PDA

View Full Version : Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban



jkdbuck76
27th February 09, 03:34 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

Previous Ban Expired in 2004 During the Bush Administration
By JASON RYAN
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25, 2009—


The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.

Mexican government officials have complained that the availability of sophisticated guns from the United States have emboldened drug traffickers to fight over access routes into the U.S.

A State Department travel warning issued Feb. 20, 2009, reflected government concerns about the violence.

"Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades," the warning said. "Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico, but most recently in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez."

At the news conference today, Holder described his discussions with his Mexican counterpart about the recent spike in violence.

"I met yesterday with Attorney General Medina Mora of Mexico, and we discussed the unprecedented levels of violence his country is facing because of their enforcement efforts," he said.

Holder declined to offer any time frame for the reimplementation of the assault weapons ban, however.

"It's something, as I said, that the president talked about during the campaign," he said. "There are obviously a number of things that are -- that have been taking up a substantial amount of his time, and so, I'm not sure exactly what the sequencing will be."


In a brief interview with ABC News, Wayne LaPierre, president of the National Rifle Association, said, "I think there are a lot of Democrats on Capitol Hill cringing at Eric Holder's comments right now."

During his confirmation hearing, Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee about other gun control measures the Obama administration may consider.

"I think closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I also think that making the assault weapons ban permanent, would be something that would be permitted under Heller," Holder said, referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Washington, D.C. v. Heller, which asserted the Second Amendment as an individual's right to own a weapon.

The Assault Weapons Ban signed into law by President Clinton in 1994 banned 19 types of semi-automatic military-style guns and ammunition clips with more than 10 rounds.

"A semi-automatic is a quintessential self-defense firearm owned by American citizens in this country," LaPierre said. "I think it is clearly covered under Heller and it's clearly, I think, protected by the Constitution."

Copyright 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures
===============================================

I liked the comments section. Are the drug lords really getting weapons from us?

HappyOldGuy
27th February 09, 03:36 PM
I liked the comments section. Are the drug lords really getting weapons from us?
Actually they are, but I'm not convinced that an assault weapons ban is going to make the slightest difference.

Also, there was already a thread on this in the bullshido armory and a couple of people posted statements from various parties that make this sound like more of a trial balloon than an actual proposal.

Writing everyone involved (especially your congresscritters) early is a good way to pop balloons before they become proposals.

elipson
27th February 09, 03:40 PM
Three cheers for Obama! Had to get that in before the pro-gun crowd takes over the thread.


I liked the comments section. Are the drug lords really getting weapons from us?

Literally tons of them. Mexico is a country where it's incredibly hard to buy anykind of gun, but drug cartels are running around with AR-15's, AK's, machines guns and even grenade launchers.

I can find stats for it if anyone wants.

Cullion
27th February 09, 04:12 PM
I suppose they're going to have to use cheap soviet-bloc shit instead.

Zendetta
27th February 09, 04:28 PM
Whoever is going around suggesting that American Citizens lose fundamental rights because Mexico is a failing state that can't contend with their own mafia needs to be shot.

out of a canon.

into Sinaloa.

Aphid Jones
27th February 09, 04:29 PM
Now that we can't go into the hills and fight it out, our freedoms are lost.

WE DIDN'T LISTEN!

elipson
27th February 09, 04:29 PM
That stuff is more difficult to obtain.

Most of the guns crossing the border into mexico are done by individuals driving across for short term stays. You can't drive to the former soviet bloc and back in a day. If that cheap stuff were easy to get, wouldn't they be using it in the first place?

Shipments from other countries do come into Mexico. They are usually in large shipping containers, but are more expensive to get, more difficult to arrange, and carry a greater risk if they are stopped (because loosing a million dollar shipment of weapons is worse than loosing a single 700$ weapon caught at a land border crossing).

Long distance shipping is more costly and dangerous. The gun trade over the US border is very spread out, with MANY gun sellers making dozens of trips each year.

One comment on that article said that logically there are more guns coming from the south of Mexico than from the north. But actual data on the weapons retrieved has shown the opposite, that the vast majority of foreign acquired guns in Mexico come from the US.

Cullion
27th February 09, 04:38 PM
That stuff is more difficult to obtain.

Most of the guns crossing the border into mexico are done by individuals driving across for short term stays. You can't drive to the former soviet bloc and back in a day. If that cheap stuff were easy to get, wouldn't they be using it in the first place?

The AK-47 is about to go into production in Venezuela and is in current use by the militaries of Honduras, Nicaragua, Cuba and Panama. I doubt they're that hard to find on the central/south american black market. P.S. do you think that the majority of Mexicans taking American 'assault weapons' back over the border have permits for them?



One comment on that article said that logically there are more guns coming from the south of Mexico than from the north. But actual data on the weapons retrieved has shown the opposite, that the vast majority of foreign acquired guns in Mexico come from the US.

So you'd like to see Americans deprived of a right that people in another country abuse, despite the fact that they have alternatives on hand and we're talking about people already perfectly willing to break the law to a severe degree. OK...

I don't think you've thought this through.

Phrost
27th February 09, 04:45 PM
Literally tons of them. Mexico is a country where it's incredibly hard to buy anykind of gun, but drug cartels are running around with AR-15's, AK's, machines guns and even grenade launchers.

I can find stats for it if anyone wants.
That's a goddamn crock of shit and I hope your mother gets AIDS.

The main problem with the drug cartels is AUTOMATIC weapons, not "assault weapons". "Assault Weapon" is a concocted term used to describe "military-looking" rifles that accept large capacity magazines; basically anything that's not a fucking Elmer Fudd deer rifle. They're semi-automatic, by the way. The cartels don't give a shit about semi-auto guns when they have access to full-auto.

Automatic weapons aren't coming from the US since civilians can't own any made after 1986. And the prices on the ones made prior are going up faster than Paris Hilton's skirt when she needs a coke fix.

Here's another hint: civilians can't own grenade launchers either without a ridiculous amount of paperwork.

HappyOldGuy
27th February 09, 04:50 PM
90+% of the small arms in the hands of mexican narco gangs come from the US.

Most of the military shit comes from china.

We absolutely need to do something about the smuggling,

But an assault weapons ban isn't relevant. Like most criminals, the narcos use pistols for almost all of their dirty work. Better tracking, so that it is easy for federal authorities to identify the non-licensed-dealers who are purchasing large lots of guns and track the purchasers when the guns are confiscated in mexico is what will make the biggest difference. and if you feel like that steps on your precious second amendment rights, you can choke on my liberal cock.

Phrost
27th February 09, 04:53 PM
The cartel soldiers aren't shooting at border patrol officers with S/A Romanian AK clones or AR-15s.

None of this would fucking matter if we didn't have this idiotic "War on Drugs" in the first place.

Shawarma
27th February 09, 04:54 PM
I don't follow - If the war on drugs didn't exist, they wouldn't be smuggling cocaine into the US?

elipson
27th February 09, 04:55 PM
The AK-47 is about to go into production in Venezuela and is in current use by the militaries of Honduras, Nicaragua, Cuba and Panama. I doubt they're that hard to find on the central/south american black market.
If they were so easy and cheap to get from those sources, then why are they getting them from the US?

Finding something on the black market is a little more difficult/expensive than just walking into a store and buying it. The US has a huge land border with the US that it doesn't share with the other countries you named. There is already a smuggling network between the US/Mex which makes the trade easier to conduct. There are lots of reason why the guns come from the US. Relative ease of purchase is just one factor, but its a factor nonetheless. There are several factors which make importing guns from other south American countries more difficult than bringing them across the US border. Illegal guns will still reach mexico, but not as easily.


do you think that the majority of Mexicans taking American 'assault weapons' back over the border have permits for them?
Some of them yes. Some are American citizens making some money. Some are bought from gun dealers who don't care who they sell to. Some are strawman purchases, which are illegal and still occur.

[quote] despite the fact that they have alternatives on hand [/quotes]

Not sure what this is referring to.

Zendetta
27th February 09, 04:55 PM
None of this would fucking matter if we didn't have this idiotic "War on Drugs" in the first place.

Phrost just double-tapped the correct.

Phrost
27th February 09, 04:56 PM
I don't follow - If the war on drugs didn't exist, they wouldn't be smuggling cocaine into the US?

If the WoD didn't exist and drugs were legalized, the cartels would all but disappear overnight.

Phrost
27th February 09, 04:57 PM
Phrost just double-tapped the correct.

Mozambique, motherfucker: two to the chest, one to the head.

Cullion
27th February 09, 04:59 PM
If cocaine, cannabis and opium poppies weren't illegal, they'd cost about the same as corn or wheat by the pound, at most.

Cullion
27th February 09, 05:06 PM
'Weed' is just that. In moderately warm to tropical climates it will basically grow anywhere with no attention.

elipson
27th February 09, 07:38 PM
The WoD debate is totally warranted. Legalizing drugs would make the cartels disappear or move to others sources of income, but one must weigh the results of having legal and highly addictive drugs in a society. I have no idea what affect that would have on a society, or if it would/would not be a fair trade for less narco violence. I would love to watch some other country give it a try though.

And just to back up my statements that lots of these guns are coming from the US:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/2008/Garza_SAguns_plea.pdf

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2008/January/08_opa_080.html


Agents have noted an “iron river of guns” with thousands of weapons per week crossing the border into Mexico from the United States. Approximately 40 percent of those weapons are linked to drug trafficking organizations.

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0707/results.htm
LOOONG report

According to federal and local law enforcement intelligence, members of the cartels and gangs get guns from the same sources that law-abiding citizens do – FFLs, flea markets, and gun shows – either by buying the guns themselves or through the use of straw purchasers.
....
While some cases are still pending, the McAllen Field Office’s operations at the gun shows have so far resulted in the arrests of 3 undocumented Mexican nationals after they purchased 3,000 rounds of ammunition and 14 firearms that ATF agents believed they planned to smuggle into Mexico. A Mexican national with U.S. resident-alien status also was arrested after coordinating straw purchases of 10 high-priced firearms.

http://mexico.usembassy.gov/eng/eataglance_illicit_firearms.pdf


ATF has traced more than 62,000 firearms seized in Mexico since 1996 using eTrace.
...
In August 2008, ATF Tucson arrested three members of the Arellano-Felix organization for attempting to purchase $194,000 worth of machine guns and grenades.

In an effort to be thorough, I'm trying to find stats about weapons arriving to mexico via other routes. So far the best info (in english) is from US gov sources, so therefore the info may distort the perception, making it appear all the weapons are coming from the US.

JohnnyCache
27th February 09, 07:42 PM
Where is this assertion that guns are going US to Mexico coming from?

It doesn't make any sense.

Zendetta
27th February 09, 07:43 PM
The WoD debate is totally warranted. Legalizing drugs would make the cartels disappear or move to others sources of income, but one must weigh the results of having legal and highly addictive drugs in a society. I have no idea what affect that would have on a society, or if it would/would not be a fair trade for less narco violence. I would love to watch some other country give it a try though.

In a nutshell, the money that goes into Enforcement and Incarceration could go to Effective Treatment.

Robot Jesus
27th February 09, 07:46 PM
I think the US should start directly supplying the cartels with flamethrowers and katans. If you can't beat them, at least make is awsome.

JohnnyCache
27th February 09, 07:47 PM
Something fucking stinks here.

Thousands of weapons a week? That's . . . you know. . . hundreds of thousands of guns a year? How is that even hard to track? Who is buying that? There can't be hundreds of thousands of drug soldiers in Mexico, continuously replacing their guns . . . if all those guns are being made through straw purchases on the border as alleged, isn't that pretty noticeable? What the fuck is really going on here?

Phrost
27th February 09, 07:48 PM
The fact that Obama cares more about Mexico than the rights of his own country is telling.

Were I President, I would send a daily UPS truck into Mexico loaded with 4 guns for every illegal they send our way, shortly after militarizing the border as is the right every other sovereign nation.

Edit, this is worse than the typical "Think of the Children(TM)" bullshit. It's "Trade your Freedom for Mexico's Children".

HappyOldGuy
27th February 09, 07:58 PM
Yeah, cause it's absolutely in our best interests for our nearest neighbor to be a failed narco state.

An assault weapons ban isn't going to make things better, but we are going to need more paperwork and more agents enforcing it.

Zendetta
27th February 09, 08:06 PM
Phrost, you have a network, respect, and connections. Everybody and their brother needs to follow HOG's advice and write/email their representatives.

Wounded Ronin
27th February 09, 08:56 PM
The main problem with the drug cartels is AUTOMATIC weapons, not "assault weapons".

OK, I need a little bit more knowledge myself. Help me understand about the importance of weapons being automatic instead of semi automatic.

My understanding is that semi-auto is usually the right choice for combat shooting, and that full auto mode is only useful for suppression flanking tactics (eg. platoon 1 uses full auto to suppress the enemy so that platoon 2 can work its way up the left and try to flank), or for point blank range, (eg. I'm crouched at the top of the stairs in my house with a submachinegun because I heard some breaking glass at 2 AM. If a home invader tries to run up the stairs I can use full auto mode at that kind of range for better stopping power hitting the home invader 15 times instead of 2) but besides for that it wastes your ammo, makes your accuracy worse, and makes it take longer for you to recover after each attack.

If that is the truth, why would it be so crucial for the "bad guys" to have full auto capability instead of reliable and accurate semi-auto weapons?

Wounded Ronin
27th February 09, 08:59 PM
The fact that Obama cares more about Mexico than the rights of his own country is telling.

Were I President, I would send a daily UPS truck into Mexico loaded with 4 guns for every illegal they send our way, shortly after militarizing the border as is the right every other sovereign nation.

Edit, this is worse than the typical "Think of the Children(TM)" bullshit. It's "Trade your Freedom for Mexico's Children".

You know, Holder brought this up, and nobody has backed him up. I kind of feel that you're jumping to conclusions about this being some kind of long-term Obama conspiracy concerning Mexican children. You're just reinforcing what you already believe about him emotively. Which would make you easier to politically manipulate.

Phrost
27th February 09, 09:14 PM
OK, I need a little bit more knowledge myself. Help me understand about the importance of weapons being automatic instead of semi automatic.

My understanding is that semi-auto is usually the right choice for combat shooting, and that full auto mode is only useful for suppression flanking tactics (eg. platoon 1 uses full auto to suppress the enemy so that platoon 2 can work its way up the left and try to flank), or for point blank range, (eg. I'm crouched at the top of the stairs in my house with a submachinegun because I heard some breaking glass at 2 AM. If a home invader tries to run up the stairs I can use full auto mode at that kind of range for better stopping power hitting the home invader 15 times instead of 2) but besides for that it wastes your ammo, makes your accuracy worse, and makes it take longer for you to recover after each attack.

If that is the truth, why would it be so crucial for the "bad guys" to have full auto capability instead of reliable and accurate semi-auto weapons?

Because "bad guys" generally don't have the training and discipline to effectively use any tactics beyond "spray and pray".

Literally, in the case of wars in Africa.

http://www.fmft.net/archives/gangsta%2021/gangsta9.JPG

Phrost
27th February 09, 09:14 PM
You know, Holder brought this up, and nobody has backed him up. I kind of feel that you're jumping to conclusions about this being some kind of long-term Obama conspiracy concerning Mexican children. You're just reinforcing what you already believe about him emotively. Which would make you easier to politically manipulate.

It's called "testing the waters".

Wounded Ronin
27th February 09, 09:17 PM
Because "bad guys" generally don't have the training and discipline to effectively use any tactics beyond "spray and pray".

Literally, in the case of wars in Africa.

http://www.fmft.net/archives/gangsta%2021/gangsta9.JPG

OK, thank you for helping me to understand.

Wounded Ronin
27th February 09, 09:20 PM
It's called "testing the waters".

"Never attribute to malice what could be adequately explained by stupidity."

Everybody knows that guns are one of the most divisive issues you can throw out there. Obama is a smart man and surely knows this. It seems more likely to me that Holder is politically stupid and then got slapped on the back of the head by Nancy Pelosi. Who may or may not hate guns but also isn't politically stupid.

Robot Jesus
27th February 09, 09:22 PM
well, at least he won't drown.

WarPhalange
27th February 09, 09:49 PM
Full auto = spray and pray

Semi-auto = owww my finger hurts

Firing in bursts > firing one bullet at a time.

EDIT: Gah, I'm late. :(

AAAhmed46
27th February 09, 09:52 PM
Full auto = spray and pray

Semi-auto = owww my finger hurts

Firing in bursts > firing one bullet at a time.

EDIT: Gah, I'm late. :(


And you hold your gun side ways. Remember to always do that.

Cause it's COOL!

SFGOON
27th February 09, 09:54 PM
Ronin;

What you stated is true given the shooter is well trained. Otherwise, idiots are simply emboldened by the belief that a noisy ruckus is effective fire, a boldness which more often than not is falsely confirmed when their opponents run or allow themselves to be flanked.

Were Phrost and I to team up with 30 rounds apiece in our respective AR-15s, I bet we could hold off 100 Nigerian idiots. The first dozen or so would be really brave and fire wildly at us. The next 12 would seek some sort of cover, get impatient after eight seconds (you can set your watch by it,) then charge us and die for it. After that would be a protracted battle, maybe four minutes, where we'd just pick them off as they popped up hoping to empty their mags in our general direction. As many would be shot as would run away.

Point being - automatic weapons encourage aggressive posturing and behavior even if it's not tactically sound. Hence their illegality. This supposed ban on assault weapons is being pushed forward under the lamest of pretexts - h4lp m3xic0! I personally doubt the democrats would be stupid enough to shit on the awesome majority they hold by passing this idiocy. Last time they did this they lost control of congress for 12 years.

This is why they decided to do a "soft float." Talk about it publicly and see who goes apeshit. Properly focused vitrol, "I'm a redneck, I'm a hillbilly, I'm a cousin-fucker an' dammit I vote!" will convince representatives that this is a foolish course of action.

I'd write mine but he's a Republican.

Phrost
27th February 09, 10:06 PM
Didn't a team of 12 or so mercenaries rout some 5,000 (ridiculous number goes here) in a quasi-recent African conflict? Africa's a great example here because, like I said, they literally spray and pray, rarely even raising the gun to half-ass eyeball the sights after getting blessings or doing rituals aimed at preventing bullets from touching them.

AAAhmed46
27th February 09, 10:25 PM
I know were making fun of them, but i bet it's a great thing these africans can't shoot worth shit.

Shawarma
27th February 09, 10:52 PM
"Africa" is a big place, bud. Some African armies and militias can actually shoot and kill. Hot Machete Action is generally preferred in most of central Africa, though.

AAAhmed46
27th February 09, 10:54 PM
I got owned by Shawarma.

Shawarma
27th February 09, 10:55 PM
Makes sense you'd want full auto for your gang wars. Makes you seem like the baddest motherfucker on tha block and sends all the punk ass niggaz running like ho's, actual viability as a precise firing technique notwithstanding.

Shawarma
27th February 09, 10:57 PM
Was more referring to Phrost. "Africans just spray and pray" indeed, which he bases on that old Bullshido article on, I believe, Congolese militias gangbangin', wearing juju to protect them from harm. Weird hoodoo beliefs aren't uniform across the dark continent either.

Phrost
27th February 09, 11:03 PM
Not enough of Africa isn't a shithole for anyone less than a resident or diplomat to spend cycles on labeling it anything but.

An ugly sentence for an ugly continent.

(PS: it's the fault of the Brits and French).

Wounded Ronin
27th February 09, 11:38 PM
Ronin;

What you stated is true given the shooter is well trained. Otherwise, idiots are simply emboldened by the belief that a noisy ruckus is effective fire, a boldness which more often than not is falsely confirmed when their opponents run or allow themselves to be flanked.

Were Phrost and I to team up with 30 rounds apiece in our respective AR-15s, I bet we could hold off 100 Nigerian idiots. The first dozen or so would be really brave and fire wildly at us. The next 12 would seek some sort of cover, get impatient after eight seconds (you can set your watch by it,) then charge us and die for it. After that would be a protracted battle, maybe four minutes, where we'd just pick them off as they popped up hoping to empty their mags in our general direction. As many would be shot as would run away.

Point being - automatic weapons encourage aggressive posturing and behavior even if it's not tactically sound. Hence their illegality. This supposed ban on assault weapons is being pushed forward under the lamest of pretexts - h4lp m3xic0! I personally doubt the democrats would be stupid enough to shit on the awesome majority they hold by passing this idiocy. Last time they did this they lost control of congress for 12 years.

This is why they decided to do a "soft float." Talk about it publicly and see who goes apeshit. Properly focused vitrol, "I'm a redneck, I'm a hillbilly, I'm a cousin-fucker an' dammit I vote!" will convince representatives that this is a foolish course of action.

I'd write mine but he's a Republican.

I always appreciate the clarity of your articulation. Thank you very much.

elipson
28th February 09, 03:17 AM
Because "bad guys" generally don't have the training and discipline to effectively use any tactics beyond "spray and pray".


Phrost, despite our differences, I really do have a lot of respect for you. That being said, you're missing a few facts about the situation in Mexico.

Sometime in the 90's, The Gulf Cartel created a group called "Los Zetas" which were basically former military personel and special forces from Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala. Starting from a small number of men, they trained a fairly large group of well trained, well equipped, para-militaries that know VERY well how to handle firearms. They are structured like a military outfit, with ranks , salaries, even vacation time. It's believed Los Zetas pretty much runs the Cartel these days, and they are responsible for many of the most brutal killings in the conflict, as well as some of themost successful fire fights against authorities.

The Sinaloa Cartel countered by creating "Los Negros", which is a similar paramilitary group. This group is not as highly trained as Los Zetas, but are still better armed, trained, and led than many Mexican Police forces.

The other Cartels in Mexico all took steps to emulate these enforcer branchs, hiring ex-military personel to train and lead them. With literally Billions of dollars involved in the narco trade, a steady supply of high grade weapons, and an excess of well trained and underemployed military personnel, the gunmen hired by the cartels are much more than spray and pray bad guys.

Robot Jesus
28th February 09, 07:12 AM
Phrost, despite our differences, I really do have a lot of respect for you. That being said, you're missing a few facts about the situation in Mexico.

Sometime in the 90's, The Gulf Cartel created a group called "Los Zetas" which were basically former military personel and special forces from Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala. Starting from a small number of men, they trained a fairly large group of well trained, well equipped, para-militaries that know VERY well how to handle firearms. They are structured like a military outfit, with ranks , salaries, even vacation time. It's believed Los Zetas pretty much runs the Cartel these days, and they are responsible for many of the most brutal killings in the conflict, as well as some of themost successful fire fights against authorities.

The Sinaloa Cartel countered by creating "Los Negros", which is a similar paramilitary group. This group is not as highly trained as Los Zetas, but are still better armed, trained, and led than many Mexican Police forces.

The other Cartels in Mexico all took steps to emulate these enforcer branchs, hiring ex-military personel to train and lead them. With literally Billions of dollars involved in the narco trade, a steady supply of high grade weapons, and an excess of well trained and underemployed military personnel, the gunmen hired by the cartels are much more than spray and pray bad guys.


sounds like something i toyed with doing in africa; pair it with a facist government baised on pan african nationalism and the brotherhood of nod is born.


and the technology of peace will spread to all corners of the earth.

Phrost
28th February 09, 09:53 AM
elipson I realize that the cartels use a lot of former Mexican/etc military persons.

That's just the thing though, there are still leagues of distance between the discipline and tactics of any Latin American military, and those of the US, China, or other first world nations (Finland is always my favorite example). I once did beach assault training with a Honduran lieutenant. He refused to wear a kevlar (helmet) because "it looked stupid".

There's a reason during the first gulf war we had members of the 4th largest army in the world surrendering to unarmed camera crews. That reason was a complete lack of effective military discipline (for a dozen reasons).

Regardless, when given a choice between a full auto, genuine Kalashnikov (or Chinese knock-off) that are available all over Latin America, and a "one bullet per trigger pull" Romanian knock-off that are commercially available here in the US...

If you're claiming that handguns are making there way over there, I'll believe it without even requiring a source; it's just reasonable. But that's not what this asshole is claiming, and not the goat he's trying to fuck.

So it all comes off as disingenuous, dishonest politics, mainly, because it is.

Cullion
28th February 09, 10:16 AM
Not enough of Africa isn't a shithole for anyone less than a resident or diplomat to spend cycles on labeling it anything but.

An ugly sentence for an ugly continent.

(PS: it's the fault of the Brits and French).

Bullshit. I'm surprised you fell for that. If we're going to treat Africans like children who can't be blamed for their own fuckups and disfunctionality then it's the Soviet Union's fault. What political ideology do you think all those bloated former revolutionaries who sit on their decaying thrones espouse and where do you think they learned it?

The history of the cold war in Africa isn't talked about enough.

Kein Haar
28th February 09, 10:51 AM
I'm going to have to agree with the Briton, Phrost.

Britian's style of colonialism COULD HAVE BEEN the best thing to happen to the place.

Cullion
28th February 09, 10:59 AM
It was, until communist intelligence services aided by useful idiots in your and our own academe and media supported the overthrow of what we tried to leave them with. Those straight roads, hospitals, educational institutions? we built them and taught the local people how to run them. I don't care about the race politics, we Britons became what we were in part because the Romans did the same thing to us. It's called passing on the torch and it has nothing to do with what shade your tan is.

Let's talk about Rhodesia (now known as Zimbabwe)

Did you know that Ian Smith, the white former prime minister lived peacefully in a Harare suburb without bodyguards because he got on fine with local people, whilst Mugabe needed a phalanx of bodyguards to go about his daily business?

Think about this carefully.

Truculent Sheep
28th February 09, 01:55 PM
(PS: it's the fault of the Brits and French).

And the Belgians, and the Germans, and the Italians, and the Portuguese. Did I mention the Africans? They're up to their eyes in it.

Cullion
28th February 09, 02:00 PM
You forgot the Arabs. And the Chinese. But I applaud your point. It's definitely not Africans' fault though, we ought to be clear about that, because, well, we don't want to get arrested for race crimes now, do we?

Truculent Sheep
28th February 09, 02:06 PM
You forgot the Arabs. And the Chinese. But I applaud your point. It's definitely not Africans' fault though, we ought to be clear about that, because, well, we don't want to get arrested for race crimes now, do we?

The Zanzibaris weren't really big players, at least after they had their arses kicked by the Europeans. (Including military expeditions funded by - would you believe it? - German anti-slavery societies.) The Danes had an African outpost or two in their time, and the Spanish had, well, a bit of desert. We're talking about the premier league here...

Also, China's only just started fucking Africa, so they don't really count in comparison. At least for now - give them time.

Cullion
28th February 09, 02:11 PM
I was serious about my point about Africa's cold war history. The goons in charge now are largely motivated by soviet influence from the 60s and 70s.

Truculent Sheep
28th February 09, 03:11 PM
I was serious about my point about Africa's cold war history. The goons in charge now are largely motivated by soviet influence from the 60s and 70s.

Indeed - colonialism didn't disappear. It simply relaunched itself in many forms, from patronising academic attitudes to indulgence of victimhood to the degradations of poverty in the form of Live Aid et al. Mugabe is every bit the heir to Leopold II.

Cullion
28th February 09, 03:14 PM
Gramscian subversion starts in the academy.

EuropIan
28th February 09, 03:32 PM
I was serious about my point about Africa's cold war history. The goons in charge now are largely motivated by soviet influence from the 60s and 70s.
I thought that was apparent given the acronym inspired "revolutionary movements" (read: gangs) whose named are copy-pasted from communist revolutionary handbook.

Sun Wukong
28th February 09, 03:34 PM
NSFW

This thread needs illustrations

Sun Wukong
28th February 09, 03:35 PM
I'm gone.

EuropIan
28th February 09, 04:12 PM
D:

Phrost
1st March 09, 12:19 AM
Was that an actual "BAN ME I QUIT INTERNETS" post?

On this forum?

Zendetta
1st March 09, 01:47 PM
Britian's style of colonialism COULD HAVE BEEN the best thing to happen to the place.

Slavery would still be widespread in Africa and the Mid East if it weren't for British Naval asswhuppin'.

SFGOON
1st March 09, 03:49 PM
Was that an actual "BAN ME I QUIT INTERNETS" post?

On this forum?

Hedgehogey did it too. It's not unheard of.

Kein Haar
1st March 09, 04:12 PM
Hedgehogey did a lot of things...

EuropIan
1st March 09, 04:14 PM
Question: are dumbass newbs capable of handling assault weapons?

ie. do they require more responsibility that your average hunting rifle/ pistol?

Shawarma
1st March 09, 04:31 PM
Ian, see case of 7 year old boy who pwned himself with an uzi at a recent gun show.

EuropIan
1st March 09, 04:33 PM
I remember that thread

elipson
1st March 09, 04:33 PM
Responding to the idea that Americans are being punished for the crimes of Mexicans:

Well if Americans could actually manage their assualt rifles (and other weapons) in an effective way, so that they weren't used by the criminal element, then this wouldn't be a problem.

I've said this before on here. If the pro-gun crowd wants to avoid anti-gun legislation, then they have to start solving the problems of illegal gun use. Making sure that guns aren't sold illegally, don't end up in the hands of criminals, and don't get across the border, will eliminate the pressure to sieze or ban certain weapons. But anytime someone mentions any kind of measure that might deter illegal gun use, the pro-gun crowd has a knee-jerk reaction which doesn't address any of the problems. As a gun owner, you should be generally insulted and fucking pissed off at every douchebag who sells a gun to some hood rat or some mexican up for a "business" trip. Because everytime they do that, they add more ammo to the anti-gun crowd.

If you want to have your assualt rifles, fine. Start thinking of ways to prevent the illegal sale and criminal use of these things. Maybe its more money for ATF/DHS departments. Maybe its tougher laws. Maybe its stricter licensing for sale and ownership. None of these things would prevent law-abiding citizens from having firearms, but suggestions like these bring out all kinds of crazy replies about "you can't have my guns!" Fine. Keep your guns. But start working together to figure out ways to make sure those guns aren't turned on law enforcement officials and aren't smuggled across the border. Prove that as a society you can do these things, and demands for gun control will fade away.

Kein Haar
1st March 09, 04:36 PM
I'm sorry, assault weapons are common to use in gun crime?

Or POS handguns?

Misinformation is the first problem.

elipson
1st March 09, 04:37 PM
And saying "legalize every drug!" is a nice pipe dream, but its not very realistic. Think of more immediate approaches, and save that one for the long term.

elipson
1st March 09, 04:38 PM
The gun crime in particular is that we are talking about is in Mexico. In which case, yes.

And everything I just said for assualt weapons pretty much rings true for the mis-use and illegal use of POS hand guns.

Kein Haar
2nd March 09, 08:21 PM
Consider the bulk of the victims of violence, period.

Who cares?

It's mostly contained, domestically.

Concerning Mexico, seal that shit off.