US responsibility for mexico's hell...

[ivan]

"Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the death of police officers, soldiers and civilians," Clinton told reporters during her flight to Mexico City

 

Aren't we also responsible for the weapons trade that enables these gangs to outgun the police?

 

uh, isn't that pretty much what she said?

[billcoe]

I've been mulling this over. The question that remains Ivan, is why they (and not us) are so fucked up when guns are readily available here, and they have had tight gun restrictions since 1968? Answer that in your own mind to your own satisfaction before you read on please.

 

I saw a thing on the news where they were showing off lots of captured grenades, machine guns and other military bullshit and they were saying that this stuff was coming from US gun shows.

I call big time beaucoup bullshit. You can't buy a grenade at a gun show. Its a smoke screen for more US government control of you and your fellow citizens most likely. When I was in the army, I had standing offers to sell my M16. My thought is this: once they wrestle the guns away from Civilians in the US using this kind of bullshit as a lever, the asswipes in Mexico will still be buying grenades and machine guns off of US military personnel (or picking it up in the bazaars of Pakistan and other places) and nothing would have changed except increased gov't control over it's own citizens.

 

Think

[j_b]

uh, isn't that pretty much what she said?

 

Yes, which seems to imply that policy reforms (besides more policing of the border) are needed to address the weapon supply aspect of the problem.

Edited March 27, 2009 by j_b

[ivan]

uh, isn't that pretty much what she said?

 

Yes, which seems to imply that policy reforms (besides more policing of the border) are needed to address the weapon supply aspect of the problem.

my point is that any attempt to deal w/ the drug problem short of some form of legalization is inane - gun policy, border policy, enforcement policy - silly, silly, silly - the total ban creates an immense and absolutely irresistible economic vacuom that all the money and cops and gun-bans in the world won't be able to prevent from being filled, but will, in the attempt, produce endless corpses and corrupt/despotic governments

 

[j_b]

I agree but, realistically, harder drugs that make up a significant fraction of the traffic will not be legalized, while weapon sales (90% of seized weapons come from the US) constitute a large part of the economic picture contributing to the problem.

[ivan]

I've been mulling this over. The question that remains Ivan, is why they (and not us) are so fucked up when guns are readily available here, and they have had tight gun restrictions since 1968? Answer that in your own mind to your own satisfaction before you read on please.

 

I saw a thing on the news where they were showing off lots of captured grenades, machine guns and other military bullshit and they were saying that this stuff was coming from US gun shows.

I call big time beaucoup bullshit. You can't buy a grenade at a gun show. Its a smoke screen for more US government control of you and your fellow citizens most likely. When I was in the army, I had standing offers to sell my M16. My thought is this: once they wrestle the guns away from Civilians in the US using this kind of bullshit as a lever, the asswipes in Mexico will still be buying grenades and machine guns off of US military personnel (or picking it up in the bazaars of Pakistan and other places) and nothing would have changed except increased gov't control over it's own citizens.

 

Think

the total ban on any commodity that large numbers of folks desire is dumb/doomed to fail

 

telling a sane/adult man he can't smoke a joint is as big a crime to me as telling the same man he can't buy a gun

 

telling the same guy he can't buy meth is more of a crime to me than telling the same guy he can't buy a machine gun (as in the latter case the abuse of that freedom could hurt a great deal more people)

 

for drugs and guns, i think they shoudl generally be available to citizens, but of course w/ sensible restrictions

[ivan]

I agree but, realistically, harder drugs that make up a significant fraction of the traffic will not be legalized, while weapon sales (90% of seized weapons come from the US) constitute a large part of the economic picture contributing to the problem.

its seem unrealistic that any drugs will be legalized - but i think it should be an "all or nothing" type approach if the problem is to be fixed much

[billcoe]

telling a sane/adult man he can't smoke a joint is as big a crime to me as telling the same man he can't buy a gun telling the same guy he can't buy meth is more of a crime to me than telling the same guy he can't buy a machine gun (as in the latter case the abuse of that freedom could hurt a great deal more people)

 

for drugs and guns, i think they shoudl generally be available to citizens, but of course w/ sensible restrictions

 

Well, I disagree with your thinking and have an opposite view perhaps best summed up by Judge Alex Kozinski, a Jewish refugee from Eastern Europe in his argument of dissent in Silveira v. Lockyer:

 

"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

 

The man who wants to use meth, I'm fine with that, but what public benefit could that be construed to support?

 

I'm talking political freedom for all, you're meth head is talking the right of a dude to fuck himself up and charge the rest of us for it when he does. I'm fine with both being free to choose, fuck putting restrictions on bearing arms. "Congress shall make NO law....." is the part I support. I don't recall anything about the "right to take drugs" in the constitution in any way or form.

 

But thats me, and I formed this slowly after seeing the many failures throughout the world of political structures when the citizens had weapons as an option available to them reduced, removed or restricted. Mexico allows a bit of ownership, but has restrictions that you would support and yet they're pretty screwed up anyway as you point out.

 

Love

 

Bill

[ivan]

i forget bill, but remind me - are you fine w/ any and all forms of weapons being sold in the usa, from a black-powder musket to a m1 abrahams tank?

[billcoe]

yes

 

and the meth is fine by me as well.

[ivan]

yes

 

and the meth is fine by me as well.

even though 1 bad apple w/ a tank could kill hundreds, if not thousands, but 1 dumb junkie can't do more than ruin his family and mug a couple folks?

 

to my mind, both freedoms need some slight restrictions:

- weapons for hunting/defending yourself but that don't let you take out an entire school full of kids in 5.7 seconds

- all drugs for all adults, sold w/o advertising in state licensed locations, w/ taxes to pay for health-care, anti-use adverstising, and restrictions on their use when flying, driving, etc.

 

an update - friday's are current event quiz/discussion days in my classes - since this was a big one for the week, i did an informal survey after we'd chatted for awhile - the results - about 75% kids said it was easier to get a joint than a bottle of whiskey!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

For example, most people arent' aware that 80,000 people are in prison right now for minor pot offenses, and that 800,000 people were arrested last year for the same.

 

I guess they haven't watched a single episode of "Cops"

 

Nor have I.

 

Here's synopsis:

 

cop "Hello, do you know why I pulled you over?"

suspect "uhhh"

cop "Can I take a look in your car?"

suspect "uhh, ok"

cop "lookee what I found... you are under arrest"

 

 

Sounds riveting.

 

it just underscores what a fundamental waste of fucking time and money it is for our boys in black. such egregious criminal behavior they are nipping in the bud (pun intended) - a bowl with residue, and a baggie with a few grams of weed!

[billcoe]

to my mind, both freedoms need some slight restrictions:

- weapons for hunting/defending yourself but that don't let you take out an entire school full of kids in 5.7 seconds

 

Yet everything that Tim McVeigh was able to scrounge up is apparently still freely available for now and no one is blowing up any building or killing kids right now. Furthermore, no one is taking a full 5 gallon gas can and pouring it in and around the exits at crowded theaters and torching it for fun....

 

Do you not find all of this curious?

[tvashtarkatena]

yes

 

and the meth is fine by me as well.

even though 1 bad apple w/ a tank could kill hundreds, if not thousands, but 1 dumb junkie can't do more than ruin his family and mug a couple folks?

 

to my mind, both freedoms need some slight restrictions:

- weapons for hunting/defending yourself but that don't let you take out an entire school full of kids in 5.7 seconds

- all drugs for all adults, sold w/o advertising in state licensed locations, w/ taxes to pay for health-care, anti-use adverstising, and restrictions on their use when flying, driving, etc.

 

an update - friday's are current event quiz/discussion days in my classes - since this was a big one for the week, i did an informal survey after we'd chatted for awhile - the results - about 75% kids said it was easier to get a joint than a bottle of whiskey!

 

The vast majority of drug related crimes are commited by drunks, not illegal drug users.

[mattp]

Judge Alex Kozinski, a Jewish refugee from Eastern Europe in his argument of dissent in Silveira v. Lockyer:

 

"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

 

Bill:

I love you but you post some wacky stuff. Do you really think that your cache of weapons is protecting freedom from government abuse? Even if you are like some of my friends who own a Bushmaster or two, and even if you formed a unified and coordinated group with all like-minded American patriots who would be willing to wage an organized rebellion, do you think you could take "the man" down?

 

Back to Mexico, I don't for a minute doubt that the availability of guns north of the border exacerbates or contributes to the availability of guns south of the border just as drugs seem to flow in the opposite direction. I'm not sure how or whether this should affect our internal politics regarding gun regulation or drugs, though. On both topics, I'd favor pragmatism over idealism. Despite your NRA sponsored statistical charades,I think it is pretty clear that our maintaining no control over weapons contributes to a high level of violence. At the same time, I think it is equally clear that drug prohibition contributes to crime. On both fronts, what would clearly be good for us would probably also benefit Mexico.

[ivan]

Yet everything that Tim McVeigh was able to scrounge up is apparently still freely available for now and no one is blowing up any building or killing kids right now. Furthermore, no one is taking a full 5 gallon gas can and pouring it in and around the exits at crowded theaters and torching it for fun....

 

Do you not find all of this curious?

i could not readily make myself a home-made bomb of ok city fame - the inconvenience is itself a deterrence - if you could buy 500 lb fragmentation bombs at walmart, per your view, i would imagine we'd see them getting used...

[Frikadeller]

Yet everything that Tim McVeigh was able to scrounge up is apparently still freely available for now and no one is blowing up any building or killing kids right now. Furthermore, no one is taking a full 5 gallon gas can and pouring it in and around the exits at crowded theaters and torching it for fun....

 

Do you not find all of this curious?

i could not readily make myself a home-made bomb of ok city fame - the inconvenience is itself a deterrence - if you could buy 500 lb fragmentation bombs at walmart, per your view, i would imagine we'd see them getting used...

 

 

Oh but you can, you just don't have the knowledge on how to combine the Diesel and the Fertilizer properly.

 

But once someone has that, kaboom.

[j_b]

For more than twenty years, those of us who live on the border have witnessed the increasing militarization of the border. The border wall is a daily reminder of this, as are the helicopters that fly over our neighborhoods, the checkpoints manned by the Border Patrol and local law enforcement, as well as the daily harassment of citizens who happen to have darker skin. We are frequently the target of various "wars" -against undocumented migration, against terrorism and now against drugs. I am tired of living in a war zone.

 

The model of "war" has not worked, and it will not work.

 

Too often the war against drugs or terrorism or undocumented immigration turns into violence against innocent civilians.

 

Too often it turns into human rights abuse.

 

Too often it becomes a justification for even more violence.

 

What is the price that those of us living on the U.S. side will be asked to pay because of the possibility that the violence will "spill over" the border?

 

For a change, look at what is spilling over from the United States into Mexico - illegal arms and ammunition from U.S. dealers, laundered drug money and an increasing demand for drugs.

 

Instead of further funding a military solution that will not work, let's fund more drug rehabilitation, enforce existing gun laws, and take responsibility for our part in creating the violence.

 

I look forward to crossing over the border once again in safety.

 

But that won't be possible until we stop militarizing this problem and start addressing it at its roots.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/27-14

[billcoe]

Do you not find all of this curious?

i could not readily make myself a home-made bomb of ok city fame - the inconvenience is itself a deterrence - if you could buy 500 lb fragmentation bombs at walmart, per your view, i would imagine we'd see them getting used...

 

WFT hey? That's crazy talk. Your earlier supposition on the M1 Abrams tank. They cost an estimated US$4.35 million. Each. To produce, not including development costs and maintenance. What sized garage do you have anyway that you can make this happen? Who's going to go buy one of those when if they are really F*ed up and serious, they can go to the feed store and literally buy shit in bulk? For many many years, machine guns and dynamite was not regulated AT ALL. How many schools were ever blown up? Shit, we use to find dynamite when I was a kid just laying around. Never figured out how to blow it, I had to wait for the military to show me that. (I was in charge of EOD, Emergency Ordinance Destruct, for my company and as training got to blow up all kinds of stuff on a real regular basis)

 

A 500 lb JDAM costs the US over $20,000 NOT including development costs and they buy in huge big time bulk. You think any private company can compete at all in that ball park. Nope. You can't even go buy a little machine gun cheaply today -have you priced any of this out? Ain't gonna be happening because the folks with those kind of resources GENERALLY don't do shit like that. (OK, there was millionaire Nazi recently caught assembling a dirty bomb).

 

Nah, it's about political freedom. Did you mull this over?

 

The question that remains Ivan, is why they (Mexico and not us) are so fucked up when guns are readily available here, and they have had tight gun restrictions since 1968? Answer that in your own mind to your own satisfaction before you read on please.

 

Hmmmm?

[ivan]

The question that remains Ivan, is why they (Mexico and not us) are so fucked up when guns are readily available here, and they have had tight gun restrictions since 1968? Answer that in your own mind to your own satisfaction before you read on please.

 

Hmmmm?

that's actually easy -you can have all the tight guns laws you want, but if your large industrial neighbors don't, and you have shitty border control and a law enforcement culture that's entreprenurial in nature, and a giant commercial opportunity that can be only realized w/ planes, helicopters, ww2-era diesel submarines, and machine guns, then the weapons will be present no matter what

 

they're also more fucked up b/c it's hotter than here - seriously - what nation near the tropics isn't fucked crazy 10 ways to sunday? the swedes n' icelanders are perfect 'cuz they have to spend 10 months indoors eating lute-fisk just to MAINTAIN man! which are our craziest, nuttiest, most annoying fucking states, eh? texas, california, the whole south-east? b/c its 100 billion degrees out all the time and baby's-mama didn't pay the goddamn powerbill and so we gotta chill on the porch - shit, there the incentive to create weapons of pain is ever-present - they make machetes WORK, 'know what i'm saying?

 

so yeah, at any rate, i'll trade you, eh? you can buy bazookas and i can buy my marlboro-blues

[JosephH]

The question is simple and has direct parallels to the Wall Street collapse and many other aspects of our society. Central and South American drug cartels are simply exercising their perogatives in a competitive free market setting devoid of government regulation and oversight and also arming themselves under a self-declared second ammendment.

 

It's basic Adam Smith stuff - they sell us drugs, we sell them guns. And don't be confused, weapons use in Mexico is almost entirely a militia activity, it is not about unrestrained, random, or unassociated crime by individuals in possession of a weapon. These are militias, paramilitaries, and shadow enforcement organizations - it's all sanctioned and 'organized' as a basic and opertaive component of their economy at this point. It's probably duking it out with tourism to be the #2 economic driver behind oil.

 

And who can blame them? The have a long pipeline to secure, distribution networks to defend, and they have to oversee the gangs they employ to manage the business on the ground - all expensive stuff and they don't waste a lot of change on management classes - they rule through fear and intimdation.

 

I mean, isn't it obvious why weapons in a poor, largely uneducated society that sits astride one of the worlds busiest drug pipelines exhibits inordinate instability? Consider it the difference between the showroom (us) and the factory floor (them) - things are always more chaotic and messy, especially when you mix in mass quantities of our weapons. Also, if the notion is that we can broadly interpret the second amendment to mean essentially unrestrained access to weapons without some serious negative consequences and blowback in the bargain then I'd say you're either in denial, dreaming, or hallucenating.

[Fairweather]

nice to see us accepting the responsibility, now why don't we do something about it?

 

the last thing giant criminal drug-cartels want is the for their lucrative trade-item to be legalized - if we really want to destroy them and end the murder of cops and civilian bystanders and the corruption of local, state and national governments in damn near every country in the western hemisphere, why on earth would we NOT want to do just that?

 

legalizing all drugs certainly won't suddenly make the world a perfect place, it won't be a hippy-paradise, and surely there will be problems w/ addiction and under-age use, but how could they be worse than now? and certainly the other problems mentioned above will be improved, not to mention an increase in tax reciepts on the sale and the elimination of a very costly enforcement/incarceration system?

 

if this idea can't gain traction in these economic conditions, when could it?

 

"The one thing we could do for a country like Mexico, for example, is to stop every illegal immigrant at the border, give him a good rifle and a case of ammunition, and send him home. Let the Mexicans solve their customary problems in their customary manner."

 

--Ed Abbey

 

[akhalteke]

The question is simple and has direct parallels to the Wall Street collapse and many other aspects of our society. Central and South American drug cartels are simply exercising their perogatives in a competitive free market setting devoid of government regulation and oversight and also arming themselves under a self-declared second ammendment.

 

It's basic Adam Smith stuff - they sell us drugs, we sell them guns. And don't be confused, weapons use in Mexico is almost entirely a militia activity, it is not about unrestrained, random, or unassociated crime by individuals in possession of a weapon. These are militias, paramilitaries, and shadow enforcement organizations - it's all sanctioned and 'organized' as a basic and opertaive component of their economy at this point. It's probably duking it out with tourism to be the #2 economic driver behind oil.

 

And who can blame them? The have a long pipeline to secure, distribution networks to defend, and they have to oversee the gangs they employ to manage the business on the ground - all expensive stuff and they don't waste a lot of change on management classes - they rule through fear and intimdation.

 

I mean, isn't it obvious why weapons in a poor, largely uneducated society that sits astride one of the worlds busiest drug pipelines exhibits inordinate instability? Consider it the difference between the showroom (us) and the factory floor (them) - things are always more chaotic and messy, especially when you mix in mass quantities of our weapons. Also, if the notion is that we can broadly interpret the second amendment to mean essentially unrestrained access to weapons without some serious negative consequences and blowback in the bargain then I'd say you're either in denial, dreaming, or hallucenating.

 

Wow. That's a stretch. Too bad only the criminals have guns in Mexico ace. Same thing your buddies propose we do here.

[ivan]

nice to see us accepting the responsibility, now why don't we do something about it?

 

the last thing giant criminal drug-cartels want is the for their lucrative trade-item to be legalized - if we really want to destroy them and end the murder of cops and civilian bystanders and the corruption of local, state and national governments in damn near every country in the western hemisphere, why on earth would we NOT want to do just that?

 

legalizing all drugs certainly won't suddenly make the world a perfect place, it won't be a hippy-paradise, and surely there will be problems w/ addiction and under-age use, but how could they be worse than now? and certainly the other problems mentioned above will be improved, not to mention an increase in tax reciepts on the sale and the elimination of a very costly enforcement/incarceration system?

 

if this idea can't gain traction in these economic conditions, when could it?

 

"The one thing we could do for a country like Mexico, for example, is to stop every illegal immigrant at the border, give him a good rifle and a case of ammunition, and send him home. Let the Mexicans solve their customary problems in their customary manner."

 

--Ed Abbey

i somehow doubt the drug trade or the extreme drug-cartel related violence in mexico would do anything but increase were we to hand out m16s at the border on the other hand, legalizing currently illegal drugs would cut the cartels legs out from under them - what would a giant criminal organization have left to do and thus quarrel and fight w/ other gangs over? human smuggling would still exist, theft and prostitution of course, but what else that could rival the money to be made (and thus fought over) in drugs?

[billcoe]

The question that remains Ivan, is why they (Mexico and not us) are so fucked up when guns are readily available here, and they have had tight gun restrictions since 1968? Answer that in your own mind to your own satisfaction before you read on please.

 

Hmmmm?

that's actually easy -you can have all the tight guns laws you want, but if your large industrial neighbors don't, and you have shitty border control and a law enforcement culture that's entreprenurial in nature, and a giant commercial opportunity that can be only realized w/ planes, helicopters, ww2-era diesel submarines, and machine guns, then the weapons will be present no matter what

 

Since Scott did the thread revival I'll bring it again. Your answer imply s that this open border only exists with the US, and that if our government could somehow strip away our ability to own firearms all would be well with the Mexicans?

 

I'm calling bullshit if that's your supposition. Currently, 90 percent of the illegal grenades in Mexico are smuggled in from Guatemala. You don't figure that the Mexicans can just turn around and get their guns form there or Pakistan?

 

BTW, as long as we're on this rant. There are 2 kidnappings a DAY in Mexico. Every day. Couple of months ago, an estimated 150,000-200,000 Mexican citizens rallied in Mexico City in outrage and anger to protest what they believe to be police involvement and collusion in these daily kidnappings. LINK to August 2008 story Of course, the police have weapons and can and regularly do victimize the population, they are fortunate to have the very gun laws which you want here. Somehow, by magic perhaps, not allowing US citizens weapons will be able to stop the traffic of drugs coming in and money going out? Getting guns out of honest Americans hands will also be able to cease the money and drugs across the border that is the root issue?

 

..and cutting off US guns will do what to that dynamic again?

 

It's a power play and a lie. You're buying into their bullshit. Don't believe a word of it Ivan turn off the news they're feeding you and use your own thinking.