Thursday, March 19, 2009

The Liberals Hate Your Guns, Part One

To paraphrase Sir Sean Connery’s character Jim Malone in The Untouchables, don’t bring a knife to a gunfight. And trust me, Democrats and left-wing Socialists, you’ll have one hell of a fight on your hands if you try to take away people’s guns.

It seems that newly-crowned Attorney General Eric Holder is using the drug violence in Mexico to "confuse and mislead" Americans in an attempt to reinstate the expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban, according to gun advocates. Holder revealed his intention to reinstate the ban last month while announcing more than 700 arrests in connection with a crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the United States.

"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 re-institute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder said. "I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said reinstating the ban would decrease the flow of guns from the U.S. into Mexico but declined to offer a timeframe for any re-implementation.

Actually, Eric, I think rooting out all the corrupt government officials and drug cartels might have a more positive impact on Mexico. Maybe the cartels need to be mowed down by some assault weapons?

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, told that Holder's "argument in general is bizarre…It's a delusion to say that diminishing the Second Amendment in America is somehow going to stop these ruthless drug cartels in Mexico." LaPierre, referring to the drug-related violence that killed more than 6,200 people in Mexico last year, accused Holder of trying to "put a failed political agenda on the back of a national tragedy."

I agree, Wayne. I think we should hand out more guns to people on the border, and instruct them to shoot drug runners and illegals. Perhaps sealing up a too-porous border might have a positive impact on both countries?

LaPierre called on Holder and Justice Department officials to uphold existing laws and focus on increasing enforcement along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border, rather than consider additional legislation.

Again, Wayne, I agree.

"The answer is to enforce the law on both sides of the border," LaPierre said. "I reject the notion that the reenactment of that ban would have any impact on the Mexican drug cartels."

I disagree there, Wayne. Banning guns will just embolden the cartels even more. The knowledge that there’s no rancher or Minuteman around with a Ruger Mini-14 or Rock River M-4 and a couple 30-round magazines will just encourage them.

Signed into law in 1994 by another liberal Democrat, President Clinton, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban prohibited the sale of ammunition clips with more than 10 rounds and 19 types of semi-automatic military-style guns, including AK-47s and AR-15s. The ban expired in 2004, and a 10-year extension proposed by yet another flaming liberal Dem, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) was voted down.

During a House subcommittee hearing last week, Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, warned against making U.S. gun owners "scapegoats" for the Mexican crisis.

"The message here is clear: According to some, the violence in Mexico is not the fault of the drug cartels or their American customers, nor is it the fault of decades of Mexican government corruption," Cox said in prepared remarks. "In their view, the fault lies with American gun owners. This is an outrageous assertion…Authorities should ramp up border security and continue targeting so-called straw buyers who do the cartels' "dirty work," Cox said.

Of course. Don’t blame the Mexicans; blame the Americans. Moreover, blame conservative right-leaning gun-owning Americans exercising their freedom to bear arms for Mexico’s violence, because a guy shooting 30 or 40 prairie dogs or a pack of nuisance coyotes on his private property are to blame for another country’s internal problems. Shit, we may as well blame people who burn away excess brush on their property in America for Australia’s wildfires. Blame people in America who buy legal fireworks at roadside stands for car bombs in Israel. Blame little Timmy Snodgrass in Miss Carbunkle’s seventh grade science class at Turd Ferguson Middle School for the eruption of the undersea volcano off Tonga this week because his science fair project was a model volcano. Damn you, Timmy! Plus, your volcano contributed to global warming. Did you buy carbon credits from Al Gore to cover it?

But Tom Diaz, senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center, a liberal lobby group, testified at the subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs on Thursday that the U.S. civilian gun market is fueling violence in Mexico and on both sides of its border.

"If one set out to design a 'legal' market conducive to the business of funneling guns to criminals, one would be hard-pressed to come up with a 'better' system that the U.S. civilian gun market -- short of simply selling guns directly to criminals from manufacturer and importer inventories," Diaz said in prepared remarks.

More than 7,770 guns sold in the U.S. were traced to Mexico last year, up from 3,300 in 2007 and roughly 2,100 in 2006, according to ATF statistics. It was not immediately clear what percentage of those guns fell under the United States' federal assault weapons ban. Diaz also cited ATF tracing data that shows Mexican drug cartels receive between 90 and 95 percent of their firearms from the United States.

So, then, wouldn’t the logical answer be to do a better fucking job of border security? If the border wasn’t so porous, mayhap the guns might not go South, and the dope not go North , in part in the rectums of illegals? The US Army’s Air Defense Artillery School is right there in El Paso on the Mexican border at Fort Bliss; I bet if we started training our soldiers by letting them live-fire a few Stingers at low-flying Cessnas crammed with bales of pot, they might stop flying. Since the terrain of Arizona resembles Afghanistan, let our soldiers getting ready to deploy there get used to planting mines and sniping at insurgents by spreading a few Claymores on the trails and popping a few people sneaking into our country unannounced?

See, people keep coming here illegally, whether to sponge off our welfare teats or to deliver drugs, because they know damned well that 99.9% of the time, it’s safe and the worst that’ll happen is they get sent back to Mexico to do it all over again. Remember my advice…ask first and come in legally if we say it’s okay. It’s not that hard, people. Just ask, and do things legally, and I’ll welcome you with open arms.

Anyways, banning firearms here might cut down on the guns going to the Mexican cartels. That just means that they’ll just go elsewhere to buy them. In the Third World, and even in the Second World, it’s easier to get an AK-47 than it is to get clean water. The collapse of the Warsaw Pact kinda made the AK the currency of choice around the globe. The AK-series were produced in Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, East Germany, China, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Finland, Iraq, Egypt, North Korea, Indonesia, damn near everywhere, in a wide variety of configurations and calibers. Dime a dozen, kids, and by far more plentiful than AR-15’s. Trust me, friends, they’ll scoot down farther south to their cartel buddies in Colombia or Bolivia, or just ask good old Hugo Chavez for help. He hates America enough to supply them with guns.

So the Liberals want your guns, and they’ll use any excuse to get them. No wonder ammunition sales are up, requests for concealed carry permits are up, and there’s a six-month backlog on orders for some weapons, especially from manufacturers like Rock River Arms.

I’ve heard the arguments against so-called assault weapons. People ask me why you need a 30-round magazine, or what purpose other than killing people would you own an AK? They understand a shotgun or a revolver, but not something that could be even remotely construed as vaguely military. Personally I don’t have a problem with responsible gun ownership by law-abiding and responsible citizens. I myself am a gun owner. I own a .45 caliber semi-auto pistol.

Why the need for standard magazines? Ask your local police officer. He is on patrol with a handgun which uses standard magazines and, in many cities, an automatic rifile or a submachine gun with standard magazines. Under stress, even well-trained people can miss. Moreover, a single hit is not guaranteed to stop an attack. Fortunately, he has the benefit of body armor and backup just a radio call away.
Most people have no such luxuries. They don't sleep with magazine pouches affixed to their pj’s and would depend on that one magazine already in their weapons.

Arbitrarily requiring that your one magazine hold a lot less ammunition than normal has the effect of giving attacking criminals an edge over the law-abiding citizenry.
I could just as easily ask why anyone would want a car with 300 horsepower that can go 150 miles per hour when the average speed limit in America is between 65 and 70 miles per hour. So by the previous argument’s logic: why own that car, except to speed illegally and possibly kill someone? How many people are killed each year in speed-related accidents, and moreover how many more are killed in accidents than with so-called assault weapons? Yet no one is trying to put a fucking ban on a Ford Mustang GT.

If you want to take away our legal rights to own firearms that you think are excessive, then why stop there? We should immediately ban fast, powerful cars and force Detroit to build cars that won’t exceed 70 miles per hour. (And of course it’ll be a green hybrid, or the Libs will be pissed). And while we’re at it, ban ski masks because people wear them to rob banks. Ban cookies because some people get fat from eating them, and thusly become disabled. Outlaw Canada geese because they bring down jetliners into the Hudson…no, wait….Liberals would want us to ban airplanes because they interfere with the geese.

Ban sporks; they have multiple prongs. How many more innocents must die before we ban sporks?

No comments: