On the Bloody Border:

Meanwhile, Americans like El Paso County sheriff Richard Wiles want the U.S. to renew the assault-weapons ban that George W. Bush and the U.S. Congress allowed to expire in 2004. If it doesn’t, they fear, the few Black Hawk helicopters that Washington ships to Mexico’s antidrug warriors won’t make up for the thousands of AK-47 rifles and even rocket-propelled grenades pouring into the hands of the gangs. “It’s a shame,” says Wiles, “that it’s taken so many killings in Juárez to make Washington consider that.”

RPGs? Where did they get those? At a gun show via the loophole?

You know what I’d like to know? I’d like to know how many of those 17% (not 90% like Obama keeps saying) of the seized guns that originated in the US arrived in Mexico legally after being sold to the Mexican government. I’ve seen practically no one ask this question, and no one answer it.

If automatic weapons, grenades, and RPGs are in the hands of Mexican gangsters AND they originated in the United States, a claim that nearly every Mexican and American official parrots every chance they get, my guess is that the majority of them belonged at one time to the Mexican government. They make much hay out of the fact that they can confirm the weapons came from the US, and if they can do that they can tell who it was originally sold to. If it was sold to the government, the serial numbers are on a list somewhere, relatively easy to check.

I’m sure President Obama and AG Holder will let us know the answer right away.

Regarding the “bloody border,” I’ve been thinking about that and might have a creative solution to the problem. In fact, it’s so elegant that I can’t believe no one has thought of it before.

Why not build a fence or something?

Is That an Anti-Aircraft Gun in Your Pocket?

On April 14, Mexican federal police proudly displayed firearms seized from a cache thought to belong to the Beltran Leyva drug cartel. One of the weapons labeled by Mexican authorities as an anti-aircraft gun was featured in a Daily Mail article, while the other, mounted behind a crude armored shield, was the subject of another series of images.

The problem with the narrative presented by the Mexican federal police is that while these guns are indeed capable of causing great destruction, these weren’t the weapons presented to the world’s media, which unfortunately lacks the editorial talent or experience to know it is being duped.

Or, as I increasingly suspect, is simply willing to play along.

UPDATE: I really do think we’re past the stage where media ignorance of the subject and tight lids on intel can explain the media’s storytelling.

Around the time of the invasion of Iraq, the media played up reports of chemical weapons discoveries by the military. Later, they fell all over themselves blaming the military and the Bush administration for “tricking” them into thinking that rusty old rockets and factories were the WMD motherlode, but I didn’t really see any of that at the time. At some point the MO became to basically ignore someone’s sensationalist claims about finding the big cache of anthrax or nerve gas or missiles that could carry nuclear warheads because everyone realized that the big find just wasn’t going to happen and had never been there in the first place. Everyone blamed Bush for the deception, which was at least partially correct.

When will the media reach that same point with US military guns in Mexico?

Spotted at Alphecca:

White House senior adviser David Axelrod said on Sunday that a new ban on assault-style weapons is not “dead,” but now is not the time to push it in Congress.

My. How reassuring.

Sounds a bit like the “Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress” statement from Obama during the campaign…meaning that things might change if the votes come around in the future.

Don’t pretend for one minute that the AWB won’t be back on the shortlist the moment that the administrations feels it is the time to “push it in Congress.”

Obama blames U.S. guns in Mexico

Meeting face-to-face with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, President Obama on Thursday said the U.S. is to blame for much of Mexico’s drug violence, and he set up a major congressional gun-control battle by calling on the Senate to ratify a treaty designed to track and cut the flow of guns to other countries.

Mr. Obama said he wants to renew a ban on some semiautomatic weapons but that it is not likely to pass Congress. Instead, he called for the Senate to ratify a decade-old hemispherewide treaty that would require nations to mark all weapons produced in the country and track them to make sure no weapons were exported to countries where they were banned.

Obama again stated that 90% of the guns used recovered from criminals in Mexico originated in the United States. I thought that the 90% number referred to guns confirmed by the ATF after originally being submitted as originating in the US. The actual number originating in the US was 17%.

I’ve been unable to keep up with things lately. Did I miss something? Was this bogus and the number really is 90%? Or is the President just lying again?

Glenn Reynolds:

If rocket launchers and grenades are making it into Mexico from the United States, it’s because they’re being sold out the back door of military and police armories, since civilian gun stores don’t sell them.

He also points out the very obvious fact, as I have repeatedly, that border security might help in securing the border. Crazy talk, I know, but it just might work.

Wesely Clark on Geraldo:

I think we need to re-institute the assault weapons ban in the United States. If people want machine guns, let them join the military. We got em! But for public and personal use, absolutely not. That’s how they are getting across the border, and what the Mexican Government has asked of us is, “Please, cut off the flow of machine guns coming from the United States into Mexico.”

According to the former NATO commander, the biggest problem is weaponry (specifically machine guns and explosives) flowing into Mexico from the US.

Geraldo says that AK-47s aren’t needed for duck hunting. “Great for gun collectors,” he admits. But buying 100 AK-47s and bringing them into Mexico is

absolutely, appallingly, ridiculous

and he’s right, in a way.

It’s absolutely, appallingly, ridiculous to think that’s what’s happening, it’s absolutely, appallingly, ridiculous to imply that an “assault weapons” ban addresses automatic weapons and explosives, and it’s absolutely, appallingly, ridiculous to let those morons say so on television.

The excitement, predictably, continues to build over the shocking revelation that (gasp!) the Obama administration might support a new (and probably permanent) federal Assault Weapons Ban.

I wrote earlier:

You know, we were all treated to a long, line of “But Obama isn’t going to take anyone’s guns” mularkey for months. Not that any of us believed a word of it, but all those folks were either ignorant or lying. (Okay, technically they could have been both…)

Where are all those people? They were on this site commenting. They were on all the other sites commenting. They were writing crap about “look at all the scared gun owners getting their panties in a bunch because of Obama…what a bunch of rubes” and “the rising gun sales have nothing whatsoever to do with the election of Obama.”…

So, I continue to be mystified by all the Obama supporters. Were they stupid? Or just lying?

Now, I want to clarify that I was referring specifically to gun-related issues. I have a lot of other problems with Obama and his crew, but the “stupid or lying” bit, in this case at least, was directed to those who said that Obama was not anti-gun blah blah blah.

I also want to clarify something else. When I asked that, meaning that it must have been at least one of those conditions, it wasn’t hyperbole. It wasn’t overstatement. It wasn’t harsh wording chosen in the heat of the moment. I wrote what I mean, and I stand by it.

I mean that anyone who openly stated that Obama and his administration would not be anti-gun must be either STUPID or LYING. Really.

So, yes. If you’re reading this and you thought Obama was not anti-gun, I’m saying that I think you are either STUPID or LYING.

I realize that no one likes being called those things. I also realize that calling names like that isn’t likely to win anyone over.

First, I don’t care if the stupid or the liars don’t like a spade being called a spade. They’re either stupid or liars, so I’m not really letting their feelings bother me all that much. They’ll get over it or they won’t. Who really cares?

Second, how many of these people can really be “won over”? Certainly not any of the liars. So to hell with the liars.

As for the stupid, maybe some of them will “see the light” and come to their senses. I certainly hope so. Anyone who cares about personal liberty and freedom should care about this issue as strongly, or even more strongly, than they care about free speech or freedom of religion. I would hope that they come around to siding with the good guys.

But “Oh, I’m so sorry you voted for the bad guys here and didn’t know it. We all know you MEANT WELL.” isn’t going to help anyone.

The change.gov site and then the new whitehouse.gov site both clearly stated that reinstating an AWB and making it permanent were part of the Obama policy plan.

Plain as day. (Well, except for that week or so when it disappeared without comment and then was put back up without comment.)

Many many folks, myself included, pointed this out many many times.

I got a lot of “listen to what he said…he said he wouldn’t do it. He’s not lying.” to which I responded “read what he wrote…he said he would do it. He’s got to be lying in at least one of the cases.”

Anyone who says they didn’t know was either ignorant or willfully uninformed. Anyone who knew and said he wouldn’t do it was either lying or willfully ignoring the guy’s record.

Stupid or lying. Don’t come whining about how it was neither because you misread the guy. Man up and change sides.

AG Eric Holder: Probably not a 'goon' by the dictionary definition.

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

Murdoc’s been real busy, so he’s not really been able to keep up with all the news reports and dig into this. But it sure sounds like the “maybe a new AWB” comment out of AG Holder the other day wasn’t just idle talk:

“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.

You know, we were all treated to a long, line of “But Obama isn’t going to take anyone’s guns” mularkey for months. Not that any of us believed a word of it, but all those folks were either ignorant or lying. (Okay, technically they could have been both…)

Where are all those people. They were on this site commenting. They were on all the other sites commenting. They were writing crap about “look at all the scared gun owners getting their panties in a bunch because of Obama…what a bunch of rubes” and “the rising gun sales have nothing whatsoever to do with the election of Obama.”

One guy I know, an attorney who holds many views that seem to be a few points to the left of mine, asked how the gun writing was going and what had I written lately. I told him my most recent column had been about Barrack Obama’s record on guns and why that was causing people to distrust the guy on gun control. The attorney was surprised to hear that anyone had concerns about Obama’s record on guns. Really.

At first I thought he was goofing around a bit, but I finally decided that he wasn’t. This guy, someone who seems to be pretty much in tune with political news and social issues, someone who is an intelligent person who usually has pretty good insight into what’s going on and what it means, had NO IDEA WHATSOEVER that anyone was concerned about Obama’s record on gun control.

That’s not even the same as dismissing folks who are concerned because Obama told someone that he wasn’t going to take anyone’s guns. This guy didn’t even know that there were folks who were concerned.

And suddenly were all supposed to be shocked (shocked!) that this goon Attorney General Holder thinks maybe the so-called “assault weapons” should be banned?

Here’s what the goon Attorney General had to say about why a new AWB would help people:

“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.”

Even goons know that AWBs, old and new alike, don’t ban any automatic weapons and grenades. Goons say things like that though, when they want to mislead you.

So, I continue to be mystified by all the Obama supporters. Were they stupid? Or just lying?

Via Soyer:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats’ reluctance to take on gun issues.

Just goes to show that the Invasion of the Body Snatchers isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Let’s not get all overly-excited about Pelosi, now. (Like I needed to tell anyone that…) Though this could be a bit of evidence that the pro-gun Democrats we kept hearing about in the 2006 elections are actually having a bit of an effect on party politics, Pelosi remains a loon speaking for a party of gun grabbers.

Whatever the reasoning behind this, the Obama plan seems to have wheels coming off all over the place.

U.S. arrests 755 in Mexican drug cartel raids

Note this bit:

At a press conference announcing the arrests, Holder also suggested that re-instituting a U.S. ban on the sale of assault weapons would help reduce the bloodshed in Mexico, where last year 6,000 people were killed in drug-related violence.

U.S. officials have a responsibility to make sure Mexican police “are not fighting substantial numbers of weapons, or fighting against AK-47s or other similar kinds of weapons that have been flowing to Mexico,” Holder said.