We've got it exactly backward.

[chieftain]

70% of the Mexican drug cartels' revenue comes from the sale of marijuana and 95% of their weapons are purchased in the US. The clear message to American politicians is that we should legalize pot and ban assault weapons.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Or just legalize marijuana and solve two birds with one stone.

[vaberella]

28. Or shoot two birds with one pellet. My thinking along the line is just legalize marijuana.

It fucks everyone up. Secondly people who haven't tried it won't and those who have will and moving on. Obviously it doesn't hinder success if Michael Phelps is our litmus test.

[geckosfeet]

2. Ok. Where'd ya get those numbers. Ya know u just gonna piss off the gun crowd

posting something like that without a link.

Besides - that's an interesting stat and other folks (like me) might like to see the source.

[chieftain]

4. There was a writer on several MSNBC shows today with

this info. I will try to track it down.

[chieftain]

6. Here's the link to the gun stat.

WWW.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guns10-2008aug10,0,3497661.story
I will keep looking for the revenue link.

[geckosfeet]

15. Good deal - thanks.

[billyoc]

3. They're not buying machine guns, rocket launchers and hand grenades from the U.S.

Anybody who thinks that is just not looking at the reality of the availability of such things in the U.S.

[polichick]

8. It's silly to think they're not buying tons of weapons here though.

[billyoc]

9. No, it's not. They're ruthless businessmen who know that the prices and selection are better

in Guatemala. They have no reason, whatsoever, to ever go shopping in the U.S. for anything.

[polichick]

10. LOL - keep telling yourself that.

[billyoc]

11. I have reason to doubt your experience buying guns in Guatemala.

[polichick]

12. I have reason to doubt that you've kept up to date on recent reporting. ;)

[billyoc]

13. We just don't sell automatic weapons here.

or rocket launchers, or hand grenades. They are not available.

Look, I WISH you could buy them here, but unfortunately you have to haul your ass down to Guatemala like the rest of us. ;)

[polichick]

14. Didn't say we did - just that it's silly to think they're not buying weapons here...

There's been plenty of reporting to show that it's a huge problem.

imo America's obsession with guns is SICK, to say the least.

[geckosfeet]

16. Read the article?

More than 90% of guns seized at the border or after raids and shootings in Mexico have been traced to the United States, according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Last year, 2,455 weapons traces requested by Mexico showed that guns had been purchased in the United States, according to the ATF. Texas, Arizona and California accounted for 1,805 of those traced weapons.

U.S. guns arm Mexican drug cartels

[MercutioATC]

5. Jesus! Another "assault weapons" guy....

Look, just define "assault weapons" and tell me how they're different from almost every other firearm on the planet.

[geckosfeet]

17. Definition:

Assault rifle -

An assault rifle is a rifle designed for combat, with selective fire (capable of shooting either like a machine gun or one bullet at a time). Assault rifles are the standard infantry weapons in most modern armies, having largely superseded or supplemented battle rifles (which are similar to assault rifles but are larger and more powerful) such as the World War II-era M1 Garand and SVT-40. Examples of assault rifles include the AK-47, the M16 rifle, and the Steyr AUG.

Why do gun people always ask others to define assault rifle? Did the NRA tell you that is what you are supposed to do when someone mentions them?

[MercutioATC]

18. That's an "assault rifle"...not an "assault weapon".

An assault rifle is a military battle rifle and has been heavily restricted for decades. To possess one, you need a Class III firearms license which requires extensive background checks, surprise inspections, and a $200/year permit fee per weapon.

The Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) has absolutely nothing to do with regulating assault rifles.


That's the problem with the arguments of 90% of AWB supporters...they have NO idea what they're talking about.

[geckosfeet]

19. You are flat wrong. An assault rifle IS an assault weapon.

Assault weapon refers to firearms that had been developed from earlier fully-automatic firearms into semi-automatic civilian-legal versions. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent casing and load the next round into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun, rather, only 1 shot comes from each trigger pull.

By former U.S. law the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, all non-automatic AK-47s, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of features from the following list of features:
A semi-automatic AK-47 rifle.
An Intratec TEC-DC9 with 32-round magazine; a semi-automatic pistol formerly classified as an Assault Weapon under Federal Law.

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

The M16 is a descendant of the AR15 so I would say that by this definition (or any reasonable and honest definition) assault rifles are a sub-class of assault weapons.

That's the problem with anti-AWB supporters - they have NO idea what they're talking about.

But you can read more here and educate yourself.

[MercutioATC]

21. Did you even bother to READ what you posted?

YOUR posted definition of "assault rifle":

"An assault rifle is a rifle designed for combat, with selective fire (capable of shooting either like a machine gun or one bullet at a time)."

...and YOUR posted definition of "assault weapon":

"Assault weapon refers to firearms that had been developed from earlier fully-automatic firearms into semi-automatic civilian-legal versions."

The assault rifle is capable of automatic fire. The "assault weapon" is not...it's one trigger-pull, one shot...which makes it like almost every other firearm on the planet.

Let's play a little game...which of these firearms is a "dangerous assault weapon" and which is just a "hunting rifle" and why?

1)

2)

Oh, and as a point of clarification, the AR-15 is a descendant of the M-16, not the other way around.

[HughMoran]

22. I'll answer!

No, cause I read your post and it made sense to me.

[boppers]

24. Which is a hunting rifle and which is an assault weapon?

You honestly can't *tell*?

Oh, wait, you probably actually *can* tell, but are pretending that there isn't any difference.

This is not entirely unlike people who think all pictures of naked children should be legal, because "they're just naked children".

Here's some hints about telling the difference between pedophilia and baby pictures, or assault weapons and hunting weapons:
1. Which banned item is more exciting to people who obsess their subject?
2. Which banned item is more likely to be traded in black markets?
3. Which banned item is more likely to worry law enforcement about illicit use?

This isn't rocket science.

[MercutioATC]

26. Actually, they're mechanically identical.

One is a Remington 750 Woodsman semi-automatic .308

The other is an Armalite AR-10A2 semi-automatic .308


Exact same "one-trigger-pull, one-shot" semiautomatic action. Exact same caliber.



The only real difference? The AR-10 looks "scary".


Now, really, give me one rational reason why one should be banned and the other shouldn't.

(if you're going to use the reasons you provided above, I could say the same of shiny red sports cars...they're more attractive to drivers who drive dangerously........so should THEY be banned based on how a few people abuse them even though 1) they're mechanically identical to other cars and 2) other cars are just as capable of being driven in an unsafe manner?)

That asked, realize that "assault weapons" aren't even used in many crimes...handguns (both semiautomatics and revolvers) are overwhelmingly the firearm of choice in a crime.

[boppers]

27. Two six-year old children are mechanically identical.

..as are the physical photographs of those children.

Why should only *some* images of those children be banned, then?

You see the insanity of this argument, yet?

Oh, and by the way, those weapons are *not* mechanically identical. Clips, grips, rails, stocks, muzzle... if the argument was really about "protecting" the hunting weapon, and they really were identical weapons, than nobody would care if the Armalite was banned, because "it's the same weapon".

Instead, what we hear is the rather tortured and convoluted argument of "don't ban this weapon, because it's exactly the same as that weapon over there, but we want to have this one, and that one..." That argument may work on people who know nothing about weapons, but I've been shooting for 28 years now (since I was nine), and there's an absolutely *huge* difference in just, oh, changing stocks on a firearm, let alone stocks, grips, clips, sights (etc).

You want a *good*, *rational*, *reason*? Easy. Here's two:
1) Weapons that have been modified to look like military grade hardware aren't just "scary", they are part of scant milliseconds that an LEO has to judge a threat level, and they are part of scant milliseconds that a concealed carry citizen has to judge whether to draw.
2) For those presenting a threat by using an "assault weapon", it's a sad kind of dangerous fetish, an immature mental projection of being "empowered" by using a military-look weapon, that seems to haunt a certain type of person.

With respect to your "red car" analogy, the problem isn't the paint. You can paint your hunting weapon any way you want. You cannot, however, take a NASCAR vehicle on city streets, and claim it's "identical" to other cars.

As to handguns, I agree. They are the weapon of choice for crime, and personally, I'm in favor of mandatory licensing, registration, and regular testing for all handguns and handgun owners, just like we do with cars, regardless of the color.


edit:missed word

[MercutioATC]

29. Ah! Somebody who's actually fired a gun! That's novel.

First, the old AWB would ban the Remington 750 if you attached a folding bipod and a bayonet mount. A challenge you to tell me how that would change the operation of the weapon at all. (as far as I know, serial bayoneting isn't a serious problem in the U.S.)

Your analogy of the children's photographs doesn't work because an artistic nude photograph of a child has a substantially different function than child pornography. The sole intent of child pornography is to excite the prurient interest. To say the same about "assault weapons", you'd have to prove that the sole intent of manufacturing or selling or owning an "assault weapon" was to harm people.

The Remington 750 and the Armalite AR-10 are mechanically identical. They use the same gas-operated semiautomatic action. Pistol grips, flash suppressors, and the dreaded bayonet mounts are just accessories. They don't change the operation of the firearm.

LEOs will (correctly) treat ANY firearm as a threat. They know that a .38 snubnose and an AR-15 are both deadly in the wrong hands. I've worked with law enforcement. As far as your amateur psychological profile of "assault weapon" owners, many use them as sporting rifles because fiberglass stocks are lighter and more weather-resistant than wood. Others prefer the way they feel. ...and some people just prefer the aesthetics. Owning an AR-15 doesn't make somebody a closet serial killer.

Your NASCAR analogy is better suited to my argument. A NASCAR vehicle is mechanically different...and more potent...than an average car, much in the way that an automatic weapon is mechanically different...and more potent...than a semiautomatic weapon. If you want to argue that you shouldn't be able to make your car look like a NASCAR vehicle even though it retains all of its stock parts because that would somehow make it more dangerous than an average car you're free to...but I don't think you'd get a lot of people to agree with you.

[geckosfeet]

36. In the context of the late AWB the term assault weapon has a very specific meaning.

If you would read the law instead of the NRA propaganda you might better understand this.

Spinning the term assault weapon like it can mean anything is not doing gun rights advocates any favors.

I'll post this link again for your benefit.

Assault weapon refers to firearms that had been developed from earlier fully-automatic firearms into semi-automatic civilian-legal versions. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent casing and load the next round into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun, rather, only 1 shot comes from each trigger pull.

By former U.S. law the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, all non-automatic AK-47s, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of features from the following list of features:
A semi-automatic AK-47 rifle.
An Intratec TEC-DC9 with 32-round magazine; a semi-automatic pistol formerly classified as an Assault Weapon under Federal Law.

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

* Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
* Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
* Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
* Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
* A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
* Detachable magazine

The earlier term assault rifle, refers to rifles that are select-fire (that is, rifles that are capable of either semi-automatic or fully-automatic fire), firing intermediate-power rounds (such as the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO, or 7.62 x 39 mm), which along with fully automatic pistols, provided the pre-cursor for the term "assault weapon." In contrast, the term assault weapon as used in civilian and U.S. legal usage refers to a semi-automatic firearm with certain features, as listed above. The ban did not cover "assault rifles" but merely the new category of "assault weapons" which did not include automatic firearms of any type.

[geckosfeet]

35. That's funny. I don't see the word "scary" in the definition of assault weapon.

Thanks for expanding the meaning but the people who actually wrote the law might not agree with your edits.

Maybe I should post this again in the hopes that you might actually read and COMPREHEND its meaning.

Assault weapon refers to firearms that had been developed from earlier fully-automatic firearms into semi-automatic civilian-legal versions. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent casing and load the next round into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun, rather, only 1 shot comes from each trigger pull.

By former U.S. law the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, all non-automatic AK-47s, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of features from the following list of features:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

* Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
* Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
* Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
* Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
* A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
* Detachable magazine

[polichick]

7. I agree - and there has been talk of legalizing pot, but not of...

...banning assault weapons. imo the love of weapons is SICK.

[chieftain]

20. Notwithstanding the arcane comments on the definition

of assault weapons and the tidbit about Guatemala as a source for the cartels, my point was more macro than micro. So with all due respect to those who disagreed with my gun terminology or source thereof, let me restate my basic premise. It is infucking sane to ban grass while letting every nut job, terrorist and run of the mill serial killer unlimited access to instrumentalities which use gunpowder to kill and maim other human beings.

[HughMoran]

23. infucking sane, infucking-sane or infuckingsane?

That is the real question I ponder after reading your post.

:)

[polichick]

33. How "moranic."

[chieftain]

34. Excellent and important question.

I meant to type infuckingsane, but didn't notice the line break. Ponder no more.

[HughMoran]

37. Yes, this question is one for the ages

I like to keep the discussion at a high intellectual level you know ;)

:)

[polichick]

31. It's those wonderful American values. *cough*

[HughMoran]

38. Oh, and I agree

We love our rednecks with guns, but god forbid we hand them a joint that makes them feel content and less on edge and likely to use their weapon of choice in anger.

[crimsonblue]

25. legalize pot and convert assault weapons into pipes.

:P

[alwysdrunk]

30. You're just making up random stats

And then talkabout a "clear message".

No.

[polichick]

32. Those are the stats that have been reported all week.