Before you buy a gun in the US you have to get all the paperwork done first or you can't bring it home besides how do you get a fake passport that can beat the RFID chip in it.
Are Mexican Drug Lords Armed by the USA?
- Thread starter Bar Sinister
- Start date
Nothing in your reply disproves what the original article stated. I posted three other sources originally, including one that attempted to refute the idea that the US is the main arms supplier. But there was no real evidence in that article other than a denial of the US as a source. The 83% untraceable figure comes from that article. The other articles had much higher figures for the US, but you gave them no credibility. I still have a problem with the huge number of gun shops in Texas that are near the Mexican border. I note you have not been able to explain them.
You might not like the Brady campaign, but again you have not been able to disprove any of its allegations.
As for not buying expensive US models of firearms, why not? If the cartels are buying grenade launchers and high tech sniper rifles why not buy the best? After all they have the money, unlike the cash-strapped Mexican government. I suspect that part of the reason why Mexicans might prefer US arms is a simple matter of proximity. Certainly it must be easier to step across the border to acquire arms than have to import them from a continent away; especially if US arms dealers are happy to supply them with what they want.
So what if Canada makes high tech weaponry? Do you have any evidence that anyone in Canada buys these weapons and then ships them to Mexican drug cartels? If so please inform CSIS. On the other hand, there is certainly a pile of evidence showing that many illegal firearms in Mexico originate in the US.
And I note again that you found no errors in the CBC program. All you did was accuse it of American bashing. However, there would be nothing to bash if there was not a problem.
Finally, no it does not require a constitutional amendment to deal with this problem. All it requires is that states like Texas make some effort to find out where their firearms are going before approving sales. Someone who wanders into a gun shop and makes repeated purchases of firearms favoured by drug dealers might be worth taking a look at. It is worth noting that states like New York do this. As a result illicit firearms coming from New York are rare. Why do states like Georgia and Texas not do the same?
The US has a simple obligation here, and that is to make sure that one of its most cherished freedoms does not result in instability or harm in neighbouring countries.
What are we debating, it was already brought up that if anyone was dealing in illegal arms, permits, residency requirements would not be a problem. So point one it is not the good guys doing or causing the problem. Now as for the cartels buying expensive weapons over cheaper ones, that does not make sense. More profit with cheaper weapons that do as good or better job (fully auto much better in most cases than semi-auto.) Congress will not touch the Second Amendment for one simple reason what ever they decide has to go thru to many people.
Example:
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.
The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html#process
As for "The US has a simple obligation here, and that is to make sure that one of its most cherished freedoms does not result in instability or harm in neighbouring countries." the U.S. has no obligation to regulate any trade with a foreign country, it is the duty of that country to regulate what crosses its borders. All Mexico has to do is ask for military help and would be given. (U.S. troops do not have to step on Mexican soil for that help to be given.)
Example:
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.
The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
- Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
- Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
- Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
- Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html#process
As for "The US has a simple obligation here, and that is to make sure that one of its most cherished freedoms does not result in instability or harm in neighbouring countries." the U.S. has no obligation to regulate any trade with a foreign country, it is the duty of that country to regulate what crosses its borders. All Mexico has to do is ask for military help and would be given. (U.S. troops do not have to step on Mexican soil for that help to be given.)
I see. Well that solves the problem then. Mexico can deal with illegal firearms entering Mexico and leave it to the US to deal with drugs that originate in Mexico. Mexico can just tell the US that the Mexican drug trade is a US problem.
You make it sound like that hasn't been the case for the most part already. Most of the nations producing and exporting the narcotics (especially in Latin America) that end up in North America are corrupt or actually sympathetic to the drug lords that they do leave dealing with drugs up to the nations that the drugs pass through or end up in. Some may turn a blind eye but that goes both ways. Most are usually VERY touchy about someone else entering their borders/airspace even if they know something illicit is happening.
You know the funny thing is that if you just allowed people to make their own choice when it comes to drugs, the money would dry up in less than a year and all these countries that have serious violence problems related to the export of drugs would be out of business.
I don't quite agree with you completely ( I do think we need to keep the walls up for drugs like cocaine and illegal opiates because they are much dangerous) but I agree that the "war" on marijuana and hashish creates more problems than it solves.
In the USA it's referred to as 'bag weed' so it must not have improved much over the decades since anyone here has seen it.
Oh, I don't doubt for a second that narcotics dealers in many nations have the tacit if not active support of their governments. However, in this case the US has been actively pressuring Mexico to do something about the drugs coming across the border, in much the same way it put pressure on Colombia to end the drug trade there; even going so far as to send US agents into Colombia to fight the drug trade. It really is all about nations having an awareness of the fact that what happens inside their borders does not necessarily stay inside their borders.
History is not on your side in that proposal. In fact it shows that any nation allowing uncontrolled access to harmful drugs usually has very severe problems. Probably the most extreme case was the devastation in China during the early part of the 19th century due to the unrestricted importing of opium by the British. Millions of people became addicted, mostly in the middle and upper classes who were most responsible for the governing of the country. The impact was horrific with China declining to the ranks of a third rate power unable to defend its borders against even weak European states.
How much of the border drugs is just an excuse to further keep the natives of Northern Mexico from coming home to the Southern US states and applying for status?
Nothing is stopping Mexican (Indians) from legally seeking citizenship in the U.S., they may even have a jump on other Mexicans by being native American. But they have to apply legally like everyone else. Sneaking across getting caught especially when carrying drugs won't help anyone's cause. As I have mentioned before, Mexico has to work with the U.S. on both sides of the border to stop the drugs and gun running.
Nothing? Not even discrimination? How many generation will it take before some families that were once both American can reunite under their own law in their own country.
What discrimination, border states are made up of large percentages of Hispanics. As I said, just follow immigration policy. The U.S. does not discriminate when it comes to immigration. You will never stop individual's from discriminating, no better example of a country discriminating as when the Chinese holding British passports were refused admission into Canada and other Commonwealth nations When Hong Kong came under Chinese control.
Yes of course borders change and the inhabitants that get displaced rarly ever lose that chip on their soldier especially when families are divided. Even though the ink has dried in the history books doesn't mean the grudge isn't dead.
Since it's never been done, history can't be on any side at all. But I have to say, you appear like a child boasting on his addition skills put to the test before the black board. In hopes of fooling even the teacher, he goes about talking up a storm of what are obviously wrong answers, faulty analysis and some jibberish about a malfunctioning 3 and the inherent breakdown of mathematical laws when carrying the R and inverting the sum of the product.
Don't kid and kidder son you're only going to get hurt.
I know all about the British government, Indian colonies and the Chinese prohibition on Opium, and those military forces set to make money off the import into China. It has about as much to do with the current topic as apples and armpits.
Didn't the US drugs Tsar guy say prohibition is useless and they are turning to treating it as a health condition, education, awareness and alternative incentives the other day?Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister
History is not on your side in that proposal. In fact it shows that any nation allowing uncontrolled access to harmful drugs usually has very severe problems.