February 26, 2009
Democrat Libertarians
I try to keep an open mind when some Democrat friends claim to be "libertarian." You can make a point that Democrats might be a little more open to gay marriage, extended immigration, civil liberties. I question how devoted they are to these purities compared to their devotion to socialism and bigger government. But the 109th Congress GOP wasn't very defensible, so I try to give some benefit of the doubt.
I cannot be so kind or sanguine when they say that Democrats are less likely to pursue the War on Drugs. William Bennett is always held up as a poster boy, but Reason reminds that now-VP Joe Biden created the "Drug Czar" position. And the little-l's dream that enforcement would be reduced by the hipper, younger administration is going -- if I may quote Tommy Chong -- "Up In Smoke:"
Attorney General Eric Holder today announced the arrest of 52 people in a continuation of a Bush Administration drug investigation of the Mexican cartels. The operation began 21 months ago. The total number of arrests (a number of whom are low level traffickers) is 750.The military may get involved in the effort
[...]
Another Holder plan that should be no surprise: He wants to bring back the assault weapons ban.
Vote Democrat -- no property rights, no civil rights! Politics Posted by John Kranz at February 26, 2009 4:10 PM
An e-mailer suggests that I may be choosing the wrong place to make a stand. That we should be aiding the Mexican government against the cartels, and that militarization at or near the border of a near-failed state might be in our country's best interests.
Fair cop, guv. But you are asking me to believe that 52 arrests in California are causing sufficient pain to the cartels to be strengthening the Mexican government. And that is where I cannot sign on. Our failed policy of prohibition creates and perpetuates the cartels. I suppose our interdiction annoys them somewhat but not to the point of strengthening the legitimate government.
AG Holder wants to fight the frightening Afghanification of Mexico by taking Americans' 2nd Amendment rights, not by opening up a legitimate free market in the Cartels' supply line.
It is not that I expected hope and change on the Drug War front, but a lot of Democrats and big-L libertarians did. I'm just bursting their bubble. As far as the tone of the post, I am excerpting a lefty blogger -- I do not agree with every word.
Posted by: jk at February 26, 2009 8:39 PMTimely topic. The Stage is producing an in-depth post on the Mexican Narco-insurgents and the connection to the War On Drugs at the moment. I will be sure to send a link you way when it is done.
I do have a question for the general audience here at Three Sources however. It is becoming increasingly clear that Mexican gangs are being armed entirely with guns (and on too many cases, grenades) produced and sold in America. Indeed, the DoJ estimates that total cost of the arms being sent down south exceeds the money the U.S. is giving to the Mexican governemnt via the Merida Initiative. So, how do we ensure that Mexicans gangs are unable to secure arms without violating the natural rights of American citizens?
Any good answer to this question will be valued.
~T. Greer
Posted by: T. Greer at February 26, 2009 9:04 PM@tg: "How do we assure that Mexican gangs are unable to secure arms..." TG, you're falling prey to lefist canards. First, you an no more assure that gang members will not have access to guns than you can assure that users will have no access to drugs - you can't. These people are willing to kill and behead their own mothers for a buck - do you really think that making a gun illegal will suddenly cause them to hang up their fatigues and attend Mass?
You're also totally erroneous in the statement, "armed with guns and grenades made in the US.." (I paraphrase). Are you not aware that grenades are entirely illegal for all but military and law enforment? (And the cops don't generally use them.) Do you really think that making a rifle illegal will stem the flow of grenades?? Besides - if the grenades are "made in the USA," where the hell are they getting them? You don't just buy a six pack at 7-Eleven.
Finally, the claim that even so-called "assault rifles" being used are "American made" is equally false. A Colt AR-15 is about 50% more expensive than a Chinese-made AK-47. A Smith & Wesson or Beretta pistol will set you back about $900 (made in the US), whereas a Brazilian-made Taurus will be about half that. These guys aren't going down to the local Sportsman's Warehouse and standing in line to get a background check to buy a gun. They're getting them from their central and south American contacts in FALN and other Chaves-backed organizations who have all the contacts with the Chinese. As a footnote, the higher quality American arms (Colt, Remington, InterArms, etc.) are predominantly made in Japan and Belgium. Some guns, including most Ruger, are made in the US. Most are imports.
Holder, Obama and the left are fostering the falsehood that the drugs come from the south and guns from the north. This is their excuse to promote a gun banning agenda. Truth is, the guns and drugs are coming from the same location. Take away our guns and you're just disarming the Good Guys.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at February 27, 2009 11:00 AMBrother br beats me in time, quality and comprehensiveness.
I'd just add a purely philosophical argument. We allow offensive and dangerous printed materials and gatherings because we hold our First Amendment rights sacred and hesitate to make government their arbiter.
I suggest that we hold our Second Amendment right in the same esteem. Say that our desire to increase the difficulty of Mexican drug cartels does not warrant our right to strip a precious birthright from an American citizen.
Posted by: jk at February 27, 2009 11:45 AM@BR: Please do not put words into my mouth. I am not advocating bans on rifles or any other type of weapon. Indeed, my query was rather specific on that count; if you do not remember, I am searching for a way to keep the guns out of Mexican hands without violating the natural rights of American citizens. I apologize if my words were not blunt enough to make my point clear.
I also stand by my statement "gangs are being armed with guns... produced and sold in America." The empirical evidence supports this. The ATF* and the Mexican government agree that 90% of the firearms recovered from crime scenes in Mexico originated in the United States. Likewise, an estimated 65,000 firearms have crossed the border over the last twelve years. To cap it all off, weapons that are illegal to sell in the U.S. (think of the afore mentioned grenades) are getting to Mexican gangs via their northern border.
A gun prohibition is not the answer to this problem.
I want to know what is.
*Not the most reputable orginization around these parts, but the GAO says their data is trustworthy.
Posted by: T. Greer at February 27, 2009 11:49 AMYou are losing me, tg. You say you don't want bans but you use the language of The Brady Society.
If the grenade ban has not worked, then it is time to discard the whole ATF gameplan. The grenade ban is pretty efficacious on this side of the border -- I've been to a gun show or two and don't remember seeing grenades -- or even a "grenade show loophole."
I'll use the language of the left: look at root causes. We have to look to helping the Mexican government create security and order. And, ahem, if you really want to fix it, end the insane liberty-sucking War On Drugs. When these guys have to compete with Walgreen's, grenades will be of little value.
Posted by: jk at February 27, 2009 12:35 PM@tg: Apologies for the words-in-the-mouth thing; it sounded like you supported that position, so my mistake.
WRT the "guns flowing south," I still don't believe it. ATF has made dubious claims in the past, and ARE NOT the friends of gun owners. But let's assume it's true and that we are successful in magically removing them tomorrow. Would the gangs be disarmed? Not a chance. Chaves/the Chinese/the North Koreans would be happy to sell them arms.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at February 27, 2009 12:45 PMTG: I'll try not to put words into your mouth but when you say, "I want to know what is [the answer to keeping U.S. made weapons out of the hands of foreign criminals]" are you expecting to find some sort of law or regulation that would only apply to foreign criminals (or domestic criminals either, for that matter) and not to American citizens? Do you honestly expect any measure could be effective short of actual cessation of manufacture?
I suppose it's possible to prohibit export of military/police grade weapons to gun dealers in Mexico but who doubts they'd find a way to get them anyway through an intermediary? Shall we ban ALL non-governmental export sales?
For some insight about why we're hearing this now [U.S. guns being used by Mexican criminal gangs] see this David Kopel essay: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=347&issue=015
Posted by: johngalt at February 27, 2009 4:30 PMIt's also worth noting that Mexico has very strict control of private gun ownership. Doesn't seem to be working, does it? They also have far swifter and harsher punishment of drug dealers that we do. Seems the risk/reward calculation of the bad guys only fosters greater violence.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at February 27, 2009 5:55 PMJk, all I have done is cite statistics. Are facts tools only to be used by those on the left?
Now granted, BR might be right and the ATF could be cooking their books. Certainly they would not be the first governmental organization to do so. But personally speaking, I tend to trust the sources used by Generals when they draft strategic assessments on the likelihood our neighbors becoming failed states. This may be foolish of me, but even if the numbers are not quite 90%, I think we can say with confidence that they are very high.
This brings us to the crux of the issue: what should we do to solve this problem? I am very thankful for the link JG posted, and I suggest anybody who has not read it should do so. As the article speculates, the Obama administration's knee-jerk reaction to a Mexican collapse is a crack-down on gun ownership. When the liberal tide comes in favor of such a move, what is the right going to say? Shall we sit lamely by, simply saying "No, that won't work" or shall we be able to stand up and offer up a true solotion, shouting "The right way to end this illegal trade is to..."
Is to what? That is what I am intend to find out. I find it quite silly (and am quite surprised) that members of this site are so eager to hand over the imitative to statists and enemies of liberty. As the situation in Mexico deteriorates, issue will only gain prominence. Hopefully by the time the clogs of government start rolling we in the minority will have a mature enough position to possess a decisive voice in the national debate.
Here is where I suggest we start. Former Secretary Rice said this in response to a plea to reinstate the assault ban: "“I follow arms trafficking across the world, and I’ve never known illegal arms traffickers who cared very much about the law."
I suggest that is how we start thinking about this problem. This is not about of domestic gun ownership but the international arms trade. I know we spend millions trying to ensure that illegal arm shipments do not make it to insurgent groups in the Middle East- would it be so hard to extend that same courtesy to Mexico?
Posted by: T. Greer at March 2, 2009 7:25 PMGot no problem with statistics, though I would join the house in questioning ATF's (the department that should be a convenience store).
You say you're not for a gun ban. Yet you want action; you want American government action. This is my problem. Since government is proscribed from banning domestic weapons, we're going to control the international arms trade? I say that is fraught with the same peril.
We tried this in Kosovo, joining our brave European allies and enforcing strict weapons embargoes into the Balkans. This was like keeping the moms in DC housing projects unarmed. The Serbians had weapons in stock and opportunity for replenishment through Russia. Our embargo kept the Kosovars from defending themselves, and it did not turn out well.
The answer in Mexico, Albania, Kosovo, and the District of Colombia is not disarmament.
Posted by: jk at March 3, 2009 12:11 PM | What do you think? [11]