This city, an hour’s drive north of the Mexican border, is coping with a wave of drug crime the police suspect is tied to the bloody battles between Mexico’s drug cartels and the efforts to stamp them out.
Tucson is hardly alone in feeling the impact of Mexico’s drug cartels and their trade. In the past few years, the cartels and other drug trafficking organizations have extended their reach across the United States and into Canada. Law enforcement authorities say they believe traffickers distributing the cartels’ marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and other drugs are responsible for a rash of shootings in Vancouver, British Columbia, kidnappings in Phoenix, brutal assaults in Birmingham, Ala., and much more.
This may very well be further evidence that the so-called "war on drugs" is failing. What do you think? It makes sense doesn't it that if the United States is the biggest consumer of these illegal drugs, the drug gangs would either be in the business of distributing in the U.S. or would have close ties with the gangsters who do? Either way, the violence and death in the Mexican drug wars is not limited to Mexico.
Of great interest to me was the following paragraph in the NY Times article:
Law enforcement officials on both sides of the border agree that the United States is the source for most of the guns used in the violent drug cartel war in Mexico.
“The key thing is to keep improving on our interdiction of the weapons before they even get in there,” said Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security and the former governor of Arizona, who will be testifying before Congress on Wednesday.
Do you think the New York Times newspaper has a vested interest in convincing people that the guns come from the U.S.? I don't. So, I'll ask again, why do gun owners find this suggestion so difficult to accept? How does it harm them? When we discussed this before, it seemed like many pro-gun people take this personally. Why would that be? Why would law-abiding gun owners be interested in protecting law breakers by denying that they even exist?
Please leave a comment.
Do you think the New York Times newspaper has a vested interest in convincing people that the guns come from the U.S.?
ReplyDeleteyes, up to a point, they do.
they have consistently beaten the gun-banning drum for a very long time; part of their credibility is tied up in that by now, as they would lose corporate face if they tried to reverse themselves on it. and the "U.S. guns going south to wreak havoc in Mexico" canard --- false as it is --- has recently become a most sacred cow of the gun-banning movement, being repeated even by some prominent congresscritters in that camp. the NYT could not now easily discredit that meme without looking like it was reversing its anti-gun position, which would by implication bring its credibility in general into question.
they might be able to reverse themselves on this one point eventually, if they took it carefully and weasel-worded themselves through it so as to seem respectful enough to the rest of the anti-gun camp. but it wouldn't be easy, and as you noted in this article, they seem to choose instead to dig that hole ever deeper.
Given the recent senate testimony of the ATF on the guns / mexico issue I'd say yes, the NYT is parroting a bunch of crap.
ReplyDeleteMikeB,
ReplyDeleteHow can you post this type of information:
Law enforcement authorities say they believe traffickers distributing the cartels’ marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and other drugs are responsible for a rash of shootings in Vancouver, British Columbia, kidnappings in Phoenix, brutal assaults in Birmingham, Ala., and much more.
And then continue to call for greater restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms?
Crime is spreading but we should disarm instead of fighting? Impose greater restrictions that doesn't stop criminals, just the law abiding?
That doesn't make any sense at all.
Where is your vaunted commonsense?
Law enforcement officials on both sides of the border agree that the United States is the source for most of the guns used in the violent drug cartel war in Mexico
Sorry but you are simply frakkin lying again.
It isn't true, you admitted it a while back and now you are back.
Lying again.
From Fox News
ReplyDeleteSCHENECTADY, N.Y. -- Schenectady Police Chief Mark Chaires said, "This is unprecedented - all these officers getting in trouble at the same time for all these different reasons.
Five Schenectady police officers recently accused of everything from driving drunk to beating up a man are leading city officials to look at taking drastic action to fix a department tainted by the few who may have acted illegally, like Darren Lawrence and Michael Brown who are accused of driving while intoxicated.
And who should we trust to protect us by turning in our firearms...so we can reduce the flow, eh MikeB?
But it's not just the threat of termination. Mayor Stratton told us he's looking at all options, including disbanding the police department - basically starting over.
"It's something we're certainly looking into. I think the public has had it up to here," said the mayor.
Currently, officials are reviewing the legal options and planning to present a full report in early April - options like a consolidated county-wide police force or bringing in the State Police.
The mayor said there is another option - and that would be declaring martial law. The governor would have to declare it and then the National Guard would come in. The mayor said it's more for a transition to a new police force if that were to happen.
An organization so corrupt, many people would rather just start over with new people?
And in the mean time...how do we trust the people knocking on the doors are cops? Or cops with a legitimate reason to be there?
Maybe that no knock warrant thing needs to be revisisted.
MikeB, want you to pay very close attention to what the city attorney says next.
Schenectady's Corporation Counsel John Van Norden said, "If you abolish the police department you still have a need - not an obligation - but a need to police the community. You would need something in transition. Declaring martial law would be one way to bridge the gap."
Note that carefully, the city attorney doesn't see it as an obligation to provide police protection to his city.
but we are to rely on the police, aren't we? The 2nd amendment is out dated, the national guard and the police are all we need today....and yet a city is considering removing police protection.
Of course, given the corruption, that isn't a bad thing.
Do you think that the Criminals are going to stop their actions while people buy firearms to protect themselves?
Or should ordinary citizens be allowed to keep firearms in their homes for cases like this? Even knowing a few of the firearms may be stolen one day?
I know which I lean...it's toward freedom...not restriction of rights.
Howabout this example. The Chicago Tribune has openly called for the repeal of the Second Amendment.
ReplyDeleteWhat vested interest do they have in doing so?
The Times can find some law enforcement officials to agree that US guns are the cause of trouble in Mexico--they don't say a majority make that claim, just that some do. That is if they bother to be even that honest. I don't trust reporters--Without fail, every time I've talked to someone who knows the details of a media story, they say the media got it substantially wrong.
ReplyDeleteAny idea how many of the AK's and Uzi's used in Mexico are full auto and how many are semi? That would tell a lot about where they come from--it is my understanding that in Mexico, the full auto versions are more common than the neutered semiauto ones sold in the US. There is also a record of every serial number of every gun newly sold in or imported to the US legally since 1968 or so--it would be easy for the Mexican government to give us a list of serial numbers to see how many came from here.
I'm sure there are a few guns in Mexico that came from the US. I'm also sure that if most of them were from the US, we would see a ton of evidence, and not a table full of Warsaw pact oil bottles and smoke grenades.
It may be that the only time I hear of them is when gun bloggers are angry with them, but the impression that I get is that most big city newspapers are anti-gun. I would expect the NY times to be even more so.
Bob said, "Sorry but you are simply frakkin lying again.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't true, you admitted it a while back and now you are back.
Lying again."
What is it with your obsession with "lying?" I was quoting the New York Times, so if anyone was lying, they were, and I seriously doubt that's the case.
Things are not as simple as true or false. I admitted the other day that it makes sense to me that there are too many guns required by the Mexican drug war to be furnished by American FFL dealers. After that admission I read the Diaz statement to the House of Representatives and read this story in the NYT, and find myself once again questioning it. No one's lying, Bob. This is called debating, arguing disagreeing or any number of things you like. Get off the lying kick will ya? Sevesteen, who is on your side of the gun debate said it's "counterproductive."
Start telling the truth, and we just might.
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteWhy shouldn't I call you on the carpet for your flip flop on the issue of where the guns are coming from?
You aren't my only target here, I'm writing and showing anyone else that gun control people like you are often incapable of telling the truth on basic issues.
That is the obsession with 'lying'.
You call our statistics biased, but offer no evidence, no refutation of them.....is that telling the truth if you can't back up your words or is it lying?
You call our anecdotes, our stories aberrations, but offer your own anecdotes as evidence of a trend....isn' that a form of lying?
You accept without question the statements, the beliefs of gun control groups; even after we've pointed out the ways those statements are wrong...isn't that a form of lying?
I'll leave you with some words of wisdom:
“You never find yourself until you face the truth” - Pearl Bailey
<“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” - Albert Einstein.
Here's MSNBC on 'gun control':
ReplyDelete“Seven year old Teresa has an AR-15: an air-cooled, semi-automatic, shoulder-mounted rifle that is currently used by the U.S. special forces in Iraq.”
What the f@ck is a 'shoulder-mounted rifle'?
Used by "US special forces"? Um No.
So is this ignorance, bias, or lying?
Did these reporters just have no clue what they're talking about or did they intentionally distort the story to push an agenda?
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/03/23/msnbc-hit-piece-on-guns/
From the NYTimes:
ReplyDelete"The agency said Mr. Iknadosian also sold several guns to undercover agents who had explicitly informed him that they intended to resell them in Mexico."
If that were true, why weren't these 'undercover agents' presented at his trial? That affidavit alone would have provided intent for a 'straw purchase'?
Then there's this:
"In one transaction, Mr. Iknadosian gave advice about how to buy weapons and smuggle them to a person who turned out to be an informant who was recording him, according to a transcript. He told the informant to break the sales up into batches and never to carry more than two weapons in a car."
Seems the judge didn't hear that either since that is also a clear intent.
"“We had a direct pipeline from Iknadosian to the Sinaloa cartel,” said Thomas G. Mangan, a spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in Phoenix."
Apparently they didn't.
Yup - to go along with Third's comment. Given that the judge threw out the case against iknadosian due to lack of evidence it's pretty clear that the NYT's is full of shit (I.E. lying)
ReplyDeleteI have suggested that your statistics are biased, but offer no proof of that. That's not lying.
ReplyDeleteI never called your anecdotes aberrations, and I don't offer mine as evidence of a trend. I usually say the story illustrates a certain point. That's not lying.
I do not accept without question the statements, the beliefs of gun control groups; even after you've pointed out the ways those statements are wrong. So that's not lying either.
Bob, you seem to be obsessed with one word here. And usually it doesn't even apply. Usually, what you mean is "wrong," or "mistaken," or even "stubborn," but lying does not even apply to many of these situations.