True to the liberal penchant for blaming every ill in the world on the USA, ABC News has produced a "report" claiming that the increasing number of guns and drug cartel violence in Mexico is all the fault of... the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That's right, it isn't the drug dealers and killers in Mexico that are at fault, it's James Madison and the Founding Father's fault! Now, before you imagine that I am employing hyperbole in my introduction, just look at the title of their piece: "U.S. Guns Arming Mexican Drug Gangs; Second Amendment to Blame?"
ABC wrote that "U.S. gun stores and gun shows are the source of more than 90 percent of the weapons being used by Mexico's ruthless drug cartels," but then noted that "It's virtually impossible to buy a firearm in Mexico as a private citizen." To anyone really thinking about it, this fact sort of confirms the pro-gun bromide that "if you make owning a gun a crime, only criminals will have guns," doesn't it?
Regardless, ABC allows the Mexican attorney general to present Mexican criminality as the fault of the U.S. Constitution.
Mexico's strict gun laws are being subverted by the easy availability of weapons in the U.S., the Mexican attorney general, Eduardo Medina-Mora Icaza, told ABC News. "The Second Amendment," said the attorney general, "is certainly not designed to arm and give fire power to organized crime abroad."
If that same Mexican government wasn't so rife with corruption, weakness and crime, our laws here wouldn't be such a problem for them there. Here is the thing, if Mexicans had the same God-given right to self-defense as Americans, all their guns would be purchased right at home. But, Constitutional right or no, the same violence would be happening in Mexico as the violence is not the fault of gun laws. It is the fault of Mexican corruption and drugs.
Further, the Mexican drug cartels are powerful and flush with money. If they really wanted guns and the USA didn't offer an easy mark to obtain them, they'd merely go elsewhere. Certainly we should try harder to assure that our Constitutional rights don't interfere with the laws of a neighboring nation, but to assume we are the sole cause of their ills is poppycock.
Naturally the ABC piece bandies around the term "high-powered assault weapons" as if it were a meaningful phrase instead of a kitchy and misleading term as used by anti-gun advocates, but the piece is also misleading with its claim of "cop killer" bullets in the newly popular Belgian-made pistol dubbed by Mexican gangs as the "mata policia." ABC reports the power of the Belgian FN pistol as if its round was especially powerful and is perhaps a new and rising threat to standard police bullet proof vests. However, this is misleading in the fact that the "mata policia" isn't any more dangerous than most rifle rounds, including the 7.62x25 round of many handguns made in Eastern Europe and China. In other words, its popularity isn't because it is more dangerous than any other weapons, but as much out of a sort of fad as anything.
Additionally, the ABC piece also slings around the name "AK47" quite a lot. Where this is misleading is that the AK47s sold in the USA are not automatic weapons. They are not machine guns. Yet the ABC piece leads the reader into imagining that they might be. If machine guns are being used by Mexican gangs they are certainly not coming from the United States because machine guns such as the proper AK47 are illegal here.
But a telling item came from ABC's first posting of this story on-line. Here was one of their original paragraphs:
The drug cartels' weapons of choice include variants of the AK-47, .50-caliber rifles converted to automatic firing capability and a Belgian-made pistol called the "cop killer" or "mata policia" because of its ability to pierce a bulletproof vest.
Yet, hours later the paragraph was altered to read this way:
The drug cartels' weapons of choice include variants of the AK-47, .50-caliber sniper rifles and a Belgian-made pistol called the "cop killer" or "mata policia" because of its ability to pierce a bulletproof vest.
Notice what's missing (from my bold in the first version)? You see, you cannot make a civilian style .50 cal. rifle fire in automatic mode.
It should also be noted that the straw-man purchase is already a federal crime. So, if people are buying large lots of guns for someone else, that is already against the law. This is also a matter of our government not enforcing current laws. New laws aren't needed but we aren't even enforcing many of the laws we do have on the books already.
But, this whole story also points to a support for something else that doesn't get mentioned: building the border fence. If we had better border control, we wouldn't have American guns so easily crossing the boarder to kill the Mexicans that Mexican guns don't want to kill. Build a fence and we'd certainly make it harder to smuggle guns.
Still, the lawlessness of a neighboring nation is no reason to destroy a Constitutional right here.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
AHHHHHH!
April 22, 2008 - 20:04 ET by DEVILDOCMOMDarn that Second Amendment...the poor Mexicans. My heart breaks for them as they struggle to have the evil Americans obey the Mexican laws.
I am sure all of us on this site see the ironic twist here...
More Missing Data
April 22, 2008 - 22:23 ET by zeestephenWhen someone buys a rifle from a Texas gun shop, he needs to show verifiable ID.
This report tells us Mexican guns are purchased in USA stores, but there is no mention of the people who originally bought them.
How do the original buyers explain how their guns end up in Mexico?
Have any original buyers been charged with illegal export?
Who are the original buyers?
Where does their gun money come from?
Why does the reporter, and the guy from ATF, have no interest in that angle of the story?
My Guess
April 22, 2008 - 22:36 ET by AzRenegadeMy guess would be that most of these guns are stolen.
AzRenegade
Sadly, after watching Mexico
April 23, 2008 - 11:43 ET by BDSadly, after watching Mexico for many years just over the border, I have come to the conclusion that they need a VERY VIOLENT revolution much like the Mexican Revolution of 1910.
But instead of Socialist morns like Zapata and Villa, they need a Mexian follower of William F Buckley to lead the revolution and cocnentrate on rebelling against that mainstay of the Mexican Culture - Graft.
If that were to happen, I would recommend arming them HEAVILY... I might even donate to the cause....
I would donate to that
April 23, 2008 - 11:50 ET by bassndudeI would donate to that cause. That is just what that country needs. A new goverment that will keep out of the peoples way.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
AZ you may be aware of this
April 23, 2008 - 12:44 ET by DEVILDOCMOMbut I will post it for others...http://www.kpho.com/news/15952052/detail.html. Sorry, I do not know how to do the other "more clever" way to link. Gunfire closes a US border because of the Mexican side.
devildocmom....the little
April 23, 2008 - 12:50 ET by bassndudedevildocmom....the little chain at the bottom of the window. You hilight the word or phrase that you want to link, click on the chain at the bottom..far right....paste in your link and presto...
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Great, thanks
April 23, 2008 - 22:45 ET by DEVILDOCMOMbassndude...I will give it a try. I had better practice first. :) I will feel so...techie.
I was not
April 23, 2008 - 16:18 ET by AzRenegadeI was not aware of this incident DevilDocMom. I have heard many places along the border are no better than war zones. I have not been in the area for some time. I used to frequent the Yuma sand dunes many moons ago, but no longer.
We are the constant victims of drug and human smugglers here in AZ as you likely know, and I, along with many others, are way past sick of it.
AzRenegade
Well, as you know
April 23, 2008 - 22:51 ET by DEVILDOCMOMmost of what goes on here with the illegals is never published for a wider audience. All of the fatal accidents with the illegals we have had in the last few weeks have never been covered in the media outside of Southern Arizona.
My son is headed to Rocky Point this weekend with his new girlfriend to meet her parents at their condo. He has a CCW, but, of course will not carry there-we all worry about his lack of protection.
We both know
April 23, 2008 - 23:36 ET by AzRenegadeWe both know the media is complicit in the coverup of the illegal alien criminal activity all across the country. Here in AZ a full 30 percent of the Illegals caught entering the country illegally in 2007 had prior criminal records.
And lets put this all in total perspective as well. If you cross the border illegally, you commit a crime. If you are here illegally and take a job, you have broken another law. If you present false documments to get that job, you commit fraud, and maybe identity theft. If you take a job "under the table" you are guilty of tax evasion. I submit to everyone that by the time these "poor undocumented" persons come here and take a job they have built a rap sheet as long as your arm!
AzRenegade
I agree,
April 24, 2008 - 22:48 ET by DEVILDOCMOMand could not be more with you on this...so frustrated at the lack of follow thru by our government. A real travasty. However, do not forget the free medical care which we all pay for...
Same in Arizona
April 22, 2008 - 22:41 ET by DEVILDOCMOMEven at gun shows you need a valid AZ drivers license to purchase a hand gun...
so because a Mexican official says it
April 23, 2008 - 11:33 ET by UndercoverConservative..then it must be true? There's a news headline for ya: Foreign official spreads propaganda about another nation.
Because why should we believe a Mexican government official so easily, just because he bought/has familia/stole an election to get this government position, then his story must be gospel?
This the same nation that avoids a prison overcrowding problem by giving it's convicts the choice: run north to America or be executed?
"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
If Mexico would keep their criminals out of US...
April 22, 2008 - 20:07 ET by nkviking75If American guns are a problem in Mexico, perhaps the Mexican government will finally see the need to keep Mexican criminals out of the United States.
Yeah, right.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
They'll Say Anything
April 22, 2008 - 20:08 ET by geoff.galeThose whacky modern liberals! Like the Mexican drug lords couldn't get guns elsewhere.
"All that is necessary for the trimuph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
www.conservativeboot...
At Comedy Central aka ABC
April 22, 2008 - 20:24 ET by jdhawkAt Comedy Central aka ABC News, we have this ridiculous statement rendered as fact, "It's virtually impossible to buy a firearm in Mexico as a private citizen."
Yeah, right. Give me a thousand dollars in cash and drop me off downtown Mexico City and within an hour I can come up with your weapon of choice. Hey, even faster if you'll take stock in whatever the "police" happen to be carrying.
Mexico is one of the most corrupt socities on the planet. Virtually anything goes if you have the inclination and the money.
My wife's relatives owned stores in the Zona Rosa or Pink Zone, the 5th Avenue of Mexico City. They had to pay the police to protect them from thievery and beatings. And, what do you know, when they did get broken into it was the very same police that were supposed to "protect and serve" that robbed them. They finally got fed up and immigrated to the United States.
Guns
April 23, 2008 - 04:25 ET by Semper Fi_USAThis is true in any nation in the world... Guns are illegal in New York City too, likewise I have been approached unsolicited on 42nd street and asked if I wanted to buy one... I said no thank you I have several of my own, and our benevolent Uncle shares his with me too! Devil Dog
Welcome aboard Devil Dog
April 23, 2008 - 11:42 ET by Semperright"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
Oh for the days of
April 24, 2008 - 03:32 ET by Semper Fi_USAOh for the days of President Reagan!
Devil Dog
"The Second Amendment,"
April 22, 2008 - 20:26 ET by HypocriteHater"The Second Amendment," said the attorney general, "is certainly not designed to arm and give fire power to organized crime abroad."
No, the Second Amendment was designed for LEGAL US citizens. If this AG of Mexico doesn't like it, he can do something about enforcing the border on their side. Works for me!
The mexican cartels are
April 22, 2008 - 20:32 ET by MidAmericaThe mexican cartels are bringing in drugs and carrying out guns. hhmm... How could they have overlooked this opportunity to bash Bush for not enforcing border security?
Build the Fence
April 22, 2008 - 20:44 ET by AzRenegadeThis is on more GREAT reason to build the border fence! Much of Mexican society is criminal and corrupt. We have bailed out their economy more than once and continue to support this basket case banana republic with remittances from illegal aliens. Their culture is still based on the old Spanish Caste system. They will never change until power is wretsed away from the elite power brokers and racial barriers are broken down. AzRenegade
Yes,
April 22, 2008 - 21:33 ET by DEVILDOCMOMIn addition to my post above, this abc "news story" comments on all the Mexicans killed by the "illegal guns" from the USA. Would we like to see a news story regarding the thousands of AMERICANS killed by illegals? No, not PC enough.
Build It!!
April 22, 2008 - 21:39 ET by GoodieYes AZ, from an ole CA dude, (moved to the Midwest guess what less than 1% Latina, Latino, Chicano, Chicana, Mexicana, Mexicano, MECHA, La Raza, La Problema)....BTW the ER are normal.
Build it, YES BUILD IT, HIGHER, LONGER, WIDER, with ICE and Border Patrol support!!!! Increase BP and ICE Compensation 15% with more 401K incentives.
IF WE BUILD IT THEY WILL NOT COME!!!!!
Over and Out.....and todays saying is "MIGRE!!!!"
When will we learn
April 22, 2008 - 21:54 ET by jefflebowskiWhen will we learn that the US is responsible for all bad that occurs in the world?
I propose that we build a wall on the Mexican border to protect all the innocent Mexican drug dealers from the greedy gun-running Americans.
jeff... "I propose that
April 22, 2008 - 22:00 ET by Clear thinkerjeff...
"I propose that we build a wall on the Mexican border to protect all the innocent Mexican drug dealers from the greedy gun-running Americans."
Always wanting what's best for our neighbors to the south, I think we should start on your proposal immediately!
"Abstain from McCain"
Wise
April 22, 2008 - 22:08 ET by AzRenegadeYou were probably wise to exit CA, Goodie. Some are of the opinion that LA has become a third world city already.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/23/wla123.xml
We are fighting back against the invasion here in AZ. We recently passed an employer sanctions law, and the sherriff of our most populous county inquires as to the legal resident status of anyone arrested in his jurisdiction. It's a good start. We need the fence!
AzRenegade
The Border War
April 23, 2008 - 09:29 ET by GoodieKeep up the good fight AZ. I grew up in San Diego and it has been a war since the 70's. As you know 80% of the illegal drugs in the CA public school system are from Mexico, brought up by mules illegally entering in US. I am sure it is no different in AZ. Sherriff Joe is a WARRIOR, we need 10,000 more of him.
IF WE BUILD IT THEY WILL NOT COME!!!!!
Perhaps if Mexico had a
April 22, 2008 - 22:43 ET by mostlymoderatePerhaps if Mexico had a Second Amendment of its own, the people would be able to balance out the corruption that their "almighty" government has. Allowing the general public access to guns keeps corrupt politicians from abusing their power (because of fear)
Afterall, wasn't the first thing Hitler did was take away the firearms from the public? Isn't it peculiar that the most corrupt nations of the World deny their people the freedom to own a gun?
Next,
April 22, 2008 - 23:12 ET by gfrrmanwe'll hear that the 1st Ammendment to our Constitution is causing people worldwide, especially China, to be killed because it is not kosher to be able to speak freely....except in the good 'ole U.S.A.
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
The drugs don't cause the violence
April 23, 2008 - 01:09 ET by sarcasmoThe drug prohibition does, though, just as prohibition did with a certain now-legal drug we import from, among others, Mexico. Mexico's gun laws merely act as a further subsidy on their own official prohibition-fueled corruption. The corrupt and biased news media will not put it this way, but the rich & politically connected in Mexico get to have self defense, while the poor simply don't. Anyone who's shocked when injustice & despair results simply hasn't been paying attention.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
sarc, it's all about those INCREASING fees and fines.. no tax !!
April 23, 2008 - 01:24 ET by upcountrywaterNational Review did an entire edition on "the drug war is lost" like 15 years ago. Same then as now? , nope the fees and fines were lower then.
<gaia/love>SAVVVE The Whales N' Earth; conserve N' recycle !
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
What gets to me
April 23, 2008 - 01:31 ET by sarcasmoIs how organized the worldwide opposition to freedom is. The UN's anti-gun program is so strong in everywhere but the USA at this point that it's politically unthinkable for a Mexican politician to say "maybe poor Mexicans should be able to own at least a minimal handgun like a .22," just as the idea of questioning any aspect of the drugwar is considered unworthy of debate despite the corruption it spawns. It would be nice if pro-freedom/self-defense voices were united worldwide, but only our opponents seem to display that sort of vision. It's sad.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Yep. The Right fuels the
April 23, 2008 - 06:40 ET by KillgraveYep. The Right fuels the black market with the drugwar, thus empowering the Thugs, and the Left endeavors to disarm common citizens who may want to protect themselves from said Thugs.
Both the Right and the Left can't, or won't, see past the symptoms. Very sad indeed.
the answer is simple.
April 23, 2008 - 07:11 ET by c5thenMost of the world-wide opposition to the right for the people to be armed comes from the governments who would otherwise be overtrown if that were to come to pass. Then the liberal masses get indoctrinated (with the help of the liberal MSM) in the idea that it's the tools fault, not the tool user and we have the Anti-gun movement.
Why not the same illogic applied to drunk driving? Why not blame the cars and start a movement to ban all motor vehicles from falling into the hands of private citizens? Only the government has a right to opperate motor vehicles in the form of public reansportation. This one is easy because it doesn't even involve the Constitution.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
umm
April 23, 2008 - 12:29 ET by UndercoverConservativeyou mean the guy who ran down my street last Friday, screaming obscenities, taking a large tree branch to cars and fences, after beating the living shit out of his roomate, all the time "under the influence" of crystal meth, all that violence had *nothing* to do with the drugs?
And that was just in the last seven days. Wasnt more than a month before that a guy who was too stoned to remember which building (there's about a half dozen identical apartment buildings on our street) his dealer lived in and was yelling incoherently about being ripped off or something, who then punched out my neighbors' living room window with his bare hand, trying to knock down their door with his forehead, until the (practically unarmed thanks to CA law) family's father confronted the guy with his son's baseball bat-after which the brainfried addict realized the guy wasn't the same race as his dealer and went over to the next building, bleeding all over from his glass shredded fist, to repeat the performance until the police arrived some half hour after the first incident started...nothing to do with drugs there either, eh?
Within any month there is at least one person on my low-rent barrio street that is hospitalized thanks to drug *user* violence upon neighbors, family, "friends" or even themselves. Meth, smack, crack, pot (tho that's usually because some b*tch gets stoned with her dealer and does the horizontal mamba and is too "impaired" to get things done before her babydaddy gets home) and sometimes our old friend alchohol is always getting someone sent to jail and/or the hospital. And that's not the sale or distribution part-where a guy still breaks in and steals stuff to get money for *pot* of all things-which is cheap as hell (cheaper than booze) and practically legal- but heavy users are still such losers and apparently addicted so they'd rather not work to earn the few bucks it would take and instead commit crimes. Legalizing it completely wouldn't make a difference at all with pot (because there's still plenty of break ins, robbery and such in "green" Humbolt County).
So obviously, the violence comes from somewhere, and when drug-related violence and crime exists where the drug (booze, weed) are *legal* then the blatantly obvious answer is that the violence comes from something other than the "prohibition".
"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
you missed the point entirely
April 23, 2008 - 15:36 ET by wizardjrThe violence referred to is the drug dealer/gang shoot outs with each other and various law enforcement folks. Murders of same, etc. It was the same during alcohol prohibition. It also makes punks into millionaires. Whole goverment armies are fighting drug financed armies of killers (Columbia, Philippines, etc.). All that would go away in a heartbeat if drugs were 15 cents a dose.
The violence you refer to is a medical/social problem that would occur whether or not there was a prohibition. That messed up idiot was suffering from bad judgement, not attacking a competitor or the DEA. We will always have those kinds of people. They need a hospital and a rehab center. We do not need to have The War On Drugs. It would cost a whole lot less dollar wise and socially.
The violence you refer to
April 23, 2008 - 17:35 ET by BDThe violence you refer to is a medical/social problem that would occur whether or not there was a prohibition.
It is not a medical problem as it has historically been a social problem.
The crux of the problem is that Mexican society does not share our same mores. Mexican society has, and likely will long continue to value Graft much more so than in places such as the US, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Etc.
It is an old story, the Mexican Cop on the street corner that holds up a tourist for money that most Americans discount as racist in some form, but it is indeed accurate.
Their economy, like most of the third world is fueled on graft and corruption.
Trafficking illicit drugs just change the color of the situation a shade or two.
"It's virtually
April 23, 2008 - 04:28 ET by Jack BauerBut not as a criminal.
How about the UK? England has the most stringent gun laws in the world, aimed at preventing decent honest law-abiding citizens from arming and defending themeselves.
Yet the country is awash with CRIMINALS, drug-dealers, pimps, et all who are armed to the teeth. Since the introduction of these laws in 1996 onwards...
(following some pedophile nutjob who happened to have a gun license, when he went postal and murdered a dozen five year olds at a Dunblane school.)
...the numbers of gun crimes has sky-rocketed.
Is THAT also the "fault" of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. constitution.
Is it just me, or are American liberals getting even crazier, and even less coherant in their obssessive/compulsive disorder with their pathological need to blame their own country for EVERYTHING that goes wrong EVERYWHERE
How 'bout the 16th?
April 23, 2008 - 04:45 ET by imau2fanHere's a headline I'd like to see.......
Income Taxes Squeezing Middle Class -- 16th Amendment to Blame?
Won't hold my breath.
Don't over-react...
April 23, 2008 - 06:55 ET by orlandocajunIt's ABC's job to rile people so their "news" is more interesting. They do it on purpose and with a purpose. The problem with their, and every other left-wing news source's agenda, is that America bashing doesn't sell. If the left wing MSM were to focus their sights on Muslims, illegal aliens and every other group who hates America, instead of America, they wouldn't be going bankrupt. Fox is kicking their asses, because FOX is an America defender.
Get your guns here
April 23, 2008 - 07:16 ET by CobraManYea, right, I really believe that all those "undocumented workers" are streaming across the border just to buy massive amounts of American guns and ammo so they can bring them home and sell them to the Mexican drug dealers. That why there are hundreds of gun shops set up along the Mexican border with huge signs that says "Get you illegal guns and ammo here!" in Spanish, right?
It's Already Illegal.....
April 23, 2008 - 11:56 ET by richflanjTitle 22, United States Code, Section 2778, prohibits the illegal export of weapons to any country.
Title 18, United States Code Section 922(g)(5)(A) prohibits a non-resident alien from purchasing or possessing a firearm.
But that's not important. Let's repeal that pesky 2nd Ammendment. I'm sure that then the law will be respected....
I've gotta argue...
April 23, 2008 - 12:09 ET by Cortillaen... with you on this point. "Certainly we should try harder to assure that our Constitutional rights don't interfere with the laws of a neighboring nation..." You're dead wrong on this. Our Constitutional rights are a matter of national sovereignty and should trump any international considerations. If armed drug cartels are a problem in Mexico, they should be doing something about it, not blaming us. Maybe if they actually had more than token border security, they would be stopping guns from entering their country. Oh, but that would also mean they would also have to formally acknowledge helping their citizens invade the US, so I guess that's out. Of course, as you noted, if our politicians would get their collective head out of you-know-where and institute better than token border security on our side, it would make getting agents in and out of the US to buy weapons harder on the drug lords, but doing so should absolutely not be predicated on helping Mexico enforce its laws. Enforcing our own immigration laws is sufficient.
Now, that said, it is also worth noting that our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms does not extend to non-citizens, so simply requiring proof of citizenship at purchase would, at the very least, cost the drug lords more to procure weapons. Of course, to be of any real effect, there would also need to be a reasonably secure form of identification available, not the easily obtained driver's license. Will any means of deterrent (including making all guns illegal here) stop the drug lords from getting weapons? No. All you can do is make getting their weapons from the US more expensive. Make it expensive enough and they'll go elsewhere, but our Constitutional rights come first.
On another note, ABC's wording really stepped over the line when they said, "...Texas, the state providing the most weapons to the drug cartels...". Declaring, or even implying, without proof that a state is actively helping the drug cartels is low, even for the MSM.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
We have...
April 23, 2008 - 12:15 ET by Warner Todd HustonWe have no argument. You are acting as if I said we have to curtail our 2nd Amendment rights to help Mexico. I did no such thing.
So, I have no idea what you are claiming to argue with me about?
Saying we should make sure our rights don't unduly impact them does not mean we should end our rights and I never posited such a solution.
From the section of your
April 23, 2008 - 13:02 ET by CortillaenFrom the section of your post I quoted, it sounds like an advocation of internationalism. It may just be how it's worded, since I can't think of any way to stop our rights from "interfer[ing] with the laws of a neighboring nation" (assuming they actually do) without changing said rights. Either way, I still don't feel we have any obligation whatsoever to help other countries with their own crime problems by changing our policies in any way, especially when said country is actively encouraging the breaking of our laws.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Build it...
April 23, 2008 - 15:16 ET by Warner Todd HustonBuild it and they will stop coming.
That is my answer. I advocate NO changing of our rights to assuage the tender sensibilities of Mexican criminals, but I feel we can make sure that the fence will help stop the easy traffic across the border.
That is all I meant.
A chance to help build the fence
April 23, 2008 - 22:01 ET by Buzzm1ACTION ALERT! Fence by Date Certain Act would mandate border security!
Representative Walter B. Jones (R-NC) has introduced HR 4987, the Fence by Date Certain Act, legislation that would require construction of a double-layered fence along the U.S.-Mexico border by June 30, 2009.
The bill requires more than 700 miles of fence construction along border locations in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Several high-usage locations would have earlier completion mandates in 2008.
HR 4987 would largely reinstate language that was included in the Secure Fence Act that became law in October 2006. Congress then passed, and the President signed, the Fiscal Year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations bill, which included language that effectively gutted the Secure Fence Act. This bill would remedy the situation.
ACTION NEEDED
Tell your Congressional Representative that Americans demand an effective fence and want it built now. Send a fax or an e-mail by entering your ZIP Code and clicking "Go!" below.
Take Action Now! Confirm Your ZIP
http://capwiz.com/caps/issues/alert/?alertid=10948601
What the heck about Belgium??
April 23, 2008 - 15:40 ET by wizardjrThe semi-Frogs are the ones making and exporting those cop killer pistols. Why the heck are we to blame for their perfidy? Oh wait. I forgot. It's always America's fault.
Sorry...