Mike McClellan’s headline should be that “Mexican cartels are well armed due to failure to enforce existing laws in Mexico. (Or, Mexican cartels are lawless criminals). Because if they already have laws prohibiting purchase and possession of weapons larger than .32 handguns, then it’s just proving once again that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Visit Chicago or D.C. sometime if you doubt that, Mike.
More laws on our side of the border won’t change this. If you were to completely shut off any/all firearms from the U.S., then the cartels would just buy them from someone else, like the people/countries who already supply their grenades, explosives and full auto weapons, you know, the stuff they don’t get from here. You’re not really naive enough to believe that they are buying their RPGs from local firearm dealers through straw purchases, are you?
Incidentally, these straw purchasers are rarely prosecuted despite laws already on the books. Will more laws really help when the DOJ doesn’t enforce the ones they already have? Of course not.
So explain to me how more restrictions on law abiding American citizens’ constitutional rights will result in less government and law enforcement corruption south of the border, and more security up here, Mike.
And don’t forget that those willing to trade their personal liberties for security deserve neither ...
Joe Kostur
Apache Junction
Cas Lee posted at 7:34 pm on Sun, Oct 28, 2012.
Hello, my fellow American voters!
I watched the Oct. 3rd, 11th, 16th, and 22nd debates.
1st Romney-Obama debate covered 7 topics: jobs; budget deficit/debt; social security/entitlements; federal gov’t economic regulation and role; healthcare; partisan gridlock.
2nd Romney-Obama debate covered 11 topics: college graduate jobs; gas prices; taxes; equal pay; Bush policies; Obama’s record; illegal immigrants; Libya; assault weapons; jobs; candidate misperceptions.
3rd Romney-Obama debate covered 10 topics: Libya; Syria; Egypt; U.S. world role; military spending; Israel; Iran; Afghanistan; China; U.S. national security threats.
Ryan-Biden debate covered 10 topics: Libya; Iran; economy; medicare/social security/entitlements; tax reform/spending/budget cuts; military policy; Afghanistan; Syria; abortion; negative campaign tactics.
Romney and Ryan won all 4 debates, although Obama improved some in the 2nd debate and Romney slightly took the win both in the 2nd and 3rd debates.
In the 3rd debate (unlike in prior debates), Obama reflected his weakness and disrespect by interrupting Romney a lot and using too many “one-line quips” to try to denigrate Romney.
Ryan won despite Biden’s consistently rude behavior during the debate (often interrupted Ryan, laughed when Ryan talked, pointed his finger). Biden’s tactics to evade issues/truth disrespected Americans interested in facts, figures, forecasts, and solutions for real people with real problems.
Romney and Ryan won with substance, directness, integrity, respect, clarity, facts, commitment, inspiration, credibility, and leadership.
As an INDEPENDENT female feminist (egalitarian) voter, I support the Romney/Ryan ticket.
Romney and Ryan, with their no-nonsense and methodic approach to solving America’s problems, are the best persons in terms of qualifications and character to lead our country and make life better for all Americans.
I am inspired by Romney/Ryan, and I hope that you are too!
Best regards,
Cas Lee
JNelson posted at 10:12 am on Sun, Oct 28, 2012.
Bluepoet....so, if you approve of restrictive firearms laws, do you also approve of ignoring or circumventing the Bill of Rights, too?
Engaged Voter posted at 3:19 pm on Fri, Oct 26, 2012.
wdgnas - A suggestion? LOL
Try that excuse the next time you're pulled over for speeding - "but officer, that speed limit sign is just a SUGGESTION".
Let us know how that works out for you.
wdgnas posted at 6:55 am on Fri, Oct 26, 2012.
engaged voter: everyone knows that white rectangular sign with black letters, otherwise know as regulatory signage, is nothing more than a suggestion...
Engaged Voter posted at 2:07 pm on Thu, Oct 25, 2012.
"And speeding laws don't prevent bank robber get away car drivers from speeding away either. So what's your point again guys?"
Poor Dale, I guess he doesn't understand that speeding statutes are so that speeders can be prosecuted. No one ever thought for a second that posting a speed limit would stop speeders, that's just insane.
Bluepoet posted at 10:36 am on Thu, Oct 25, 2012.
And, you do realise you're paraphrasing Malcolm X, there, Don, right?
No, restricting guns doesn't offer a solution. I don't think anyone actually believes that. However, it does act as a deterrent, for some, while helping to make a case, once a criminal is caught, especially while using one. The downside is that it makes it inconvenient for the law-abiding...oh, and it gives the paranoid more ammunition for their pathology, as well as helping to keep the NRA in business...WIN/WIN, I say!
At any rate, just because criminals can get guns, anyway, is that really a good reason to make it stupid easy for them?
DonMey posted at 10:08 am on Thu, Oct 25, 2012.
Dale - You do realize that when you present a problem and a solution, the solution is supposed to actually fix the problem, right? If it doesn't, it isn't a solution at all.
Dale Whiting posted at 9:55 am on Thu, Oct 25, 2012.
And speeding laws don't prevent bank robber get away car drivers from speeding away either. So what's your point again guys?
PeacefulCat posted at 9:41 am on Thu, Oct 25, 2012.
Thank you Joe [smile]
DonMey posted at 9:10 am on Thu, Oct 25, 2012.
Don't be silly. Gun Laws are special; it is impossible to break them. Killing people, chopping of their heads, that's nothing. But tell a drug dealer he's about to break a gun control law? He'll stop dead in his tracks, frozen in fear.