Thursday, March 26, 2009

Adults In Charge?

Yesterday Rachel Maddow reported on Sec State Hillary in Mexico and her taking on some US responsibility for Mexico's problems, drug demand and guns. Rachel was pleased, the adults are in charge she crowed. Excuse the hell out of me, hardly.

This is trade of Kindergartners for 3rd graders. What exactly is adult about saying we're part of the problem and then asserting more of the same failed policies will fix it? More enforcement, assault weapon ban all adds up to exactly what adult reaction. the government has used the drug war to stomp mud holes into civil liberties, so more must be better - especially since it hasn't worked already. Guns... does she have any idea how many serious felonies are committed in gun running?

Let's see, more of the same drug laws and head into a gun banning debate to see if the Democrats can't reverse this winning streak. Oh yes, adults my ass.

8 comments:

Phil said...

The only way the US will ever help bring an end to Mexico's drug violence is to bring an end to the War on (some) Drugs by ending drug prohibition, an act that would obliterate the black market conditions that keep Mexico's drug cartels living large. More of the same failed policies aren't gonna cut it. Really, Chuck, I thought Rachel Maddow was smart enough to know that.

Zak Johnson said...

An article I saw about this talked about weapons--like grenade launchers--used by the drug cartels and went on to talk about the need to stop illegal smuggling of weapons like that into Mexico. Grenade launchers. Funny, I never saw one of those at a gun show. I agree with you, this part of the show is ridiculous, as is the War on Drugs. Part of Mexico's problem is that they already have virtual gun control, government backed monopolies and oligarchies, and the sort of inequality in education and distribution of wealth US oligarchs can as of yet only dream about. Oh, and draconian immigration policies and barriers to foreign investment, especially land-owning.

What I find most aggravating on the US side is the suggested trajectory of a back-door ban on US firearms ownership by inserting clever language into a treaty. Time to lobby our senators not to take the bait and ratify any treaty which abridges the 2nd Amendment.

Zak Johnson said...

Meant to say, "the part of THE STAGE SHOW is ridiculous."

Kevin said...

The big about grenade launchers is a Strawman. Just a couple days ago the news was all over an FBI bust of a couple guys trying to smuggle regular guns, gun parts and bullets into Mexico. And that's just the most recent example. There are others.

Like it or not the fact of the matter is that the United States is playing a key role as weapons supplier for the drug cartels inside Mexico. Not our government. Our lax laws.

The law of supply and demand leaves few viable explanations other than what Hillary and Rachel are arguing.

With genuine respect, Chuck... I disagree. And of course we've been round and round about this before. No need to replicate it again. I'm just sayin' that I believe you're wrong and that Hillary and Rachel are right about this.

Zak Johnson said...

Given the law of supply and demand, Kevin, I seriously doubt unilateral or even bilateral US-Mexico moves will stop the import of weapons from China or other major supply points into Mexico. But I am deeply concerned about attempts to disarm the American people which may sneak into US-Mexico agreements. The data shows the assault weapons ban to have had no effect on crime in the US and reinstating it would also have no effect. Individuals buying a small number of firearms of any kind for personal use is not the source of weapons into Mexico, and reinstating the assault weapons ban in the name of saving Mexican police or civilians is disingenuous at best.

If they want to start examining ALL of the cargo that comes in to LA harbor--especially at the terminals owned/operated by foreign national interests--that's just fine with me. If they want to search trucks heading south, fine. But don't sell me a bill of goods that limiting my own access to buying an AR-15 or similar weapon for my own use has a damn thing to do with the War on Drugs or that it would have any affect on the rampant political corruption in Mexico, including well-documented collusion between its military, ex-military, its politicians and its drug lords. Allowing the Mexican people access to firearms and letting them finish the business they almost completed in the 1920s would be a better solution, IMHO.

Kevin said...

You make a fair point about supply and demand, Zak. Weapons will find their way in to meet the demand regardless of what we do on our side of the border. So the question then is whether we give in to inevitability or not. And if so, to what other issues do we apply the same philosophy?

Zak Johnson said...

Agreed all around, Kevin. Prohibition created Al Capone in the 1920s. More recently it has created Crips, Bloods, and MS-18. A phony immigration policy has created an underclass with no civil rights preyed upon by "coyotes" and other human traffickers while doing nothing to support wages and benefits for American workers. I think we're all a little fed up with law-making that legislates Utopian fantasies with the pretense it will create the same sugar and cream reality. Looking reality in the face would work better if anyone ever cared to try.

Colin said...

Chuck - Great piece, and point. Reinstating policies that were ineffectual, and repealing the freedoms of law-abiding citizens makes no sense.

The adults at the table comment was particularly unnerving, as it's factually inaccurate.

The American Hunters and Shooters Association recently wrote a blog on this very subject.

Check it out here, and if you agree considering joining our cause!

http://huntersandshooters.com/

facebook:

www.tinyurl.com/huntersandshooters