"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," Mr. Holder
said. "I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a
Since when are laws in the United States dependent on what will help Mexico? Since when are Constitutional Rights subject to infringement based on what is good for Mexico?
And that assumes that the passage of a new Assault Weapons Ban would actually help the situation in Mexico. It won't. For all intents and purposes, guns are banned in Mexico. Insofar as guns in Mexico are a problem, they are purchased illegally on the black market... often frommilitary or police sources.
How do we know these firearms aren't coming from American gun shows?
Their arsenal ranged from semi-automatic rifles
to rocket-propelled grenades. When the smoke finally cleared and the
government had prevailed, Mexican federal agents captured 540 assault
rifles, more than 500,000 rounds of ammunition, 150 grenades, 14
cartridges of dynamite, 98 fragmentation grenades, 67 bulletproof
vests, seven Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifles and a Light Anti Tank
You won't find (live) grenades, dynamite, or anti-tank weapons at gun shows; they are heavily regulated to the point of being essentially illegal. You might find an assault rifle, but you won't find 500 of them, and the paperwork to get your hands on one will probably take months. Assuming your state allows you to own one, and your local police chief will sign a letter stating that you are an upstanding citizen.
You will find semiautomatic rifles in many different shapes and sizes. Some of them look like military assault rifles, but they fire one shot each time you pull the trigger just like any other semiautomatic rifle. They are actually less powerful than your common hunting rifle.
Say, if gun shows really were supplying the Mexican criminal cartels, wouldn't both governments be paying a lot more attention to securing the border?
Anyways. If you are reading here, you already know what's wrong with the whole concept of the assault weapons ban. So let's get to some political analysis.
There are a couple possibilities. This might be Obama sending up a trial balloon to measure public response to the issue, or trying to pressure a reluctant Congress to advance legislation. Or, it might be Holder speaking off the cuff (since the remarks came in response to a question, rather than as prepared remarks) without understanding the impact his personal opinion will have.
Either way, the best response is to communicate back to your Congressmen (HouseSenate) and the Obama administration that the gun issue is radioactive. Be nice, be polite, but let them know. Even if your legislator is anti-gun, you need to express your opposition to this move. So long as legislators perceive this as a dangerous move that will cost them votes, they will be reluctant and resist pressure from Obama. Many of them remember what happened in 1994, following the original assault weapons ban, and it is our job to remind them. Loudly.
This entry was published 2009-02-25 21:41:01.0 by TriggerFinger
and last updated 2009-02-25 21:41:01.0.