Criminals don’t have a problem getting weapons. Making it hard for an honest person to do so isn’t going to help.

83% of the guns seized in Mexico were NOT traced to the US

Something wrong with the figures:

Actually, ellinas, you might try clicking on the links and reading what is there before you leap to conclusions!
One cites a two year study, the other cites a three year study.
My! Who would guess that anything could happen in a year! /sarc

WASHINGTON — Barely 8 percent of the estimated 100,000 firearms seized in Mexico’s drug wars over the past three years have been traced to U.S. sales by licensed gun dealers, Congress was told Thursday.

In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced–and of those, 90 percent–5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover–were found to have come from the U.S.

But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.

In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.

In both instances, if you bothered to educate yourself, the percentages were low. Different sample sizes. Different figures. Go figure!

Ellinas:

Like I said before: “Me, me and mine. Fuck the rest.”

And you seem to operate on “What is yours is mine. Fuck your hard work to get what you have”.

You don’t have the right to dictate what I do with my money. Anyway, I’ve probably contribute 10x more of my assets to charity and 100x more of my time than a want the-government-to-do-it-for-you-with-other-peoples-money-cause-you’re-a-lazy-socialist-shit person like yourself.

You don’t even have what it takes to do it yourself.

You guys have been pretending your arguments on the minutiae have been relevant for years, but it just ain’t so.

Wankertized: You are the Master of Minutiae! Only in your case, you also get it all wrong like your analogy of a tank loaded with “mortar shells”.
(Good catch, Bat! I didn’t see that until this AM when I was re-reading his idiotic rants!)

Keep pretending that you’re an “honest debater”, Wankertized. Keep pretending that you even know an iota of what you’re talking about. Because you ain’t even close!

That’s why we’re all laughing at you!

We can’t sit back and tell them we aren’t going to help you, you help us. That is arrogant.

We are helping them. We give them aid and training. You still missed or decided to not to address my point. The violence in Mexico is between gangs wanted to secure territory to sell drugs to other Mexicans. How is taking away my rights going to help stop Mexicans killing other Mexicans so they can sell them drugs?

Kenny……………….having a semi-automatic weapon is not going to allow you to take on our army. Do you have a tank, a jet or any of our advanced war fighting weaponry? Do you think you should be able to have it???

Did the Viet Cong? Did the Afganis have tanks or jets when they fought the Russians. Hell, what did Castro have? Having semi automatics is much better than being armed with your teeth.

With a full auto, many bullets are spewed carelessly and are dangerous killing machines.
Are you arguing that any novice should be able to get his hands on full auto, yes or no?

What a crock of shit you spew this morning, Wankertized!
I have fired weapons, full auto, with great accuracy! Just because you can’t doesn’t mean that real men can’t!
Just because your momma won’t let you have anything more lethal than a squirt gun doesn’t mean that men should be denied the tools they need!

Secondly, I haven’t seen this many straw men since the community theater’s try outs for the Wizard of Oz!
Fully automatic weapons are legal in the US only to those who possess a proper Federal Firearms License. No one is suggesting that “novices” or even experienced marksmen should be able to “get their hands on fully automatic weapons without due process.

You, through incredible ignorance or willful deception, seem to go out of your way to confuse the lawful use and ownership of semi-automatic weapons (which you in the past have alternately dishonestly implied that you owned and later claimed you would never want to own) with those of fully automatic weaponry correctly referred to as assault rifles.

You are a study in self contradiction, Wankertized. And you have no facts to bolster your limp wristed position.

You’d better stick to writing about stuff you know about personally: Overpriced belt buckles and how to remove urine stains from salt encrusted swim trunks!

“sorry, can’t help you with that gun problem you are having, Whistler wants a semi auto to defend himself, even though he has never had to defend himself once in his life, it’s his 2nd amendment you know.”

Why are you going to take away my rights because Mexico, which has been corrupt since its formation is having a gun problem? Now we are obligated to do away with our rights because someone else has a problem?

Like I said before: “Me, me and mine. Fuck the rest.”

Please, our country was founded on individual rights. I give to charity, I served my country, I believe individuals do a better job giving money and services than the government. I could sum your attitude up by saying, “I think that people should help others, to do that I am going to take your money and spend it on someone else.” Over half of this country pays no taxes. Its real easy to say you want to help if you are planning on taking my money to do it. If you want to help stem the tide of weapons in Mexico go down there and join the Federal Police. What you’ll discover is that most of the drug enforcers are ex-military and ex-police.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexico-cancun-drugs2-2009mar02,0,3441309.story

The suspect cruised around in an SUV that had been reported stolen. He toted corrido music glorifying drug smugglers and hit men, and allegedly helped them operate in this beach resort.

And until a few weeks ago, he was Cancun’s police chief.

http://www.stratfor.com/mexicos_cartel_wars_threat_beyond_u_s_border

The Gulf cartel hired Los Zetas, a group of elite anti-drug paratroopers and intelligence operatives who deserted their federal Special Air Mobile Force Group in 1991. The Sinaloa cartel, meanwhile, formed a similar armed force called Los Pelones, literally meaning “the baldies” but typically understood to mean “new soldiers” for the shaved heads normally sported by military recruits.

The engagement, which raged on for some 40 minutes and involved anti-tank weapons, hand grenades and automatic weapons fire, reportedly resulted in the deaths of five Gulf cartel enforcers and five other people.

Though cartel enforcers have almost always had ready access to military weapons such as assault rifles, Los Zetas, Los Pelones and the Kaibiles are comprised of highly trained special forces soldiers who are able to use these weapons with deadly effectiveness.

The group is extremely well armed, they wear body armor and some wear Kevlar ballistic helmets; their arsenal includes AR-15 and AK-47 assault rifles, MP5 submachine guns, 50 cal. machine guns, grenade launchers, ground-to-air missiles, dynamite and helicopters.[5] They are known to operate with modern wiretapping equipment and purchase the cellular phone codes of their intended targets directly from the phone companies and providers.

From the articles I found in a few minutes searching place most of the blame on ex-police and ex-military. These guys are armed with AR-15 and AK-47 assault rifles (automatic military weapons), grenade launchers, machine guns, GROUND TO AIR MISSILESand dynamite. None of which are legal to sell in the United States. I can’t think of one gun dealer I can walk into and ask for a ground to air missile. However, people are asking me to give up my gun rights, an inalienable right in American jurisprudence (that means it existed before the United States). I also get to have people like Elinas call me selfish because I zealously guard my rights.

I believe this video is a few months old. However, it does point out that Obama brings the same suspect statistical analysis to bear on the crime problem that he brings to the economy!

There has to be a point where your rights are respected and the flow of weapons is stemmed. Both sides have to work hard to find the sweet spot.

I don’t know how limiting my rights will stop elite paratroopers or police in Mexico from defecting to the cartel with their weapons. Or how limiting my rights will stop the cartel from bribing people in the Mexican Army from selling their weapons to the cartel. Or how limiting my right will stop the cartel from using AK-47′s (made in the former Soviet Union). I guess my already non-existent right to own ground to air missiles or anti-tank missiles has prevented the cartel from using them. Wait, it didn’t.

You may think you have the right to run around with a fully auto assault rifle, but that is not how modern functioning societies work. (Actually, he does have that right, he just needs to obtain an FFL first! Facts 1, Hannitized 0)

You don’t have the right to drive a tank down the street fully loaded with mortar shells or anti-tank shells. (Reductio ad absurdum is about the only thing this troll can handle. He does know about being absurd! Reason 1, Hannitized 0)

You don’t have the right to keep dynomite (sic) or explosives in your garage.(Hannitized is channeling Jimmy Walker here! Intelligence 1, Hannitized 0)

Nice reverse hat trick, Wankertized!

I fail to see why a porous border with Mexico doesn’t require greater border security, but instead me losing my constitutional right to protect myself.

What’s the real problem in Mexico?

Marco Lara Klahr, an award-winning journalist, believes that the nation’s media also need to stop sensationalizing the coverage of organized crime, and base it instead “on an agenda that reflects the real social, economic and human costs.”

Mexico’s drug war is a reflection of the country’s long dance with impunity, of its fraudulent elections, its harbouring of business monopolies, its utter negligence of peasant agriculture and its callous treatment of the country’s poor and indigenous.

I’m supposed to give up my rights for that?

But the US has to make it hard for the criminals to obtain weapons.

Great, what does that have to do with the arms trade in Mexico? As I said it is illegal to own a fully auto AR-15 and AK-47 in the United States and they are getting them just fine in Mexico. Along with Air to Ground missiles, grenade launchers, anti-tank missiles and the like. All of the places that have strict gun laws also have the highest incident of gun crime. Criminals will be able to get guns no matter what you do. The mob never had much trouble getting Tommy Guns even after they were outlawed.

As to holding on to my rights, I will. No sarcasm..

Hanny, Any untrained layman can shoot a revolver as fast as a semi auto, it shoots as fast as you pull the trigger, same as a semi auto.

I do like your professionally trained argument. Have you seen a real firefight? Even professionals, like cops or soldiers shoot and spew bullets so that argument doesn’t fly.

With a full auto, many bullets are spewed carelessly and are dangerous killing machines.

As to this argument, automatic weapons are already banned so that’s not a problem.

Are you arguing that any novice should be able to get his hands on full auto, yes or no?

Well considering that this devolved into a thread about banning semi automatic I don’t know why you are bringing this up. To answer your question, yes. Again, what part of “shall not be infringed” is unclear? I didn’t notice that Bill of Rights were for professionals. Should we only let professionals have a right to free speech, assembly or the like?

The fact that we are the largest nation of drug use and consumption is the reason why Mexico’s drug lords are flourishing and why drug use in Mexico is on the rise. Without our demand, there requirement to create it would not exist and their population would not be exposed to it like they are as a result of our demand.

Again, its all our fault! Those poor brown people are to noble to use drugs if it wasn’t for the US. What are you smoking? Corruption has existed in Mexico since its founding. Do you want to blame that on us too? My God man, blame us for everything and you wonder why we call you the “blame America party.”

Yeah Greg, they don’t fight to sell drugs to us. And further, the drug use in Mexico has only recently gone up….as from 2006. Don’t be dishonest and don’t peddle hyperbole.

I posted what the Mexicans are saying. I’ve posted evidence. Evidence you can go read for yourself. You’ve posted nothing but crap like “don’t be dishonest and don’t peddle hyperbole.” Good advice, take it!

I did a story a while ago saying that there were plenty of non-US guns in Mexico.

Whether there is or not, the question is would drug gangs get firearms if the US market 100% dried up?

Of course they would.

OK, limiting my right to protect myself won’t help the Mexican’s at all because they’ll get their drugs from another country.

Also I am in no way responsible for the nightmare that is the Mexican society.

Thirdly, having guns certainly positive effects in our society. It’s not without offsetting costs. However I think most studies show that having guns make us safer.

Whether or not you agree with society as a whole, it’s still my responsibility to determine what’s best for me. I believe I am safer having a gun.

I fail to see why I should be less safe in order to have NO EFFECT whatsoever with the Mexicans.

On the other hand I’m in favor of great security on the border to keep drugs and criminal aliens out of here. If the Mexican government actually gave a crap about US guns they’d be on the border as well.

The fact is they know that they’ve screwed it up. But like children and idiots they have to blame someone else for the problems they created themselves.

NO I didn’t say that at all Hanjob. The big difference is in volume. We can slow down drugs, but never stop them. However it doesn’t take that much to get enough guns into Mexico from whereever they get them.

It shouldn’t affect my right to own the gun I want.

I think we should STOP all illegal traffic at the Mexican border that’s coming in. Mexico should help.

Nobody is saying you can’t have a gun, just not a semi auto. You can protect yourself with a revolver

Sure I see cops all over the country turning in their semi autos for revolvers because revolvers are just as good.

Greg said: Why are you going to take away my rights because Mexico, which has been corrupt since its formation is having a gun problem? Now we are obligated to do away with our rights because someone else has a problem?

Barry is going to try to use these events and incidents to confiscate our guns and trample on our 2nd ammendment rights. This is where is going. no matter what Barry says he is not in favor of people owning guns and the second ammendment. Also, this is why Republicans and Reagan democrats should oppose the confirmation of Sotoliar because she is not what she claimed to be.

Nice there E,

You lose here, so you try to bring in foreign countries.

We’ll address some of the countries you’ve trotted out in a bit, but since you like to go overseas, let’s do so.

Gun Control has long been used to disarm an armed citizenry by tyrants. Oftentimes, it is too dangerous — for obvious reasons for them to simply declare a Right a Crime overnight and suddenly start seizing weapons.

Tyranny in the face of an armed citizenry is a delicate matter. You have to be indirect about it.

Lie.

Come up with some plausible reasons why this has to be done for the people’s own safety.

The English Tyrant King Charles II, used lies and misdirection to disarm the English, while — a little bit later — our very own tyrant, King George III, tried to disarm American colonists.

As Dave Kopel writes for the Second Amendment Project, “the best testimony to the power of an armed populace is the vigor with which the Warsaw Pact dictatorships enforced gun control. When the Communists took over Bulgaria on September 9, 1944, they immediately confiscated every weapon in private possession.” East Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania followed suit. “The dictatorship of Nicolai Ceausescu used registration lists to confiscate all firearms in private hands.” writes Kopel. In Hungary, Laszlo Rajk, the Communist Minister of the Interior, ordered the dissolution of all pistol and hunting clubs, as well as of other organizations which might prove a threat to government power. Ceausescu went so far as to register typewriters.

In 1938, Hitler enacted the Nazi Weapons Law (Waffengesetz) permitting only Nazis and their friends the right to own and carry weapons, especially handguns. As Joyce Rosenwald explains, the Nazi Weapons Law of March 18, 1938 serves as the blueprint for gun controls laws today in America.

But your snarky retort seemed to mean that Gun Control Works Overseas.

Meh.

Gun control has not worked in Canada. Since the new gun registration program started in 1998, the U.S. homicide rate has fallen, but the Canadian rate has increased.

With violent crime and gun crime soaring in the United Kingdom, where handguns are already banned, the British government is banning imitation guns. And in Australia, state governments are banning ceremonial swords.

Yet, the laws in Australia, Britain and Canada were adopted under what gun control advocates would argue were ideal conditions. All three countries adopted laws that applied to the entire country. Australia and Britain are surrounded by water, and thus do not have the easy smuggling problem that Canada claims with regard to the United States. The new attempts to ban toys or cast blame on the United States, reek of desperation.

Crime did not fall in England after handguns were banned in 1997. Quite the contrary, crime rose sharply. In May, the British government reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the last four years. Serious violent crime rates from 1997 to 2002 averaged 29% higher than 1996; robbery was 24% higher; murders 27% higher. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the armed robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels. The violent crime rate in England is now double that in the United States.

Australia saw its violent crime rates soar after its 1996 gun control measures banned most firearms. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed than they did the year before the law went into effect. Murder and manslaughter rates remained unchanged, but armed robbery rates increased 74%, aggravated assaults by 32%. Australia’s violent crime rate is also now double America’s. In contrast, the United States took the opposite approach and made it easier for individuals to carry guns. Thirty-seven of the 50 states now have right-to-carry laws that let law-abiding adults carry concealed handguns once they pass a criminal background check. Violent crime in the United States has fallen much faster than in Canada, and violent crime has fallen even faster in right-to-carry states than for the nation as a whole. The states with the fastest growth in gun ownership have also experienced the biggest drops in violent crime rates.

(continued)

If your ad hominems against Rob are your way of “taking steps forward in a constructive way, together, to tackle the issues where we really do disagree”, then you really suck at that, too!

Yeah well posting a video from 4 months ago and pretending he just said it is a lie. And Rob starting off with lies is no place to find agreement.

So I just tear his stupid ass down.

Nobody is saying you can’t have a gun, just not a semi auto. You can protect yourself with a revolver, it’s more than the founding fathers had.

Talk about a “stupid ass”!!! Every time I think you’ve come up with the single most incredibly stupid, asinine remark, you manage to out do yourself. and here you’ve done it again.

Sure I see cops all over the country turning in their semi autos for revolvers because revolvers are just as good.

Uhh…..you are a wild-eyed maniac. First of all, most civilians are shot by police with their pistols. Secondly, the only time the Police need to upgrade their weapons is when they are up against a civilian who is illegally armed.

We are helping them. We give them aid and training.

OK, well trade training, for training, happy?

You still missed or decided to not to address my point. The violence in Mexico is between gangs wanted to secure territory to sell drugs to other Mexicans. How is taking away my rights going to help stop Mexicans killing other Mexicans so they can sell them drugs?

Yeah Greg, they don’t fight to sell drugs to us. And further, the drug use in Mexico has only recently gone up….as from 2006. Don’t be dishonest and don’t peddle hyperbole.

The fact that we are the largest nation of drug use and consumption is the reason why Mexico’s drug lords are flourishing and why drug use in Mexico is on the rise. Without our demand, there requirement to create it would not exist and their population would not be exposed to it like they are as a result of our demand.

Mexico doesn’t have a drug problem? Are you sure you want to go with that?

I said drug problem, like we do. That means theirs is different. The US is the largest nation of drug users and drug consumption…..period.

We can’t sit back and tell them we aren’t going to help you, you help us. That is arrogant.

I’ve never used drugs, so I’ve not caused their problems.

Little kenny: You apparently have “reasonable” confused with “unreasonable”. They are actually different from each other. As a matter of fact, they are a pair of opposites.

Some other outright lies that need to be addressed:

“Japan and other countries have less guns and less crime! Get the picture!”

The question is not whether they have less crime, or even less guns. The question is, did the drop in available weapons drop crime. The answer is no.

Britain banned guns, and their crime rate soared. This is true in Australia too. While theirs’ is still lower than ours, it is exponentially higher than before the ban.

“It’s more than the founding fathers had.”

The founding fathers had the same weapons as the government. The citizens WERE the army, and the states had militias to defend against the Feds. Today, the government builds bigger and better weapons while disarming the populous.

Anyone who believes that the founders would be ok with that is fooling themselves. They would oppose any ban whatsoever, as the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not to protect people from their neighbors…but from the government.

“We need to give up our rights for Mexico.”

There is no difference in demanding that I give up my rights or my money because my neighbor is irresponsible.

The founding fathers had the same weapons as the government. The citizens WERE the army, and the states had militias to defend against the Feds. Today, the government builds bigger and better weapons while disarming the populous.

Kenny……………….having a semi-automatic weapon is not going to allow you to take on our army. Do you have a tank, a jet or any of our advanced war fighting weaponry? Do you think you should be able to have it???

Anyone who believes that the founders would be ok with that is fooling themselves. They would oppose any ban whatsoever, as the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not to protect people from their neighbors…but from the government.

I think not one of us could speculate how our Founding Fathers would feel today, in todays society.

There is simply no way to defend ourselves from our government with a fully, semi automatic weapon.

Little kenny: You apparently have “reasonable” confused with “unreasonable”. They are actually different from each other. As a matter of fact, they are a pair of opposites.

You’re the perfect example of this.

Let’s point out one of the “reasonable” restrictions you support.

“Banning viagra ads until after 11, so that children don’t see them.” What is reasonable about demanding ads not be shown until after the target audience goes to bed. Let’s demand that toys only be advertised during the school year, while the kids are in school!

“Ban what I don’t like. Make it go away!”

You just think you have rights that permit you to have things you shouldn’t have because you have a fundamental problem interpreting the constitution and putting it in the context of todays society.

Congress is not allowed to ban guns of any kind, period. Right, wrong, or indifferent, the Constitution bans such legislation. Your argument seems to be little more than the old canard that “We have no rights but what our rulers decide we have” which is dangerous.

“Banning viagra ads until after 11, so that children don’t see them.” What is reasonable about demanding ads not be shown until after the target audience goes to bed. Let’s demand that toys only be advertised during the school year, while the kids are in school!

More lies from you, little kenny, since you have nothing to refute the common sense argument I made. I have never said anything about toys, and viagra limitations are simply reasonable. Thanks for being a good example of unreasonableness: personal attack in lieu of valid argument.

My point, before your head exploded, is that some regulations are reasonable and some are unreasonable. Your all-encompassing fear of any regulation at all is just emotional nonsense. Intelligent people can tell the difference, but unintelligent ones have to make blanket generalizations.

Again, slowly, for the mental retard calling itself sannitized, the vast majority of guns in Mexico do not come from America, you fucking moron. And the “Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is in the Constitution. If you don’t like that you can fuck off.

Sorry, but there are reasonable arguments and laws for a reason.

When someone demands “reasonable restrictions” they are NEVER arguing anything of the kind.

Each “reasonable restriction” is a step towards taking away our rights. Yesterday’s ban on “assault weapons” leads to discussing banning semi-autos. And then, as we see in England, the ban of guns all together. Once guns are banned, then we go to bats and knives.

Creeping incrimentalism. Completely dangerous.

As I recall, last year’s Heller opinion did not make any sort of distinction or regulatory exception regarding semi-auto, or even full automatic weapons when establishing that the Second Amendment’s right to “keep and bear arms” was, in fact, an individual right.

Incidentally, tanks don’t carry mortar shells. Mortars are essentially an infantry weapon.

Bat,

Not hardly. Again, your misunderstanding or interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is not my problem.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects a right to keep and bear arms from infringement by the federal government, including federal enclaves and Washington, D.C..[1] The American Bar Association has described this right as among the most controversial of the rights codified in the Bill of Rights.[2]

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that an outright ban by the federal government on home possession of an operable firearm, such as a handgun, violates the Second Amendment.[3] The Court has upheld the constitutionality of longstanding restrictions on the possession of firearms, including handguns.[3]

Fully Automatic weapons are not defined in the 2nd amendment and you’ll have a hard time making the case that it speaks to your right to have one.

Good luck!

The 2nd amendment wasn’t very specific. It just says ‘arms’, meaning armaments? (And implies the arms are for a well regulated militia?) Keeping a rocket launcher in the wardrobe, or howitzer in the backyard would be ok according to the 2nd?

How about a buying cheap Mig off eBay? You never know when you have to strafe the feds, a good idea to keep a Mig handy.

The 2nd amendment wasn’t very specific. It just says ‘arms’

AV,

That’s precisely the point! It isn’t specific, it makes no distinctions as to types of “arms.”

So for those who would like to think that their contemporary judgment is superior to that of the Founding Fathers, the only proper course of action would be the amendment process as outlined in the Constitution, removing or altering the aforesaid Second Amendment.

Don’t waste your time on Bat AV. He is incapable of honest debate or not talking down to anyone who isn’t just like him.

Dear God in heaven!!! You really are just THAT stupid, aren’t you?!

As Robert correctly points out, there is nothing in the Constitution that allows for the banning of either semi- or fully automatic weapons to individuals.

Yeah well the constitution doesn’t state that you aren’t supposed to snort cocaine either. But…..you know.

What does the constitution say about driving with or without a seatbelt? How about traffic laws, anything in the constitution about that?

Seriously bat, AV is exactly right. According to the constitution you have the right to have a Mig fighter and an armory! It ain’t gonna happen and stupid little fully automatic machine gun is going to help you fend off our government.

Face it. The world has changed since the Constitution was written, and the 2nd amendment has been reduced to allowing you to own a gun. You got a gun, great…..keep it. Defend your family with hit. Have a blast.

Just don’t pretend like you know what you are talking about when you imply the constitution is being broken when you had your fully auto machine gun taken away.

Revised:

Seriously bat, AV is exactly right. According to the constitution, it implies that you have the right to have a Mig fighter and a complete armory! It ain’t gonna happen and a stupid, little, fully automatic machine gun isn’t going to help you fend off our military, should the need ever arise.

Let’s be realistic.

You guys have been pretending your arguments on the minutiae have been relevant for years, but it just ain’t so.

The Second Amendment does not allow for the banning of private ownership of ANY sort of weapon or “arms.” Period.

So your position is that a private American citizen has a right to own a nuclear bomb, but the country of Iran doesn’t?

The MiGs you are referencing do not have their weapons systems. The idea that the founders could contemplate the weapons of today is ridiculous.

Well, Lioncourt! Been waiting for you. Isn’t it gratifying to be anticipated?

The MiG-21 wasn’t my example. It was Hannitized’s. And while you are likely correct about the removal of the weapons system to certify the aircraft for import, I don’t recall that being part of his initial witless pronouncement.

The idea that the founders could contemplate the weapons of today is ridiculous.

I agree, as would any rational individual, but whether they could foresee today’s weapons or not isn’t what’s at issue here. I didn’t say that there are no valid reasons, constitutional or otherwise, for restricting the ownership of certain weapons.

What I said was that the Second Amendment doesn’t allow for the banning of private ownership of arms. And that statement is manifestly correct, isn’t it?

It’s kinda like the First Amendment, counselor. The First makes no exception for either libel or speech that specifically calls for armed insurrection. So, the rationalization for both limitations is either found elsewhere, or divined by SCOTUS justices amidst the Constitution’s assorted penumbras of inference.

I have taken no position on ownership by a private American citizen of nuclear weapons… a gratuitous assertion on your part. But, again, the Second Amendment does not address the banning of any weapons, from Glocks to nukes. So my guess is, if you want to institute any such ban, you’ll have to look elsewhere for any legal or constitutional authority to do so.

And yet you apply none. Typical leftarded moron.

Screw a MiG 21, I can put you in touch with a man that can hook you up with a MiG 29, production block B, and he can facilitate pilot and maintenance training, no problem. As for weapons, we are Americans, we can weaponize anyfuckingthing, babe.

The fact that we are the largest nation of drug use and consumption is the reason why Mexico’s drug lords are flourishing and why drug use in Mexico is on the rise.

Right, hannitized, and it’s also why banning guns isn’t going to do a thing to stop it.

All the gun control laws in the world aren’t going to keep criminals from getting guns.