't it incumbent on you to show why when challenged?

Who do you think gave them their nuclear technology?

[quote=""timmy"]Talk about tangents, red herrings, and just plain old bunkum, this claim qualifies in spades. You need to go back and read about how AQ Khan did it, yourself, rather than throwing around stuff you can't prove.

[/quote]
Oooh! "plain old bunkum"! Now I'm wounded. It's a long ways from exploding a device to building ICBM's.
Hmm! I thought this was common knowledge. Apparently a lot of people think that's where they got their nuclear technology.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 89,00.html
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=10490
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10070
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/wor ... bombs.html

Here's a US DoD report.
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/prolif00.pdf
See chart on page 29 of the .pdf (page 18 in the document).

Further in the document, It also says:

Pakistan likely will
continue to attach budget priorities to the further
development of nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles.
However, part of this effort will depend on continuing
support from China and North Korea, or on
alternative sources of financial or technical aid.

In the past, China supplied Pakistan with nuclear
materials and expertise and has provided critical assistance
in the production of Pakistan’s nuclear facilities.

As an aside, on another board there was a post by a Pakistani claiming that all kind of Norinco branded weapons were being retailed in Pakistan.

Ah, now here's some proof! Very substantial and hard to refute, indeed! But you know, I know people who say things, too -- lots of things.

I purposely prefaced that with "As an aside" to see if you'd bite.



[quote=""xl_target"]Then your first post went on about the CIA in Afghanistan and weapons ending up in Kashmir. So what were you implying? That the CIA officers are posing as ordinary citizens and buying these guns to send to Mexico? If not why bring the CIA up when we are talking about NICS checks. Throughout these posts you have brought up the role of the CIA in world wide events. Please explain to me what the CIA has to do with NICS numbers. Before you accuse me, again, of putting words into your mouth, remember, you brought it up. [/quote]
Since the results were from NICS checks, I was wondering how the CIA got into it?

You certainly have a point there that it is incumbent on all Americans to "walk the talk" but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China or the very specific issues I outlined in my last post?

Goodness, surely this point cannot be lost on you, can it? The point is, that you parroted the same widely held "America is special" bunkum that has been such a part of this country's history. This is the same talk that supposedly justified taking 1/3 of Mexico away from Mexico, justified taking almost all of the Native American lands away and wiping out a large majority of them, and now justifies "spreading democracy," "nation building," and other such piffle that is sold to the American public. If you don't realize this, you have no idea of the potency of the concepts you banter about when you talk like that. Such words are well understood to bring with them the justification of all sorts of national and international hijinks, and if you don't understand the burden these words carry, you can hardly blame others for understanding you in this manner when you use them.

How do you get "The point is, that you parroted the same widely held 'America is special' bunkum"? Or how do you get that I'm justifying past US Foreign Policy mistakes?
Did you get it from this?

I have lived on three different continents and I have never met a more caring, open and friendly people than the American people.

That has been my experience.

or did you get it from this?

As far as US businessmen go, I can go into their shops and purchase services or goods with the reasonable assumption that I will not be cheated.

or did you get it from this?

I like "the average US citizen" and I would not dare to put myself above them by imputing that the rest of them have attention span of a 2nd grader.

Let me remind you sir, You brought up the whole "shining city upon a hill" bit, Not me
... ahem! I'm being accused of arguing with myself, right?

So to get back to the point: I'm tickled that so many legal US gun owners have filled out 4473's and gone through the NICS process and bought guns. I do not believe that the majority of US gun dealers are dishonest and are profiteering by selling guns illegally to Mexican drug lords.

(Since I brought up Ronald Reagan already, I can't be criticized for doing so anymore than I have been)

There you go again!

I never said that "the majority of US gun dealers are dishonest."

No, I said "I do not believe the majority of US gun dealers are dishonest".

Once again, in the interests of peace on this board, use of bandwidth, and the sanity of the posters here, I suggest a truce and an end to this discussion. Apparently, we are not going to change each others minds and there is enough material here advocating each others points of view.

Your pitiful cries for peace on this thread remind me of Adm. Jackie Fisher's words, where he said, "All nations want peace, but they want a peace that suits them." If you want an end to this, don't let me keep you from it.

I'm sorry you mistook a desire for harmony as weakness. Let's see, I need a quote for that. Maybe Kipling. Why? Why not, I like Kipling. Will it have anything to do with this post or the original post which we have apparently lost sight of? Probably not but no one seems to care. So here goes:

"He wrapped himself in quotations - as a beggar would enfold himself in the purple of Emperors."
-Rudyard Kipling

Now, we have covered , mentioned or touched on: ...
Aren't you leaving out China and that nation's intention to dominate Asia and China's intentions regarding India? What about US FFL forms? Chinese nuclear technology?

China? Sorry it must have slipped my mind: In your first post on this thread you said:

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.

China was brought up by me as an alternative in response to your claim about the CIA's eventual role in Kashmir. And the reason that China's possible intentions were brought up was to provide another reason why Chinese guns could have ended up in Kashmir. Chinese Nuclear technology? Well if the Chinese sold them Nuclear technology, why wouldn't they sell them guns?


Now the 4473 forms? Aha! now we're getting to the crux of the matter. When an ordinary citizen buys a gun, he/she has to fill out a 4473 before the NICS check can be called in by the dealer. Now since the original poster's link showed that the numbers were gleaned from NICS checks, I was happy that so many ordinary citizens or "average American citizens" (sorry, couldn't resist ) were buying guns. When the CIA, the DoD and the rest of the alphabet soup buy guns, they do not fill out 4473's or go through NICS checks.

That's when you started out with :

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

and

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.

and

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

and I'm like: "Hmm! How does he get all that from NICS check numbers?



...and that's what started this whole circus and the rest is "plain old bunkum".

I almost forgot:
[quote=""xl_target"]I'm tickled that so many legal US gun owners have filled out 4473's and gone through the NICS process and bought guns. I do not believe that the majority of US gun dealers are dishonest and are profiteering by selling guns illegally to Mexican drug lords.[/quote]

Remember, I said the above, repeatedly,... not timmy. Just so we don't have any confusion about that.

[timmy]

Well, xl_target, I did not realize that you had replied. I see that much of your reasoning is on the same basis as the rest, so I'll pick back up where I left off in a short time...

[RWS shooter]

"WOW"

we know have Experts in foreign affair outside the USA, some know more than the Secretary Of State in the USA. do you know how many layers or departments are behind the head of a Secretary? of any branch and how many qualified people work behing a head of state??

and Please tell me "What is your "Clearance" level

in the USA we monitor, Iraq, Russia, Afghan, China, Africa, South America, and others, maybe like N. Korea and that means Newspapers, Radio, InterNet and Humit and Signet from 1,000 of miles away and 24/7

you have a common border with Pakistan, inches from your border and you still could not stop the incident at Mumbai just like we cannot stop 1,000 deaths in Mexico each month by drug lords

I have a high respect for the mentality of the people in India, what has it been in existance for more than 4,000 years PLUS. Remember we are in the year 2009 but we had many more years before that

Did you know that some of the best minds in Science, Math, Medical, Engineer come out of India?? look the Visa count in the USA between different Countries and find out the answer.

warren

PS: My Doctor was born in India and studied in London, yes he is from India, last name is Pansara and a very excellent one

[Steve007]

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 .

Exactly right. Mostly people bought basic handguns (fully automatic weapons have been illegal for 50 years) and stuck them in their nightstand drawer for the next 20 years, but they needed ammo for them. Gun guys did buy some extra guns (now in their gun safes) and stocked up heavily on ammo, but didn't shoot any more. There was such a run on handgun ammo that most stores were literally out. I happened to buy a new .38 revolver, had to look all over for enough ammo to shoot initially and when I wanted to buy some quantity of ammo on-line (to perfect my lightning draw), everyone was back-ordered for 8 weeks! It did ship eventually ,though.

Things have loosened up now though; there is plenty available, and as Obama's poll numbers have totally tanked, the Dems no longer have the political capital to ban guns or limit or tax ammo. Not that they wouldn't like to.

Just a temporary "blip" in the gun-and-ammo buying statistics. Indicative of total and rightful distrust of Obama and the Dems about guns, but no big deal and nothing for anyone in any country to even faintly worry about. I don't think the Chinese army is using my new .38 Smith and Wesson six- shooter, but if so, they could never match my lightning draw. They''d never even clear leather...

[MoA]

I believe there were over a million hand gun NICS checks in August alone.

I wish that were possible elsewhere in the world.

[timmy]

Indicative of total and rightful distrust of Obama and the Dems about guns...

I'm an American and I can guarantee you that there is not a total distrust of President Obama in this country about guns or anything else, whatever Fox News may be saying at any given moment.

As far as whether the distrust of the President is "rightful" or not, that is a subjective opinion, but I trust him to keep his word on not messing with gun rights, and he's given ample indication of keeping that pledge.

I found Bill Clinton's recent words on this matter of guns and President Obama to be quite interesting"

Clinton was asked whether he is concerned that the 2010 midterm elections could resemble those of 1994 — two years into his first term, when Republicans took control of the House and Senate.

"There's no way" that could happen, Clinton said, adding that "the country is more diverse and more interested in positive action." Also, he said, Republicans had control of the White House and the Congress for several years under President Bush, "and they know the results were bad."

And, he said, "the Democrats haven't taken on the gun lobby like I did."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... more-70782

Most of the Obama-will-take-away-our-guns talk in the USA is nothing more than scare tactics that various pressure groups use to tap into people's money veins.