Mexico Calls On the US to Violate Our Constitutional Gun Rights

Really, David?

It's your contention that Mexican drug gangsters are the "people" the 2nd amendment is talking about?

On what grounds do you base that contention?

Is it your contention that selling a gun to a foreign criminal somehow falls within "keep and bear arms"?

It is neither keeping the arm, nor bearing it.
It's getting rid of it to someone else who is not an American citizen.
And the US Government has the right to regulate trade.

Oralloy wrote:

The odds that I've made any error on the question of "whether our freedom harms anyone" are extremely slight in light of the fact that drugs gangs would have just as many assault rifles even without the US and the fact that they would kill just as many people even without assault weapons.

This is doubtful. By stopping the easy trade of guns across the border, you increase there cost. The more it costs to get an assault weapon, the fewer there will be.

Oralloy wrote:

Free people have the right to carry guns. There is no error there.

the mexican drug lords will be pleased to hear that they are being permitted to carry guns - i'm sure they consider themselves to be " free " people .

I do not believe David was a lawyer not do I believe he is a member of Mensa.

oralloy, I'm sure somewhere in the AMERICAN Constitution it says that arming MEXICAN drug lords is an inalienable right of all Americans. I just can't find it. Do you think you could tell me what clause it is? I know you're a profound scholar of American rights, so I'm sure you can tell me off the top of your head.

ebrown p wrote:

Oralloy wrote:

The odds that I've made any error on the question of "whether our freedom harms anyone" are extremely slight in light of the fact that drugs gangs would have just as many assault rifles even without the US and the fact that they would kill just as many people even without assault weapons.

This is doubtful. By stopping the easy trade of guns across the border, you increase there cost. The more it costs to get an assault weapon, the fewer there will be.

I don't see how it increases the cost. What's the price of a full-auto AK-47 from Latin America? $50?

And even if it actually did increase the cost, the drugs gangs would still be able to afford more AK-47s than they could use.

failures art wrote:

oralloy wrote:

However, I am confident that my freedom is not actually causing them harm.

This confidence is your first error. The errors that follow it are mostly in your misunderstanding of the US constitution and on the definition of "freedom."

A
R
T

There is zero chance that I've misunderstood the Constitution.

The odds that I've made any error on the question of "whether our freedom harms anyone" are extremely slight in light of the fact that drugs gangs would have just as many assault rifles even without the US and the fact that they would kill just as many people even without assault weapons.

Free people have the right to carry guns. There is no error there.

oralloy wrote:

failures art wrote:

oralloy wrote:

However, I am confident that my freedom is not actually causing them harm.

This confidence is your first error. The errors that follow it are mostly in your misunderstanding of the US constitution and on the definition of "freedom."

A
R
T

There is zero chance that I've misunderstood the Constitution.

The odds that I've made any error on the question of "whether our freedom harms anyone" are extremely slight in light of the fact that drugs gangs would have just as many assault rifles even without the US and the fact that they would kill just as many people even without assault weapons.

Free people have the right to carry guns. There is no error there.

Nothing but cognitive dissonance. You are attempting to rationalize this out of the inability to resolve your conflicted views.

The idea that they would get guns elsewhere is not the point. The point is that the drug lords get their guns from us. We are accessory to the violence taking place in Mexico and the violence that is spilling over into the US. It seems then even more idiotic to then see the increased threat brought by the lax rules and regulations and then say that Americans should have greater access to firearms, when making firearms so easily accessible is what has enabled the drug lords to arm their mafias in the first place.

You're doing laps here.

A
R
T

oralloy wrote:

failures art wrote:

oralloy wrote:

However, I am confident that my freedom is not actually causing them harm.

This confidence is your first error. The errors that follow it are mostly in your misunderstanding of the US constitution and on the definition of "freedom."

A
R
T

There is zero chance that I've misunderstood the Constitution.

The odds that I've made any error on the question of "whether our freedom harms anyone" are extremely slight in light of the fact that drugs gangs would have just as many assault rifles even without the US and the fact that they would kill just as many people even without assault weapons.

Free people have the right to carry guns. There is no error there.

Nothing but cognitive dissonance. You are attempting to rationalize this out of the inability to resolve your conflicted views.

The idea that they would get guns elsewhere is not the point.

The idea that they would get guns elsewhere is not the point. The point is that the drug lords get their guns from us. We are accessory to the violence taking place in Mexico and the violence that is spilling over into the US. It seems then even more idiotic to then see the increased threat brought by the lax rules and regulations and then say that Americans should have greater access to firearms, when making firearms so easily accessible is what has enabled the drug lords to arm their mafias in the first place.

You're doing laps here.

A
R
T

Aside from the USSC who would disagree with your armament-creation theory,

I must object on additional logical grounds.

Ownership of a flamethrower for self defense would be covered in your argument, but the balance of interests of the individual and the state would be thrown off kilter by the private ownership of armaments that can create such great collateral damage. Similarly, the ownership of RPGs or hand grenades would create a problem.

Your post is ignorant of the facts.

The end of the Assault Weapon Ban did have an effect on this issue. Drug lords used its expiration to get these weapons.

We are arming the drug cartels. Denying this is ignorant.

Saying that they could get the weapon's elsewhere is rationalizing, but cowardly.

We've enabled them. There's no excuse.

As for the USA being the only free country and that freedom coming from our right to own assault weapons. (1) We are not the only country that allows for ownership of said weapons so how are we the only free country, (2) plenty of assault weapons in Africa, Central America, and South America, pretty clear absence of many freedoms,

and lastly (3) many countries that do not have guns are far more free than us (Japan, England, etc) and safer as well.

A
R
T

If you want to run in circles, go at it, but I'm not doing laps with you.

Fact: Drug cartels use weapons purchased in the USA.
Fact: Upon the expiration of the Assault Weapon Ban, the drug cartels become more well armed.

So if they could get them without us, why didn't they?

Sure, they had guns before, but we've enabled them to be more armed.

Having assault weapons does not equate to having freedom.

I'm certain you'll disagree, but we were free before assault weapons existed.

You've created a very narrow view of freedom tailored to your desire for unrestrained access to weapons.

A
R
T

Yes, I am an engineer. As such, I feel the need to convey that in the end, any weapon is engineered. Engineering is more than the fabrication, it is the specific drafting of a refinement of a tool to a specific purpose. Having said that, it is foolish to say that all guns are engineered to the same objective. I will certainly agree that many firearms are designed for the self-defense of an individual, however to ignore that more advanced weaponry's primary design objective is to attack/assault is ignorant. Certainly, the creators of the AK-47 or M-14 do not market their product as anything but the best option for a military to use to attack. My point here is that engineering acknowledges that a piece of technology is tailored for context. A state/country has a compelling interest in controlling access to armament which is not DESIGNED for self defense.

Mexican drug lords aren't buying guns for defense. They aren't buying these specific weapons because they are good for defense; they select these weapons for the purpose of attack.

A
Ratatat
T

I don't see how cosmetic features like pistol grips make a weapon more suited to attack and less suited to defense.

You can deny the facts as long as you like. I don't need to convince you of them. They are true without your acknowledgement. This does not require your consensus. I'm perfectly comfortable siding with the numbers while you advert.

Freedom is has nothing to do with assault weapons.

I'll agree to a citizen's right to own a weapon for self defense, and their right to use it. What I won't do, is use the right to self defense as the green light to have ANY weapon. That is idiotic.

Assault weapons are not engineered for self defense, they are engineered for attacking people.

If you lack the good judgement to understand the difference here, then you're just announcing your irrelevance, proudly.

A
R
T

oralloy wrote:

I don't see how cosmetic features like pistol grips make a weapon more suited to attack and less suited to defense.

You're cherry picking. You choose the most cosmetic of features for examination to suggest that all classifications of assault weapons and simply cosmetic.

Features like selective rate of fire (assault rifles)

and flash suppressors are not simply cosmetic and are designed to better suit attack.

Attack
R
T