Guns used by Mexican cartel traced to Texas gun store.

[sharesunited]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/17/cartel.guns/index.html?hpt=C1

[Don Caballero]

1. Another reason a gun ban is needed in our country

[cowman]

6. Well why

don't you just try it and see how far that goes

[Don Caballero]

7. I really don't think it would be as difficult as some think

Many people would simply turn in their firearms once they were outlawed. Confiscating the remaining firearms could prove to be difficult. Our military and the military of Canada and Mexico would probably have to assist.

[Pavulon]

8. And others would take the g code for an AKM or stoner rifle

and start up shop. Injection molder and basic metal fabrication would make people rich. You really think that would happen.

Jesus will play the madison with jimmy garciia first.

[spin]

17. Have you ever heard of the Posse Comitatus Act ...

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction, with the intention (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) of substantially limiting the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (today the Army, Air Force, and State National Guard forces when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) within the United States.

The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act during peacetime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

In reality our military would probably refuse to go along with your plan as it is an illegal order and might just overthrow the government.

The Canadian government would probably also refuse as they would see no reason to invade the U.S. Canadian's would consider such a war a waste of time, money and life for no real purpose.

You're living in a fantasy world.

[Don Caballero]

18. I also understand that Posse Comitatus is violated all the time

This time it could be used for something good like gun confiscation. The scenarios folks paint of civilians fighting to keep their firearms against the military are silly.

[Pavulon]

20. Put the crack pipe down. Jesus christ will return

before this would ever be ENTERTAINED by any government, never mind actually ordered. The military would never follow the order anyway.

Hey just do it legally, the prohibition folks just fucked with the constitution, at least they realized they were stupid and put it back.

Crack is bad for you.

[Don Caballero]

21. Our military would never go for it.

That is why a foreign military would have to be deployed within our borders to run the confiscation program. Foreign troops have no vested interest in American civilians. Different language, different culture.

[petronius]

22. You seriously think a foreign military should be deployed to the US to

confiscate guns from US citizens!? And having them not speak English would be a bonus? :rofl:

You know how people say to think outside the box? You should probably come back to the box now...

[Don Caballero]

23. If our true aim is a gun free society I am afraid these steps

are necessary. Very few civilians would actually put up any significant resistance. Simply the sight of foreign armies in the streets will frighten most into voluntarily surrendering their weaponry.

[Pavulon]

24. Yeah, that worked in Iraq. "our" aim is not what you advocate

it is not the party platform and never will be. ever.

[Don Caballero]

26. The best way to achieve the goal of a gun free society

is by doing it incrementally. I do understand that physically confiscating firearms from the populace would take a ton of hard work. Doing it one step at a time with new laws and new regulations is clearly the easier way to go. The problem with that is the time it takes to remove the firearms from everyone's hands.

[Pavulon]

27. And the fact it is illegal, the fact that no one wants it, and would lead to the removal from power

of any political party that even voiced the intent, never mind tried. So unless you are advocating violent overthrow of the government you are fresh out of options.

[SteveM]

58. You would confiscate guns like we "confiscate" drugs?

[Don Caballero]

75. I am totally against the War on Drugs. Dumb policy.

Confiscation of weapons would actually be beneficial to the ending of the War on Drugs.

[cowman]

84. So you

are advocating treason by inviting a foreign army onto american soil. Do you honestly think the U.S. Military will just stand by while foreign armies kick down doors to confiscate guns? Can you send me some of the crack you are smoking. It would be a blood bath for the foreign armies.

A Russian General was asked several years ago if he thought that the Soviet Union could invade and occupy the U.S. and he said unequivocally no because of all the guns in private hand and also the U.S. Military would jump in. It would be a bloodbath for the Soviet Army

[aliendroid]

104. it would only benefit...

The hitlers, maos and stalins of society. They will not give up their guns and when they find out they are the only ones with the guns. you know what happens next.

[backwoodsbob]

116. send your Canadian army to SW Virginia

with the intent to confiscate our guns...watch what happens

[aliendroid]

103. we already know this....

This is why we are going to not only block all new gun restrictions, even if they sound wholesome but we will push for more gun freedom. This is why I take people I know who have never shot a gun to the range. To spread out the gun culture. Unfortunately for you, there is no way you can ban guns. It's too deeply entrenched in american culture and many people are starting to participate in gun ownership as a hobby and way of life.

[proteus_lives]

30. That will never be "our" aim.

Thank goodness.

It will remind the pipe-dream of authoritarians.

[Don Caballero]

31. I am willing to bet you on that.

One day, maybe in twenty or thirty years, America will be gun free.

[proteus_lives]

39. I'll bet everything I have.

You're so wrong it's kinda sad.

Why do you want to give up so much? What else would you sacrifice so a big man in a uniform would tell you that you're safe?

[derby378]

83. Except for the military, law enforcement, and criminals, of course...

...meaning that you've just turned yourself into a running target, begging for me to save you from the madness you helped create.

[piedmont]

114. So how will our society function without lathes, mills, files, drills, grinders, and

things that can be converted into these tools (pretty much ANYTHING with a motor) or things that can be used to build these tools (copper wire, steel rod, sheet steel, rubber belts, auto parts, misc. bits to melt and cast aluminum, zinc, etc. etc. etc.)? Why do I ask? Because as long as these tools and materials are available, there will be guns. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

[backwoodsbob]

117. my brother for his machine shop finals in highschool

built a CANNON.how are you going to stop people from making guns?

[AtheistCrusader]

121. Do you have any idea how alone you are?

You and who else are going to ban said guns? You'll need a Constitutional Amendment to do it. You don't have the support of 25% of the country, let alone 2/3rds.

Will not happen in my lifetime.

[beevul]

35. Think real hard about that...

Think real hard about that.

What do you suppose OUR military will be doing while a foreign army or two are roaming our streets and kicking in the doors of American citizens - many of whom are in military families? I'm sure they'll just stand by while the carnage thats certain to ensue erupts, and Americans are dieing at the hands of a foreign army or two...on American soil. Not.

"Very few civilians would actually put up any significant resistance. Simply the sight of foreign armies in the streets will frighten most into voluntarily surrendering their weaponry."


I suggest you make a poll, and poll the population of DU. See if gun owners HERE would turn thier guns in when foreign armys are roaming the streets. I'd wager not, in most cases.

[Don Caballero]

38. I would make a poll if I could

Since I have not donated yet I am not allowed to start threads. Maybe you could start one for me.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

70. You do not need to be a donor to start threads... or polls.

I was posting within my first week of joining.

[GreenStormCloud]

72. You do need to be a donor to start a poll. N/T

[Don Caballero]

74. How does one start a thread?

Thanks in advance.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

78. There is a pencil "Post" icon next to your "My DU" icon at the very top of the page. n/t

[Don Caballero]

79. Thank you friend

[spin]

87. Looking forward to your posts, although I may disagree with your point...

But that's what we are here for. Good debate is fun even when it gets a little hot.

[oneshooter]

119. I made one for you

And guess what. YOU FAIL AGAIN!!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x294852


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Fla_Democrat]

118. Well, obvious

Our military will be used to go around and confiscate guns in other countries, where people aren't as enlightened. Heck, no sense them sitting on their hands. They could go to other countries, like say, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. and bring the joy of gun free societies to them. :eyes: :sarcasm:


I can't believe anyone would advocate placing foreign troops on US soil to confiscate guns. I damn sure can't believe citizens would just let a foreign army roam through their streets, kicking in doors. Maybe I'm just not in an enlightened area, but that shit wouldn't float around these parts. :mad:

[PavePusher]

47. At this point I am unsure as to the state of your...

mental health and/or cognitive abilities.

The very fact that you could entertain such foolishness, much less imply that you are serious about it, casts you in a very bad light indeed.

[AtheistCrusader]

124. And someone just showed him the 'new thread' button...

Nonexistent saints preserve us!

[aliendroid]

101. neither

neither is it our aim to have a gun free society, nor to allow foreign military from being in our nation. You are now promoting an invasion of our nation and possible an event that would get millions of people killed. Some say Hitler had good intentions also. But the guy got millions killed, which is why he is so hated. You seem to have good intentions, but you also would get millions killed.

[Howzit]

113. How is the foreign army going to make much of an impression without guns?

If the foreign army gets to keep its guns, who will scare the soldiers into giving up their arms, and with what? If all armies get to keep their guns, that doesn't equal a gun free society. After all, armies are comprised of people from society.

Who will stop armies from running amok, if they are the only ones who are legally armed? Think Mexico?

[piedmont]

115. Ok, you're pulling our leg. I now do not for one second believe you are serious. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

123. Are you kidding? If the news is to be believed, I MYSELF am better armed than the mexican army.

People with guns won't BE frightened of foreign armies.

Tell them to bring friends. They'll need them.

[Hoopla Phil]

125. Oopsy.

At least this thread will live on. . .

[Euromutt]

50. I seriously cannot believe I'm reading this

I thought people like you only existed in the fevered imagination of Wayne LaPierre. From the blurb for The Global War on Guns: Inside the UN Plan to Destroy the Bill of Rights (http://www.amazon.com/Global-War-Your-Guns-Destroy/dp/1595550410):

If you think there's no way an armed U.N. platoon of blue helmets can knock on your door to take your guns, this book just became your next must-read.

Now, as a former UN staff member, I know there's no way "the UN" can do that, but I'm more than a little shocked to come across someone who says he actually wants something like that.

What gives you the idea, incidentally, that the armed forces of most other countries are the least bit interested in carrying out this job?

[Callisto32]

60. You think this becuase it's true.

Don just comes in here to bait us, I suggest we ignore him/her.

[SteveM]

57. So you favor the invasion of U.S. by Canada and Mexico? ...

to carry out your prohibition scheme?

[slackmaster]

68. "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

Look it up.

:hi:

[GreenStormCloud]

76. Democrats and GOP, Freepers and DUers would unite in shooting at a foreign military on US soil.

On Dec 6, 1941, Americans were deeply divided politically. On Dec 8, 1941, we were ONE country. The presence of foriegn soldiers in any country is enough to unite the populace against them.

[spin]

88. I agree, and that may be only way to unite us.

and united we would be one hell of a difficult force to beat.

[benEzra]

86. You're poking fun at the gun-control lobby, yes?

That is why a foreign military would have to be deployed within our borders to run the confiscation program. Foreign troops have no vested interest in American civilians. Different language, different culture.

You're poking fun at the gun-control lobby, yes? Because you can't seriously be advocating that.

[aliendroid]

100. our military would allow neither...

military would neither confiscate guns, nor would they allow another military in our nation to do so. I think if some president allowed a foreign military to do that the armed forces would come back here to kick them out. Despite any orders from the president, the president doesn't fly the planes, drive the boats or aim the guns. In fact what you are talking about would result in a coup by the military.

[one-eyed fat man]

44. There would be mutiny.

This very scenario was part of a survey done in 1994. The upshot was that a good percentage of the military would refuse the order. The last time questions as divisive as what you propose were asked, Robert Lee turned down Lincoln's offer to command the Union Army. Would you risk civil war to get your wish?

[superduperfarleft]

85. That is insane. n/t

[proteus_lives]

29. No they wouldn't. They didn't turn in their booze during the big P.

And do you think the government would or could kick in 80 million+ doors?

"Our military and the military of Canada and Mexico would probably have to assist."

Oh, that would end well. What administration would allow foreign troops to operate on our soil and survive the fallout from that?

Plus, it's disgusting.

[Don Caballero]

34. Troops should have been on the streets already

Posse Comitatus is a very old and outdated document. If we had military on our streets the amount of violent crime would drop drastically very quickly.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

42. You are not espousing democratic principles.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/8a738445026d1d5f0f_bcm6b5l7a.pdf
"Reclaiming Our Constitution and Our Liberties
As we combat terrorism, we must not sacrifice the American values we are fighting to protect.
In recent years, we’ve seen an Administration put forward a false choice between the liberties
we cherish and the security we demand. The Democratic Party rejects this dichotomy. We will
restore our constitutional traditions, and recover our nation’s founding commitment to liberty
under law.

We believe that our Constitution, our courts, our institutions, and our traditions work.

Our Constitution is not a nuisance. It is the foundation of our democracy. It makes freedom and
self-governance possible, and helps to protect our security. The Democratic Party will restore
our Constitution to its proper place in our government and return our Nation to our best
traditions–including our commitment to government by law."

[beevul]

41. You ...uh...LIKE the idea of a police state?

WOW.

Just WOW.


I feel I need to understand this motivation.


Is it the police state itself, or your belief in its usefulness as a tool against something you really and truly appear to hate (guns...and possibly the people that own them)?

[Don Caballero]

43. No I am totally against a police state

With the population disarmed there would be no need for that. That is my whole point. Our country would be so much more relaxed and laid back if everyone knew no one was armed.

[Euromutt]

51. There's NEVER been a society where "no one was armed"

By which I mean non-state actors.

Even in China, where private citizens can at most legally own a .177-cal air rifle (and they need a permit for that), organized crime has little difficulty acquiring firearms (via a mixture of corruption and poor inventory control in the arms manufacturing industry).

To have a society where nobody is armed, including illegally, you need to have a society that's free of crime, and there's never been one of those either.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pipoman]

53. You sir

are completely off. Obviously you are not thinking, or don't have the ability. Our country would be so much more relaxed and laid back if everyone knew no one was armed. Please enlighten us as to where on this planet 'no one is armed'? Where? Prisons? The most secure places in the world. Everyone is armed. So even if you think we should all live in prisons, there will still be armed thugs there to take advantage of your lack of arms.

And good luck with the necessary first step, repeal of the 2nd Amendment...here's what GD thinks about that idea..

[slackmaster]

69. That is one of the funniest things I have ever read on DU

In a pathetic kind of way.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[one-eyed fat man]

46. Do you have any military experience at all?

Posse Commitatus is one of the things that professional soldiers are kept very well aware It certainly was an annual training requirement and was of paramount importance when I was assigned as an adviser to a Wisconsin Army National Guard tank battalion. There were missions the Guard unit could be deployed for where my presence as a Federal Regular were prohibited, and it was incumbent on me to be aware of Posse Commitatus.

Your notion that US soldiers would go from house to house, kicking in doors and confiscating weapons was a question that has already been surveyed of US troops and you would not like the answer.

If in your wildest crack pipe fantasy, such a confiscation were passed, would you, PERSONALLY, enlist in the Gun Gestapo and kick in doors yourself? Or do your convictions require someone else with guns to do your dirty deeds?

[cowman]

54. ARE YOU

an american? Because if you are, you are suggesting treason and if it ever happened, which it wont, I and every other loyal american would hunt you down and put you on trial for treason

[kelly1mm]

97. No trial. Hunting down part is right though. nt

[SteveM]

61. Yeah, I heard that has been done already. In Mexico. Crime really dropped. nt

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spin]

89. I'll bet you believe the Constitution is an old and out dated document also ..

I can see how you think about the Second Amendment but I'm curious on how you feel about the First.

[Don Caballero]

92. I fully support the First amendment

This meme that if you support the Constitution you must support all amendments is childish. Most developed countries in the West have very strict gun control. We must adapt to the times we are in now, not rely on the Constitution all the time.

[PavePusher]

96. Once I turn in my guns...

will the Police be responsible for my security? Will you gaurantee that? How do you propose to do so?

[Don Caballero]

107. It is already the duty of law enforcement and the military to protect civilians.

[PavePusher]

108. Again you ignore reality.

Both numbers, and Supremem Court precedence, say you are wrong.

Unless, of course, you care to address the second portion of my question, how do you propose to gaurantee their performance?

[Euromutt]

110. Wrong

See Warren v. District of Columbia, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, Castle Rock, CO v. Gonzales.

Law enforcement is not under any obligation to provide protection to individual citizens, even when the citizen has a restraining order that explicitly requires law enforcement to act if they receive information that the subject of the restraining order is violating its terms.

Law enforcement cannot be held liable for damages resulting from unlawful behavior that it failed to prevent due to its own incompetence.

[AtheistCrusader]

122. This is where you're a total laugh.

You think the police have any duty at all to protect you.

Gonzales vs. Castle Rock. Read it. Find out just how horribly wrong you are.

[spin]

109. We are far different than most developed countries ...

many of these countries don't trust their citizens. Allowing a large number of citizens to own firearms scares the hell out of other governments.

And they may have good reason.

New age of rebellion and riot stalks Europe
January 22, 2009

Iceland has no army, no navy and no air force - but it does have riot police.

On Tuesday night the black-uniformed troopers came out to quell the latest riots in Reykjavik, which erupted in front of parliament. The building was splattered with paint and yoghurt, the crowd yelled and banged pans, shot fireworks and flares at the windows and lit a fire.

***snip***

In Riga last week 10,000 protesters laid siege to the Latvian parliament; yesterday hundreds of Bulgarians rallied to demand that the Socialist-led Government should take action or step down, in a second week of demonstrations, and last month the police shooting of a 15-year-old Greek boy led to days of running battles in the streets

The protests went beyond the usual angry reflexes of societies braced for recession. The Greek riots heralded sympathetic actions across the world, from Moscow to Madrid, and in Berlin the Greek Consulate was briefly stormed. The Riga unrest spread rapidly to Lithuania. It is, some say, just the beginning: 2009 could become another 1968 - a new age of rebellion.

***snip***
The Greek disturbances, the worst since 1974, were triggered by the killing of the teenager, but the anger was stoked by a sense that the young were going to have to pick up the bill for the miscalculations of the political class. Unemployment among Greeks aged 15 to 24 has reached 21.2 per cent; for 25 to 34-year-olds it is 10.5 per cent. The good years have come to an end suddenly.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5563020.ece

Personally, I like our government and would not consider living in a country like England which has strict gun control and even strict knife control. I also know that if sometime far in the future, if our government totally turns to shit and becomes a dictatorship the citizens have firearms as a last resort to correct the problem.

We are nowhere near that point today. Our politicians in Congress seem to have forgot that they work for us and not for the big corporations, but many will learn a hard lesson when the midterm elections occur. There will be a lot of new faces in Congress, both Republican and Democrat. Perhaps then we can get a Congress where both parties work together to solve problems rather than fighting like school children in a play ground.

I believe the majority of citizens in this country feel as I do about firearms. Many of us use them for hunting target shooting and self defense. Still, Americans have never really trusted their government. Firearms are an insurance policy in many ways.

[Euromutt]

48. The Mexican army can't even disarm the narcotraficantes

How the hell would they disarm the American citizenry? Also, there have been quite a few reports of Mexican troops using torture, and committing rape, beatings, theft and extrajudicial killings.

I think your idea of a cure is significantly more harmful than the supposed disease.

[SteveM]

56. I think the military of Mexico is "occupied" at this time. nt

[aliendroid]

99. again. No.

I decide if I own a gun. Not you.

[virginia mountainman]

102. That sort of thing would be a ..

Declaration of war to many, many, many people, and much blood will be spilled.... When people see foreign troops, in their neighborhoods, and going door to door, disarming people...their will be killings, and lots of them.


Not to mention the political ramifications of TRYING to do that..

[chrisa]

120. Hehe. I like it, Don Caballero.

However, I must warn you that the Canadian military wouldn't matter that much. It's like calling in those flashlight cops that work at the mall. :-)





(I'm joking. Canada has a very good military)

[beevul]

15. Yeah...totally.

Mexico has one and look how well it works.

[MercutioATC]

45. Can I just ask why you are so upset that I own a firearm?

What about me owning a gun scares you? I don't bear you any ill will and I don't know you, so I couldn't hurt you even if I wanted to.

I'm responsible and sensible and respectful of the law.

I pay my taxes.

I'm a single parent with a college-age son.

I hold an active government-issued secret security clearance.

I've previously worked in law enforcement.

I currently work for the federal government.


Why do I scare you so?

[SteveM]

55. Another reasons to end durg prohibition in our country...

How do you feel about drug prohibition? Do you want to end it?

[Don Caballero]

80. Absolutely

I believe in the legalization of all drugs. The War on Drugs is both an abject failure and racist in nature.

[slackmaster]

81. Is there any mention of the word "gun" that you wouldn't see as a reason to ban guns?

Serious question.

[aliendroid]

98. you might want a gun ban, I won't allow a gun ban.

understand?

I happen to be protected by the second amendment and I have decided that it allows me to own guns. I own guns. YOu see. Nothing you can do. ok?

[Hoopla Phil]

2. Maybe Mexico will split the cost on a big ass wall.

[Hoopla Phil]

3. delete

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

73. Securing the border would be cheaper than one would think and create jobs.

Put up a pair of 12' prison-like security fences spaced 20' apart with razor wire on top and a few sensors to aid observation.
Put a 3 story sentry/outpost EVERY 1 mile along the border about 30yds back from the fence. Post signs advising shoot on site policy.
Man it with at least two men 24/7 armed with a 1000yd capable rifles. A police force smaller than the NYPD could do this.
If there is a push on the border by a large armed force, backup is literally 1 mile away.

The border is <2000 miles long. 2000 outposts and 15,000 border patrol agents could guard it.
There is no need for a physical concrete barrier. That's silly.
My guess is the WOD budget could EASILY over this and the money would be much better spent.

[spin]

91. Why don't we just get a fair immigration policy ...

We could allow a large number of Mexicans to legally cross the border and they could have jobs before they left Mexico.

The corporations treat Mexicans as modern day slaves. They are hard working individuals that one of my construction worker friends described as the best damn workers on a construction site. But they often get paid poor wages and have no benefits.

When I see videos of Mexicans walking across a desert in the heat and risking their lives for a sub standard job, I get pissed.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

95. No problem with fair immigration.

But you have to be able to enforce that policy and make sure people are using the immigration policy. The root cause of the violence on the southern border is illegal immigration and drug related. Shut the border down and you can cap a fair bit of that activity. The US will not do this because the border is a vent for mexico. If you stop the illegal immigration problem you expound Mexico's crime problem. Thier governement is too corrupt to deal with the kind of pressure buildup that would exist is we shut the border.

[Hoopla Phil]

4. How about Mexico recognize the right of their people to keep and bear arms?

That way the supply here stays up and keeps the prices down.

[Xela]

90. It's already in the Mexican Constitution...

For a general overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Mexico

It was reported recently in Mexican firearm forums that there are plans for the Mexican military to open new branches of their gun store.

Xela

[pipoman]

111. And property rights...

and a government divestiture..and

[rrneck]

5. Crime is illegal. nt

[aikoaiko]

9. this is a good story about prosecuting people who violate gun laws

this is how you deal with the situation - not by infringing upon the rights of law abiding folks.

[sharesunited]

10. It also shows how the so-called RKBA in the good old USA benefits criminal cartels.

[Pavulon]

11. Real weapons come from south america and latin america

why purchase a semi auto replica when you can get a fully automatic m4 or ak-47 from a military source.

[safeinOhio]

12. Shows the need for background checks and records kept of

all purchases. How you going to follow a straw purchase if there is no record. Sure a relative can buy for them and then do 8 years. Make all private sales also go through a FFD so we can record and follow how the bad guys got the guns. That would not violate the 2nd and would not stop legal buyers.

[sharesunited]

14. Or, close the store. The so-called RKBA needs to be challenged on the basis of No Right To Sell.

[Pavulon]

19. Good luck. Never going to happen.(nt)

[aikoaiko]

33. What did the store do wrong? Did I miss the part where they broke a law?

It was the buyer who broker the law and he is being prosecuted.

[Callisto32]

62. Actually,

the right to alienate your property is one of THE basic property rights.

[slackmaster]

67. The store did nothing wrong

They followed the law to the letter, and cooperated with the ATF.

[aikoaiko]

32. Criminals always take advantage of freedoms. Only authoritarians react by eliminatitng the freedom

[DissedByBush]

127. Wisest words I've read this year, for any freedom n/t

[SteveM]

63. No, it's about propping up yet another prohibitionist scheme: drugs...

Do you favor drug prohibition?

[spin]

93. The war on drugs is a TOTAL failure ...

some drugs are extremely dangerous and should not be legal but other drugs could easily be legalized.

In fact we probably would be better off if we just legalized everything.

[pneutin]

13. Funny how nothing is mentioned of the complete failure of Mexican border police...

...to prevent the weapons from entering Mexico in the first place. After all, civilian ownership of any firearm is banned there.

[safeinOhio]

16. That border crossing goes both ways.

Like there is no complete failure of our border police catching drugs.

[beevul]

25. Two examples in one?

Examples of the failure of prohibition.

[Callisto32]

64. Amen, brother.

[SteveM]

65. And try finding out if our gun-prohis' are not also drug prohis'. nt

[proteus_lives]

28. What about the criminals that used them?

[Euromutt]

49. And this is news how?

We already knew that something in the order of 20-25% of firearms recovered from narcotraficantes come from U.S. sources. That's a very rough estimate, while we know how many guns the Mexican government submits to the ATF for tracing (90% of which are indeed traced to U.S. sources), the Mexicans are unwilling or unable to say how many guns they've recovered that have not been submitted to the ATF.

The fact remains, however, that the cartels' nastiest hardware--automatic weapons, RPGs, hand grenades--are not acquired in the U.S. but smuggled in via Guatemala.

And let's not kid ourselves, even if you could completely shut down the American supply, the cartels would simply start buying from organized crime in eastern Europe or China. It'd probably cost them a little more, but it's perfectly feasible.

If you want to shut down the cartels, legalize marijuana, cocaine and heroin, and import the stuff in a way that bypasses Mexico. If they're not gaining revenue, they can't buy weapons and bribe cops.

[Tejas]

106. It's not, it was another SU drive-by (imagine that) nt

[Callisto32]

59. So Mexico has crappy border security.

Is this really news?

[slackmaster]

66. And criminals commit crimes

PROFOUND REVELATIONS!!!

[Tim01]

77. Huh, they found one. And we found a shitload of their drugs on our side. nt

[spin]

94. I fully support the ATF and their effort to stop straw purchasers...

I do believe that the punishment should be far more severe.

Of the 23 other people connected to the case, 11 have pleaded guilty for their roles in the gun trafficking scheme. Each was sentenced to less than eight years in prison. Several others struck plea deals and continue to cooperate with federal authorities.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/17/cartel.guns/index.html?hpt=C1

I'm in favor a increasing the budget to ATF and hiring more agents.

We can stop straw purchases by increasing enforcement and punishment for those caught. Make it difficult to traffic in guns and expensive in terms of time in jail if caught, you will reduce the number of illegal firearm on the street and also cause the street price to skyrocket.

Of course this effort should be coupled with treating any violent felon caught carrying a firearm as a serious danger to society (which he is). If a repeat offender with a record of violence gets caught and a gun is found he should spend 20 years in prison with no parole.

Fewer ex-cons would carry weapons on the street and we would live in a safer society. People with carry permits are not a danger, but criminals with firearms definitely are.

[Tejas]

105. NEWS FLASH

Welcome to 3 years ago!

By the way, have you heard the latest??!!!!?

NY Mayor Bloominidiot committed multiple felonies with illegal stings in multiple states to prove whatever too!

[ManiacJoe]

112. Good to see the government choosing to prosecute the criminals.

Prosecuting the straw purchasers is not the norm.

[guardian]

126. And members of the Mexican cartel are 'Mexican'

So what is your point? Do you want to ban Mexicans too?