Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Foreign Policy Out Of Focus

Yawn. Frida Berrigan, yet another "think tank" denizen, is pushing forcible citizen disarmament in the U.S., because of violence in Mexico. She wastes no time making her position clear--the title is "Too Many Guns."

The violence is fueled in part by the high-tech, high-quality weapons bought at gun shows and shops in the United States. According to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, more than 90% of guns seized after shootings or police raids in Mexico or at the border can be traced back to the United States. Last year alone, 2,455 weapons traces concluded that the guns had been purchased in the United States.

Where do they come from? There are more than 6,700 licensed gun dealers across four states within a short drive of the United States' 2,000-mile border with Mexico — three dealers for every mile of border territory. Each state has its own set of laws for gun sales. California has instituted a 30-day waiting period and banned the sale of assault rifles; neighboring Nevada and Arizona have not. The ease with which huge numbers of deadly weapons are bought and smuggled has led law-enforcement officials to dub the region an "iron river of guns."
The author doesn't bother to mention that much of the killing is committed with machine guns, grenades and RPGs (unless that's what she means by "high-tech, high-quality weapons"), weapons that are extremely heavily regulated in the U.S.
This is our right to bear arms in practice. And it's not saving lives or guarding liberties.
Hmm--I thought this was "our right to bear arms in practice," and it's doing both.
Shouldn't a global treaty against guns be next?
With what do you intend to enforce the terms of that treaty, Frida--strong language?

Good luck with that.

III

8 comments:

B Smith said...

Title of John Lott's book: "More Guns, Less Crime".

Title of this article (with subtitle implied): "Too Many Guns (Not Enough Crime)"

I used to think these people were just ignorant, but no longer. I think they know EXACTLY where their policies will take us. Which makes them not ignorant, but intelligent and totally evil.
Just why, do you suppose, doesn't the author propose stiffer enforcement of our border controls, which MIGHT actually DO something to stanch this flow of illicit weapons? You know---enforce laws that are already on the books?

Nah, can't have that. Ban the eeevil guns---it's all their fault, right?

hairy hobbit said...

Ever think that MAYBE, JUST MAYBE there are "three dealers for every mile of border territory" BECAUSE of mexico's cesspool of a government, the drug lords and mexican military bounding over the border during their shoot-outs, and our unwillingness to do something about the ILLEGAL gate crashers coming here to "get their guns"?

I know, I know...I'm just clinging to my guns and religion with a very heavy side of "if you aren't going to enforce it then take it off the damn books!"

hairy hobbit

Thirdpower said...

So why doesn't she mention the numerous Mexican officials that have been caught in the US trying to buy firearms?

Howabout the fact that many of of those cartel shooters are former Mexican army men who absconded w/ their guns or bought them from other corrupt officials.

But that truth would hurt to much.

Wilton Vought said...

I read that post, and nowhere in it does Frida Berrigan propose that guns be forcibly taken away from citizens. You are just setting up a straw man.

45superman said...

I read that post, and nowhere in it does Frida Berrigan propose that guns be forcibly taken away from citizens. You are just setting up a straw man.

She ends her screed by saying:

Shouldn't a global treaty against guns be next?

So would this "global treaty" be backed up with force, or would it be merely a suggestion to disarm--in other words, an utter irrelevancy?

Mike W. said...

Laws, treaties, decrees, etc. are always backed up by force. They're meaningless if you can't guarantee compliance via use of force. Kinda like having speed limits without a single cop out on the road writing tickets.

Vought - How else do you interpret

"shouldn't a global treaty against guns be next?"

Surely she's not suggesting that all governments will give up their arms in such a treaty, therefore by default she's advocating civilian disarmament.

the pistolero said...

Sooner or later, the only thing that can be said to some of these people is, "Molon Labe."

straightarrow said...

Well pistolero, "fuck you" is always an appropriate response to these hideous mutations.

Molon labe, is not particularly appropriate, because we know they won't. They will hire someone else to do it. So, I suggest "Fuck you, you're next, no matter who you send, you are a legitimate objective to be reduced."