""90% of the guns in Mexico come from the U.S."

[Hot Mega]

That's why ANY laws, or modifications to the 2nd Amendment, clearly usurp it. Including, and specifically the Federal Firearms Act of 1934. Most people just don't seem to get it, but whenever the Government, no matter what level, but mostly Federal, try to pass a gun law, it's not to "help make the playgrounds safer". It's not to make "the world a less dangerous place". It's only purpose, plain and simple, is to disarm a lawful society, because lets face facts, the only person a law effects, is the law abiding...and criminals by nature, do not subscribe to the laws set forth. Another thing people fail to realize is, the 2nd Amendment is there so the Government KNOWS we have the rights, and means to keep things checked and balanced...not necessarily so we can over throw them, or start a civil war. If they know we're ready, and willing, they would tread carefully, and be more respectful of the tax payers that employ them.

A couple of philisophical questions;

If a private citizen wanted to spend $80 million for a Peacekeeper missile system should the government allow it under the 2nd amendment?

Also is it unconstitutional to ban the yelling of "fire" in a crowded theater or "bomb" on an airplane as a violation of the 1st amendment?

 

[Red Spyder]

I know that there are weapons that go from the U.S. to Mexico, some people over here are making, almost literally, a killing by selling guns to the cartels. Personally, that's no reason to ban guns in America, but gun laws should be enforced, and I hear there's going to be more ATF agents down here in South Texas plus they're going to do random inspections on cars that go into Mexico to make sure the're not taking weapons.

Now, next time you smoke that joint or snort that line or inject that H think about what the cartels are buying with your money.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

A couple of philisophical questions;

If a private citizen wanted to spend $80 million for a Peacekeeper missile system should the government allow it under the 2nd amendment?

Also is it unconstitutional to ban the yelling of "fire" in a crowded theater or "bomb" on an airplane as a violation of the 1st amendment?

I would bet that most private citizens can't afford 80 million dollars, and I would also bet the ones that do, have a politician or 2 in their pocket, and don't need the peacekeeper missile system. I also don't really see why a person would need one, if the Government they employ did their job, and cared about their rights.

Of course it's a violation of the First Amendment, or should be...but if you yell it, you should be prosecuted for something, all yelling those things do, is insight panic and disorder, and that's what you should stand trial for. How is causing havoc to the public in any way comparable to a LAW ABIDING citizen owning his gun of choice? If I own some exotic fully, or semi automatic weapon, I am not creating a disturbance to the safety of others, or causing public unrest. If that firearm is stolen, by A CRIMINAL, I should not have to suffer any loss of freedoms, or rights, he should be severely punished, not me...nor should anyone that follows the law, and obeys it.

 

[marquis2]

That's why ANY laws, or modifications to the 2nd Amendment, clearly usurp it. Including, and specifically the Federal Firearms Act of 1934. Most people just don't seem to get it, but whenever the Government, no matter what level, but mostly Federal, try to pass a gun law, it's not to "help make the playgrounds safer". It's not to make "the world a less dangerous place". It's only purpose, plain and simple, is to disarm a lawful society, because lets face facts, the only person a law effects, is the law abiding...and criminals by nature, do not subscribe to the laws set forth. Another thing people fail to realize is, the 2nd Amendment is there so the Government KNOWS we have the rights, and means to keep things checked and balanced...not necessarily so we can over throw them, or start a civil war. If they know we're ready, and willing, they would tread carefully, and be more respectful of the tax payers that employ them.

We.ve been over this before, but the 2nd Amendment was augmented by the Militia Act which made it quite clear that the purpose of possessing arms was to support the President specifically in the event of an invasion.
What amazes me though is the delusion that having weapons at home somehow affects the actions of a government.As if they would be frightened into certain courses of action.You've only got to look in this forum to see that some people support particular government actions whereas other posters are vehemently opposed.Whatever a government does will be supported by a section of the population and this section would see any use of arms to act against the authorities as treason.You would be as likely to be stopped by a neighbour as by government forces.

 

[Hot Mega]

That's why ANY laws, or modifications to the 2nd Amendment, clearly usurp it. If they know we're ready, and willing, they would tread carefully, and be more respectful of the tax payers that employ them.

You didn't answer the question. But based on you assertions above, the government really has no business stopping a private citizen, with the money from buying an ICBM. It is considered "arms" and according to your supposition, the government has no right to infringe on your right to possess it whether you can afford it, need it or not. Further, you suggest we need to be (as private citizens) "ready and willing" to act against the government should they not "tread carefully". What better deterrent against their encroachment than a modifiable ICBM??? I'm obviously using this extreme (but not impossible) example to illustrate my point which is all of our rights are subject to common sense limitations.

Of course it's a violation of the First Amendment, or should be...but if you yell it, you should be prosecuted for something, all yelling those things do, is insight panic and disorder, and that's what you should stand trial for. How is causing havoc to the public in any way comparable to a LAW ABIDING citizen owning his gun of choice? If I own some exotic fully, or semi automatic weapon, I am not creating a disturbance to the safety of others, or causing public unrest. If that firearm is stolen, by A CRIMINAL, I should not have to suffer any loss of freedoms, or rights, he should be severely punished, not me...nor should anyone that follows the law, and obeys it.

First, you've missed the point of the question. That's why I prefaced the questions with the term "philosophical". The question wasn't an effort to compare buying a firearm to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. The question was to identify an example of a right we enjoy that is subject to reasonable, common sense limitations.

But even your response is tortured logic IMO. How can you assert on the one hand that it's a violation of the first amendment then go on to say a person should be prosecuted for it. Those two positions are contradictory.

At some point we recognized that in spite of our right to free speech, there are some common sense limitations that must be attached to that right. Consistently so, the right to keep and bear arms isn't open ended and doesn't apply to every case of armament.

 

[USNinc]

"90% of the guns in Mexico come from the U.S."

You're welcome?

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Maybe those third-world savages will wipe themselves out down there. 3,000 murders last year alone? Nice....lol :rofl:

 

[Mr. Daystar]

You didn't answer the question. But based on you assertions above, the government really has no business stopping a private citizen, with the money from buying an ICBM. It is considered "arms" and according to your supposition, the government has no right to infringe on your right to possess it whether you can afford it, need it or not. Further, you suggest we need to be (as private citizens) "ready and willing" to act against the government should they not "tread carefully". What better deterrent against their encroachment than a modifiable ICBM??? I'm obviously using this extreme (but not impossible) example to illustrate my point which is all of our rights are subject to common sense limitations.



First, you've missed the point of the question. That's why I prefaced the questions with the term "philosophical". The question wasn't an effort to compare buying a firearm to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. The question was to identify an example of a right we enjoy that is subject to reasonable, common sense limitations.

But even your response is tortured logic IMO. How can you assert on the one hand that it's a violation of the first amendment then go on to say a person should be prosecuted for it. Those two positions are contradictory.

At some point we recognized that in spite of our right to free speech, there are some common sense limitations that must be attached to that right. Consistently so, the right to keep and bear arms isn't open ended and doesn't apply to every case of armament.

Okay. So then lets say it like this, no, you should not be restricted on your purchase. But who can afford one? I see what you are saying, but seriously, the only reason to own a nuke, or missile system it for war, and what I mean is, why would you need one unless you had to go up against an equal power, and if your rights weren't getting shat upon, you wouldn't be all bent out of shape about it...but it is an extreme case, so lets put it in more realistic terms, common sense dictates I will NEVER need a nuke, nor would I want the responsibility of ownership, but I would love to own a "Tommygun", unfortunately, because of laws passed, and availability, that's about $25K I don't have. Now, it can be argued that, that is in fact something I can own legally, however, it is subject to VERY strict Government scrutiny, which puts me in an unfair situation, should they decide to confiscate weapons...seeing as I would be in a database. I contend that, had the FFA of 1934 never been passed, along with some other laws during the Clinton admin, that gun would be far cheaper to buy, affording me the fun and amusement of shooting up an old refrigerator...clearly a harmless act. But more importantly, when people seek to outlaw, or restrict, the last thing they use is common sense, where as most gun owners do us common sense...case in point, all I want, as a gun owner is MY RIGHT to own a gun, and enjoy the sport of shooting. I don't care if you don't want one, that's your business...and it's a reasonable point. However, anti gun people don't care about what I want, all they want, is what they want, and don't want ANYONE to own a gun, usually failing to use common sense when they can never see that a criminal doesn't care about the law, only himself. They never tend to realize that, crime rates don't go down when you pass legislation regarding firearms...then they blame something else, or deflect the issue by claiming more needs to be done, and the politicians don't care about the people, in an effort to bully them into doing what they want. But enough rambling...as far as the other thing goes, no, it's not tortured logic by my standards, heres why. You have the right to free speech, you should be allowed to say what you want, BUT...COMMON SENSE says don't do something stupid like yell bomb on an airplane, so, if you are that fucking stupid, then you should be punished, but not for violating the Constitution. Maybe for being a dumb fuck, or something. I guess I figured you would get what I was saying, which is, just because you can, doesn't mean you should, but you should be allowed, just use your brains, and don't punish me, because the asshat next to me, doesn't use common sense.

 

[Hot Mega]

Okay. So then lets say it like this, no, you should not be restricted on your purchase. But who can afford one? I see what you are saying, but seriously, the only reason to own a nuke, or missile system it for war, and what I mean is, why would you need one unless you had to go up against an equal power, and if your rights weren't getting shat upon, you wouldn't be all bent out of shape about it...but it is an extreme case, so lets put it in more realistic terms, common sense dictates I will NEVER need a nuke, nor would I want the responsibility of ownership, but I would love to own a "Tommygun", unfortunately, because of laws passed, and availability, that's about $25K I don't have. Now, it can be argued that, that is in fact something I can own legally, however, it is subject to VERY strict Government scrutiny, which puts me in an unfair situation, should they decide to confiscate weapons...seeing as I would be in a database. I contend that, had the FFA of 1934 never been passed, along with some other laws during the Clinton admin, that gun would be far cheaper to buy, affording me the fun and amusement of shooting up an old refrigerator...clearly a harmless act. But more importantly, when people seek to outlaw, or restrict, the last thing they use is common sense, where as most gun owners do us common sense...case in point, all I want, as a gun owner is MY RIGHT to own a gun, and enjoy the sport of shooting. I don't care if you don't want one, that's your business...and it's a reasonable point. However, anti gun people don't care about what I want, all they want, is what they want, and don't want ANYONE to own a gun, usually failing to use common sense when they can never see that a criminal doesn't care about the law, only himself. They never tend to realize that, crime rates don't go down when you pass legislation regarding firearms...then they blame something else, or deflect the issue by claiming more needs to be done, and the politicians don't care about the people, in an effort to bully them into doing what they want. But enough rambling...as far as the other thing goes, no, it's not tortured logic by my standards, heres why. You have the right to free speech, you should be allowed to say what you want, BUT...COMMON SENSE says don't do something stupid like yell bomb on an airplane, so, if you are that fucking stupid, then you should be punished, but not for violating the Constitution. Maybe for being a dumb fuck, or something. I guess I figured you would get what I was saying, which is, just because you can, doesn't mean you should, but you should be allowed, just use your brains, and don't punish me, because the asshat next to me, doesn't use common sense.

Donald Trump just sold a home in Florida for $100 million dollars. Not only are there people who could afford a $80 million dollar missile, what's to stop a group purchase under you belief? Nowwwww here's the rub, you said, "but seriously, the only reason to own a nuke, or missile system it for war, and what I mean is, why would you need one unless you had to go up against an equal power,". But under your theory of having the absolute right to it, who cares why you think a person wants one if it's their right to own it?? How is that different from some questioning why an average person needs an armory or some type of assault weapon? Now before I continue, I'm going to say that you and I aren't as far apart on this issue as you may assume. I'm a staunch advocate of the right to keep and bear arms (firearms) not because I believe the right to keep arms is essential but because I believe the right to reasonably protect oneself is.

I do believe the right to keep and bear arms is subject to reasonable, common sense limitations. I don't think certain criminals should enjoy the right. I don't think mentally ill people should enjoy the right. And I don't think private citizens ought to be able to run around freely buying RPGs, "Stingers", missile batteries OR ICBMs either. I think it's perfectly reasonable to track firearms and their sales....we track automobiles and their sales so it's perfectly reasonable that we should at least track the sales of weapons.

Lastly, people in the US have the right to be as stupid as they choose, until they violate the rights of others. The government has the right to make reasonable limitations on rights to protect the public from the direct or proximate actions of others. That's why they prosecute people for things like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. You do have the right to free speech but using that right to incite injurious panic, riots, threats, etc. is not protected...ergo, the right has limits.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Donald Trump just sold a home in Florida for $100 million dollars. Not only are there people who could afford a $80 million dollar missile, what's to stop a group purchase under you belief? Nowwwww here's the rub, you said, "but seriously, the only reason to own a nuke, or missile system it for war, and what I mean is, why would you need one unless you had to go up against an equal power,". But under your theory of having the absolute right to it, who cares why you think a person wants one if it's their right to own it?? How is that different from some questioning why an average person needs an armory or some type of assault weapon? Now before I continue, I'm going to say that you and I aren't as far apart on this issue as you may assume. I'm a staunch advocate of the right to keep and bear arms (firearms) not because I believe the right to keep arms is essential but because I believe the right to reasonably protect oneself is.

I do believe the right to keep and bear arms is subject to reasonable, common sense limitations. I don't think certain criminals should enjoy the right. I don't think mentally ill people should enjoy the right. And I don't think private citizens ought to be able to run around freely buying RPGs, "Stingers", missile batteries OR ICBMs either. I think it's perfectly reasonable to track firearms and their sales....we track automobiles and their sales so it's perfectly reasonable that we should at least track the sales of weapons.

Lastly, people in the US have the right to be as stupid as they choose, until they violate the rights of others. The government has the right to make reasonable limitations on rights to protect the public from the direct or proximate actions of others. That's why they prosecute people for things like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. You do have the right to free speech but using that right to incite injurious panic, riots, threats, etc. is not protected...ergo, the right has limits.

Okay, then I'll state it like this, we are already in a situation in this country, where you CANNOT own anything deemed a "dangerous device". In other words, even with permits and tax stamps ect., you are not allowed anything explosive, or that launches explosives, or grenades and so on. You can own a machine gun, under the regulations set forth by the FFA of 1934...if you can afford one. What we are talking about, isn't people getting off the wall weapons of some maniacal evil purpose. We are talking about taking away MORE, of whats already been taken, when it's been proven without a shadow of a doubt, that taking away more isn't going to work now, nor has it in the past, or will it ever. We're talking about punishing the law abiding, and not the law breakers, we're talking about a group of people (lawful citizens) having to sacrifice for the common good, but they aren't seeing any good, and nor will they. What they will see, is a constant steady erosion of their rights, while the law makers, and law breakers go on and on, unchecked, and unstopped, because the laws that are passed, won't work, and the laws that exist, aren't being enforced. If Mexico is so sure that the guns that kill on their streets come from America, then they should be doing more to keep their people out, not, "well, Mexico is having problems, so you lawful Americans can't have semi auto rifles anymore...they're using them to kill innocent people over their". WHAT IN THE FUCK IS THAT!?!?!?! I think you get my point, there are NO good reasons to restrict anymore of the firearms on the market, and available to law abiding citizens. There is a very good reason to start taking care of some of the filth that breaks the law. Maybe if the idiots in Washington would legalize drugs, and go all out to start thinning these filthy animals out...that means killing them, in case you were wondering what thinning means...we wouldn't need gun control, we wouldn't need to pass laws like assault weapon bans. The problem is, you can't outlaw guns, and not fix the crime problems, or the economy...you're probably smart enough to realize all of that, and I would like to see it...just not at the expense of my hobby, my rights, my joy...and I can tell you without thinking twice, I STILL get a tingle in my spine when I send the first round out of a new gun. I'm like a kid with a new toy...I deserve that joy, I work hard, and I pay taxes until my ass bleeds...I've fucking earned it. As far as tracking the sale of firearms, I'm against ANY type of registration...I don't trust the Government, because they haven't given me a reason to, and I certainly don't trust that their database won't get hacked, and again, I'm having to pay the price? There are so many guns out there, you will NEVER get all the numbers, and really, how many of those guns have come from Russia, the Middle East, ect.? So we pay the price, and nothing gets fixed, and we're still where we were. No, I can't see any need for ONE SINGLE additional gun law EVER. If they want to fix crime, start hurting these fuckers bad...cut 'em down, and forget about there rights...they lost there right, to have rights, when they acted like animals. I think I outlined it best in my previous post, with 4 simple solutions.

 

[Hot Mega]

Okay, then I'll state it like this, we are already in a situation in this country, where you CANNOT own anything deemed a "dangerous device". In other words, even with permits and tax stamps ect., you are not allowed anything explosive, or that launches explosives, or grenades and so on. You can own a machine gun, under the regulations set forth by the FFA of 1934...if you can afford one. What we are talking about, isn't people getting off the wall weapons of some maniacal evil purpose. We are talking about taking away MORE, of whats already been taken, when it's been proven without a shadow of a doubt, that taking away more isn't going to work now, nor has it in the past, or will it ever. We're talking about punishing the law abiding, and not the law breakers, we're talking about a group of people (lawful citizens) having to sacrifice for the common good, but they aren't seeing any good, and nor will they. What they will see, is a constant steady erosion of their rights, while the law makers, and law breakers go on and on, unchecked, and unstopped, because the laws that are passed, won't work, and the laws that exist, aren't being enforced. If Mexico is so sure that the guns that kill on their streets come from America, then they should be doing more to keep their people out, not, "well, Mexico is having problems, so you lawful Americans can't have semi auto rifles anymore...they're using them to kill innocent people over their". WHAT IN THE FUCK IS THAT!?!?!?! I think you get my point, there are NO good reasons to restrict anymore of the firearms on the market, and available to law abiding citizens. There is a very good reason to start taking care of some of the filth that breaks the law. Maybe if the idiots in Washington would legalize drugs, and go all out to start thinning these filthy animals out...that means killing them, in case you were wondering what thinning means...we wouldn't need gun control, we wouldn't need to pass laws like assault weapon bans. The problem is, you can't outlaw guns, and not fix the crime problems, or the economy...you're probably smart enough to realize all of that, and I would like to see it...just not at the expense of my hobby, my rights, my joy...and I can tell you without thinking twice, I STILL get a tingle in my spine when I send the first round out of a new gun. I'm like a kid with a new toy...I deserve that joy, I work hard, and I pay taxes until my ass bleeds...I've fucking earned it. As far as tracking the sale of firearms, I'm against ANY type of registration...I don't trust the Government, because they haven't given me a reason to, and I certainly don't trust that their database won't get hacked, and again, I'm having to pay the price? There are so many guns out there, you will NEVER get all the numbers, and really, how many of those guns have come from Russia, the Middle East, ect.? So we pay the price, and nothing gets fixed, and we're still where we were. No, I can't see any need for ONE SINGLE additional gun law EVER. If they want to fix crime, start hurting these fuckers bad...cut 'em down, and forget about there rights...they lost there right, to have rights, when they acted like animals. I think I outlined it best in my previous post, with 4 simple solutions.

The private citizen can purchase explosives. That's how they demolish buildings in many cases.....BUT aren't we getting ahead of ourselves????? Who has said anything about banning firearms beyond those who are trying to gin people into buying their firearms???

 

[Mr. Daystar]

The private citizen can purchase explosives. That's how they demolish buildings in many cases.....BUT aren't we getting ahead of ourselves????? Who has said anything about banning firearms beyond those who are trying to gin people into buying their firearms???

You ARE NOT going to walk into "Explosives are US", or place an order with "Acme" and get dynamite. That shit is uber regulated, and always will be. I'm talking about people like the Brady campaign. A vile group of outright liars, that wish to see every single person disarmed...and certain politicians. Don't forget, Biden is the architect of the first assault weapons ban, Hitlary wants it back, and has said as much...the worst of them is Eric Holder. This cluster fuck of a human being, has screwed the pooch on EVERYTHING he touches, and has no business holding the office he does. Those are a few that are talking about it. The ban they want to put into place is so restrictive, all but revolvers, and double barrel shotguns would be legal...and I'm sure they'll go for those next. It's a pathetic slap in the face to law abiding gun owners everywhere.

 

[Hot Mega]

You ARE NOT going to walk into "Explosives are US", or place an order with "Acme" and get dynamite. That shit is uber regulated, and always will be. I'm talking about people like the Brady campaign. A vile group of outright liars, that wish to see every single person disarmed...and certain politicians. Don't forget, Biden is the architect of the first assault weapons ban, Hitlary wants it back, and has said as much...the worst of them is Eric Holder. This cluster fuck of a human being, has screwed the pooch on EVERYTHING he touches, and has no business holding the office he does. Those are a few that are talking about it. The ban they want to put into place is so restrictive, all but revolvers, and double barrel shotguns would be legal...and I'm sure they'll go for those next. It's a pathetic slap in the face to law abiding gun owners everywhere.

I didn't say buying explosives wasn't regulated, I said private citizens do buy explosives as illustrated by the fact that those who use them for mining, expanding roadways through mountains, demolishing buildings, etc. are operated by private citizens and not the government.

Secondly, your points about Biden, Clinton and Holder are completely irrelevant because neither are in charge of making new law. Clinton in particular has nothing to do with domestic policy and Biden in the extreme cases casts the tie breaking vote on bills in the Senate as president of the Senate. When is the last time a VP had to cast the deciding vote on some piece of legislation???

It seems like you have yourself a solution in need of a problem.:dunno:

 

[bustybbwlover]

fairly powerful explosives are easy enough to make and detonate so that really is a non-issue. besides the cartels have military grade equipment. and as far as i've heard obama isn't advocating the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban but i've always wondered this: what exactly are people doing that they need demilitarized assault weapons? i've shot an AR 50 and i've shot a AK-47 (i know someone with a federal firearms license) and i really don't see what i'd need either of those for besides to kill someone...

 

[Hot Mega]

i really don't see what i'd need either of those for besides to kill someone...

You could be a collector or into sport shooting. Almost like asking, why someone would need a car that exceeds 180 mph if they didn't plan on violating speed laws and by extension, those cars should be banned. Because the only thing they're good for is breaking the law.

 

[Red Spyder]

I was watching "Clear and Present Danger", I think that's how Mexico should handle the cartels, just bomb the living shit out of them once and for all. The Mexican Air Force (not the gardner outside with the air blower) has some old F-5's that can carry the bombs they need. They know where they got their camps, they do have an intelligence service after all (that was a surprise for me to learn they did) and it's not hard to find those, a lot of people who live nearby know where to keep out of.

Problem is that Mexico's government is more afraid than a U.S. democrat to use the military for its intended purpose, to kill people and break things, mostly because of the outcry that would cause about human rights being abused and how the "victims" were summarily murdered, yadda yadda yadda.

It seems to me like they're fighting the drug problem as a law enforcement matter though now it's more like a military matter, especially given the power and money the cartels have that rivals that of the Mexican government itself. This seems to be like a conflict between the Mexican state versus a pseudo-state within.

 

[Hot Mega]

I was watching "Clear and Present Danger",

Problem is that Mexico's government is more afraid than a U.S. democrat to use the military for its intended purpose, to kill people and break things, mostly because of the outcry that would cause about human rights being abused and how the "victims" were summarily murdered, yadda yadda yadda.

"Clear and Present Danger" hmmm, wasn't that a movie?

I can tell you from real life, first hand experience that those governments are killing people and breaking things in the war against drugs.

No one has sympathy for drug cartels. The problem isn't their willingness to attack these people, it's the abstract corruption and the fact money is more powerful than bullets or bombs down there.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

I didn't say buying explosives wasn't regulated, I said private citizens do buy explosives as illustrated by the fact that those who use them for mining, expanding roadways through mountains, demolishing buildings, etc. are operated by private citizens and not the government.

Secondly, your points about Biden, Clinton and Holder are completely irrelevant because neither are in charge of making new law. Clinton in particular has nothing to do with domestic policy and Biden in the extreme cases casts the tie breaking vote on bills in the Senate as president of the Senate. When is the last time a VP had to cast the deciding vote on some piece of legislation???

It seems like you have yourself a solution in need of a problem.:dunno:

Private COMPANIES...that are scrutinized and regulated out the ass. I can't call a manufacturer up and say, I need to demolish a building, send me a crate of dynamite. I think you know what I was saying about that. As far as none of the people mentioned having the power to make law, that might be true as it stands, but if Obama ends up not being in charge, then in steps Biden, and all of the others have influence, and friends, and the means...and to honest, I don't like or trust any of the filthy self serving liars as far as I can throw them.

 

[Hot Mega]

Private COMPANIES...that are scrutinized and regulated out the ass. I can't call a manufacturer up and say, I need to demolish a building, send me a crate of dynamite.

but if Obama ends up not being in charge, then in steps Biden

They may well be "scrutinized and regulated out the ass"....is that supposed to mean private citizens cannot get them?? No. Provided you or I get the necessary credentials...we could get them too.

Re: Biden, Obama is the POTUS.

 

[Red Spyder]

"Clear and Present Danger" hmmm, wasn't that a movie?

I can tell you from real life, first hand experience that those governments are killing people and breaking things in the war against drugs.

No one has sympathy for drug cartels. The problem isn't their willingness to attack these people, it's the abstract corruption and the fact money is more powerful than bullets or bombs down there.

Yup, corruption is the biggest problem. If the government were about to drop a bomb in their training camps (some of them outside the city of Nuevo Progreso, Tamaulipas, mostly around Valle Hermoso from what I've heard around, reason why I don't visit their boystown ) I'm sure some official or low paid soldier would immediately call to warn them and make some cash out of the deal.

That and Mexico is EXTREMELY gun shy when it comes to sending the troops to fight, I mean, how long have the Zapatistas been out in the jungle? What would Obama do if there were right wing extremists somewhere in the Everglades who took over a big patch of territory? He would definetely napalm the whole deal. (maybe they should disguise themselves as islamic terro....I mean, Freedom Fighters to avoid that)

The reason the Mexican government hesitates in sending in the troops was because of what happened in the borough of Tlatelolco in Mexico city in 1968 when mexican troops ended up killing a bunch of students.... of course, like most latin american countries, their military is mostly equipped to fight unarmed dissenters, not an organized military or paramilitary organization. But anyway, from shootouts, particularly a recent one in the City of Reynosa the public in Mexico actually showed overwhelming support for the mexican troops and want them to continue with their job so I guess they should listen to them and not to the mob paid by the cartels to demonstrate against the army.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Jag1RMi2E4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6XbWhqNu9k&feature=related (starts at 1:52)


And yup, "Clear and Present Danger" that was just a movie, too bad something like that won't happen... or at least that's what I think.