Comments on: FactCheck.org on U.S. Guns in Mexico

By: KBCraig

KBCraig — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 01:17:39 +0000

I used to think factcheck.org was a good source for impartial analysis, until the 2008 election cycle. Their candidate reviews were laughably biased, especially for Ron Paul fans.

By: Captain Holly

Captain Holly — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:28:28 +0000

I can guarantee virtually every M-16 seized from the drug lords by Mexican authorities came from “official” sources, either the Mexican Army or Federal Police.

The M-16s that are legal for US citizens buy are virtually impossible to buy through a straw purchase at a gun show or gun store or anywhere else, for that matter. A full FBI background check — with fingerprints — is required, along with a tax stamp issued by the ATFE. The process usually takes several months before the purchaser can take possession of the rifle.

That, and the fact that thanks to the 1986 Hughes amendment banning the sale of new fully-automatic weapons to private citizens the price of a “grandfathered” civilian-legal M-16 usually runs between $10,000 and $15,000.

The assertion that privately-owned M-16s are being smuggled into Mexico has no basis in fact.

By: Cypren

Cypren — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:54:04 +0000

I note that FactCheck.org seems to have made a mistake themselves when calling the Fox report false: their 36% number is based on the assumption that all guns submitted to the ATF for tracing are traced successfully. Both Newell and Hoover state in their testimony that “90 percent of the weapons THAT COULD BE TRACED were determined to have originated from various sources within the U.S.”

Hoover’s testimony mentions repeatedly that not all traces are successful (the primary purpose of his testimony in both transcripts is to request further funding for the ATF’s eTrace program), so it is highly disingenuous of FactCheck to compute their number as 90% of all submitted guns.

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:59:20 +0000

any comment from perlhaqr?

By: Michael Pack

Michael Pack — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:52:21 +0000

I have to agree with Dave.U.S drug policy is the cause of the Mexican drug war.Even the prohibitionist in the 1920′s didn’t try to force our laws on ,say,Canada and Scotland.

By: Dave Krueger

Dave Krueger — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:37:33 +0000

thorn, if we start having shootouts here, putting military on the ground will be just as wrong here as it is there. The answer to a failing drug war is not to ramp up the violence whether it be Mexico or here.

As for my sarcastic remark about Mexico not deserving our freedoms, it doesn’t matter if the same applies to every country on the planet. It’s hypocrisy to directly encourage and subsidize policies in other countries that we feel are injurious to their populations (as they would be to our own).

Cubans might not be free to shout “Screw Castro”, but we’re not the ones ensuring the guy gets punished for it.

By: thorn

thorn — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:17:21 +0000

You’re making a false comparison, Dave.

If the day comes that American drug cartels are having shootouts every day in Atlanta, Boise, and Houston – you’ll see the military on the ground here, too.

As far as Mexico not “deserving the same freedoms we have” – hell, what other country does? Does the average British citizen have the freedom to carry a handgun? Can a Saudi Arabian woman sleep with whomever she chooses? Can a Cuban walk down the street yelling “Screw Castro!”

Not so much, no.

By: Dave Krueger

Dave Krueger — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:14:52 +0000

The U.S. supposedly believes that the military should not be used as an internal police force and that citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms. We obviously don’t believe other countries should have these freedoms, though. We fund the use of the military in several countries to fight drug crime and there’s a huge uproar about guns purchased in the freedom loving U.S. being taken into Mexico where they clearly don’t deserve the same freedoms we have.

We are such a bunch of two-faced arrogant assholes. If I ever bumped into a politician with consistent principles, I’d probably drop dead from utter shock.

By: Red Green

Red Green — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:54:12 +0000

The USA gave 400 million $ worth of weapons to Mexico. The object is to get to 90% …I’m sure thats what the President means.

By: Dave Krueger

Dave Krueger — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:42:52 +0000

“Still, I do wonder what percentage of those guns came not from U.S. gun sellers, but from guns sent by the U.S. government to the Mexican government for fighting the drug war that through defections, corruption, and black market sales then ended up in the hands of the cartels.”

I’m guessing 90%.

By: Lee Jones

Lee Jones — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:27:25 +0000

Or Iraq, Afghanistan, or (fill in the blank) anti communist Central or South American Government.

We love to keep our defense contractors busy, and happy.

By: HTownGuy

HTownGuy — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:08:25 +0000

It’s probably safe to say that all weapons of U.S. origin that are not available to mere citizens came from the U.S. government and did not originate with citizens. They show a lot of full-auto weapons, grenades, etc on the news while talking about those American gun shows.