He Didn’t Just Lie About Arizona: Calderon Fibbed About Assault Weapons, Too
In a very rare event, the president of Mexico addressed a joint session of the United States Congress last Thursday. Unfortunately, Felipe Calderon abused the opportunity by lying to the assembled representatives, senators, and government officials for the express benefit of his faltering country.
Twice.
It has already been widely reported that Calderon misrepresented Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law. His own nation’s laws punishing even poorer immigrants surging up from Central America are far more draconian, but the obvious hypocrisy apparently left no foul taste in his mouth.
What was more pathetic about his speech in front of our government is that he attacked laws Americans have passed to protect our citizens from the kidnappers, drug dealers, and murderers that are Calderon’s most worrisome export … and he received a standing ovation from Democrats for his effort.
Homeland Security Secretary (and former Arizona governor) Janet Napolitano and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder actually leapt to their feet in agreement with Calderon — objecting to a simple ten-page law they admit to not having read and which mirrors U.S. laws they will not enforce.
This was all widely seen and covered. Calderon’s second blatant lie, however, although greeted with another standing ovation from Democrats, curiously has received very little coverage and no critical opposition whatsoever.
That deception came as Calderon attempted to further meddle in U.S. affairs, declaring that Congress should reinstate the failed Clinton-era assault weapons ban to help in his battle against Mexican drug cartels:
“There is one issue where Mexico needs your cooperation. And that is stopping the flow of assault weapons and other deadly arms across the border,” Calderon said to a standing ovation from U.S. lawmakers.
Calderon said the increase in violence in Mexico had coincided with the 2004 lifting of a U.S. assault weapons ban.
The 10-year ban on the sale of assault weapons to civilians expired without being extended by Congress. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has said the administration favors reinstituting the ban, though gun rights groups oppose it.
Calderon said he respects Americans’ Second Amendment right to bear arms, but said many of the guns are getting into the hands of criminals.
Mexico has seized around 75,000 guns and assault weapons in the last three years, Calderon said. He said more than 80 percent of them came from the United States, and noted there were more than 7,000 gun shops along the border.
“I would ask Congress to help us, with respect, and to understand how important it is for us that you enforce current laws to stem the supply of these weapons to criminals and consider reinstating the assault weapons ban,” he said.
President Calderon’s assertion that Mexico has seized around 75,000 guns and assault weapons in the last three years — and that more than 80 percent of them came from the United States — is a bald-faced lie. It simply is not remotely connected to the truth.
Why did the Democrats give standing ovations to the recitations of this lie?
They did this because this is one of the inconvenient truths that the Democrats ignore because it doesn’t dovetail with their agenda. They are very much the believers in the adage that the end justifies the means. The end in this case is to flaunt the Constitution and disarm law abiding citizens. Why would they do this? They do this because it takes power away from the government when citizens have power of any kind and they can’t tolerate this.
The truth does not live in today’s Democrats, only the lust for power.
When the politicians see no risk from the media to catch the lies, report the lies, they lie with impunity.
Exactly right bill-tb! Even I, just a regular guy, was shocked when Calderon produced this whopper hard on the heels of the first lie. I was even more shocked that even our friends on the conservative blogs didn’t bring it up right away (until PM did of course). Really, we should have seen this story the day of the speech. The progressive blogs or the LSM? You’ll never hear a peep.
This Calderon speech was an orchestrated campaign event by the White House and the Democrats in Congress. They are solidifying the Mexican and broader Hispanic vote. Which shouldn’t be difficult because Republicans are busy handing it to them through support for all the screaming going on about illegal immigration. Too much of this paranoid rhetoric involves attacking hard working, decent, migrant workers who sacrifice so much to send money back to their families. Calling them ‘criminals’ is at best stupid, ignorant and insensitive, and at worse simply bigoted. Most Hispanics have relatives, mothers, fathers, etc who were illegal and they respect them..they don’t like ugly faces yelling about how they are ‘criminals.
I really despair at the conservative movement, because I think liberals are killing this country in so many other ways, and here we go wasting our valuable political capital on screaming bigotry about migrant workers.
Thanks, Bill, for the commentary. It’s fantastically worthless, and telling.
Decent people don’t break several laws.
Hard working people don’t have welfare babies.
No one is attacking migrant workers who are here legally. You saying other wise is dishonest. Why do you have to lie?
Sending money back that should be going to legal immigrants and citizens and being spent to keep this economy strong not keeping afloat one that is so corrupt the leader has to lie about things.
Calling them criminals in not stupid ignorant or insensitive. It is called being honest because they are criminals. Ignorant is not being honest enough to call a criminal a criminal. And it is bigoted, against illegals. Illegal is not a race. That you equate illegals, a moniker you aren’t honest enough to actually call them, to hispanics is bigoted.
Ugly faces yelling at them? Nice way to garner support there…. By the way they are criminals. That is what you call some one who commits a crime.
I despair that you are so dishonest both intellectually and as a bases for your argument. Political capitol isn’t being wasted on securing this country and calling for the end to the criminal flood of criminals and their underlying crimes.
You have no credibility with you dishonest remarks and pathetic cry of racism. You lack integrity and as such have relegated your self and your argument to irrelevance in the discourse.
Let’s drop most of the invective against the border crossers and apply it where it really belongs – the American employer. That’s the first ‘criminal’ in this whole affair. Unfortunately, we are unwilling to look at our own part in this mess because it’s always easier to blame the other.
No demand, no supply. It’s that simple.
And let’s take down that sign on our border that says ‘Don’t sneak into the country but we’ll hire you if you do.’
Well, you could add the federal gov’t to that list for another reason- you can collect SSN’s, but if the agency sends them back as incorrect for that name, you CANNOT ask that employee to prove they’re legal, you just have to ask for and resubmit the SSN. Maybe that’s a cluster-f of Washington state law with federal, I’m not sure, but I do know the small business I work in had problems with that with a couple of employees. Firing them is difficult in terms of having to deal with unemployment costs, etc, especially if they did nothing wrong on the job, just had ‘paper-work issues’. So, you can follow all the regs to the letter, and still hire illegals.
Now, we could dry up social services and benefits, and/or make it more transparent to be able to ask about legality and set up a robust system of checks for it. Hell, if a gun shop can check all my records through the FBI to make sure I can buy a guy, surely we could set up a secure ICE site/line to determine green-card status.
@Sgt Ted (response to #22)- that fact has been one of the most annoying things I’ve come across in the last few years (I used to attend a lot of gun shows growing up, and was immersed in gun collecting culture). The majority of weapons laws I’ve come across (outside of stringent regulations of things like full-auto machine guns) seem to be based on ‘banning the scary looking weapon’ and not on any kind of logical exploration of crime use, potential volume of damage, etc.
There is one especially troublesome defect in your argument, your claim that a failure to enforce the law is a sign of paranoia. Sir, if those in charge of enforcing the law refuse their duties, the country is on the way to losing its sovereignty. Perhaps you actually wish to travel down this road, but most Americans realize that enforcing the law is not a sign of bigotry. Rather it is essential to the maintenance of the republic. Tyrants hate the rule of law, for it intrudes upon their own desire to rule everything; patriots champion the rule of law, for it secures the rights of all. The law exists to protect the objective rights of citizens, not to pander to the noisy demands of whiny special interest groups, not to wallow in subjective effusions of “sensitivity.” There are legal avenues that people wishing to enter America may travel. Your focus is much better placed on helping people travel these legal routes rather than excusing them as they stray down the destructive roads of criminality. If you really care about these people, advise them to follow the rule of law. Republicans who are attempting to uphold the rule of law are already performing this better service.
Illegal Immigration is not a victimless crime. For the illegal immigrants it places them in a position of poor wages and at the hands of other illegal immigrants who pray on them.
For America you yourself points out that most of the Illegal immigrants siphon money out of the US. They also drive wages down for basic labor jobs making more Americans poor. They also take up jobs that teenagers used to do that helped our youth learn about work and responsibility. They are also adept at dodging taxes having grown up with no respect for their own government.
This is not a little thing at all. It is giant sucking wound in our country.
Minor nit:
prey, not pray.
Point taken. Too much dependence on spell checkers.
So you answer is ..appease the hispanics until the next round of demands
appears? Is that what principled conservatism means? Giving the country away
forever ..in the delusional belief that 4th grade illiterates will vote
Republican?
How about this..white American securing our borders independently of Obama and
standing ready to fight if he tries to stop us.
The Second Civil War to preserve the Republic..and the enemy is Obama and the Left.
I despair the some self-described conservatives don’t get it that illegals and liberals are on the same team. They both flout the property rights of Americans to determine who is in their country, as much for national security as to prevent our social safety net from bankrupting us. Calling them criminals is naming illegals for what they are. They cut to the head of the line in front of more deserving others. You might think of enforcing our borders as one way to win back American votes – e.g. the votes of black Americans who get the worst end of the illegal alien deal and directly compete with these folks for jobs. Send home 10 million illegals and put 10 million Americans to work! And speaking as someone who went on to college (and indeed a graduate degree) whose first job involve a hoe and a vineyard at age 14 in the 100 degree weather, there are no jobs Americans won’t do. Maybe we want a bit more $$ than the illegals, but then we’re not sending the money to Mexico.
It is wrong and immoral and disgusting to equate an illegal migrant worker with criminals who steal, rape, rob, etc. When you call them ‘criminals’ this is what you are doing. Coming into this country illegally to work is not a felony. And it should not be.
Most Hispanics in this country have relatives who came here illegally. They know their mother or father, or grandparent, was a good person who sacrificed greatly for their family. They resent it when you imply otherwise and call them criminals. And you should be ashamed of yourself for doing so.
These same Hispanics are most of them conservative. They agree with us conservatives on taking responsibility for your own life, working hard and being self reliant. They are mostly pro-life. They would be on our side if we framed our opposition to open borders in a different way. And it could be done. It is possible to be against the open border policy the feds have followed and still follow without blaming the good people who take advantage of this wink and nod our government has been giving for decades.
Once again you let sentimentality cloud your mind. People who cross the border illegally are criminals, despite your protestations. Now, there are varying degrees of criminality, ranging from infractions to misdemeanors to felonies; and the punishments will vary with the severity of the offense; but they are all crimes. Perhaps in Mexico such distinctions become confused in the general corruption, but if the citizens of America should intend to live up to the notions of the rule of law implied in our Constitution, clarity in thought and diligence in practice must abide.
Your second confusion is to focus on the trespass of the individual and to refuse to see how these trespasses magnified by thousands affect the sovereignty of a nation. If there were but few Mexicans crossing the border on their own initiative, the offense might be, for the sake of what is practicable, indulged a bit; but when tens of thousands are transported with the aid of violent criminals ready to shoot at those who might stop the flow, real felonies obtain and the integrity of the American nation is threatened. Add to this outrage the fact that the livings of the taxpayers are raped to provide mandated services for these criminals, then all but the willfully blind must admit that a grave injustice is being allowed to occur. You may be willing to tolerate–nay, you seem to relish this prospect–but real Americans will not abide it much longer. Comprende?
I too like heroism Bill. You depiction of the brave illegal aliens coming crossing the desert is touching. You left out the brave white American citizen working 48
hours a week to pay for it all..the overcrowded schools, bankrupt hospitals, subsidized housing. But lets talk about YOUR HEROISM BILL..I mean the sacrifices
you are ready to make for your ideals. Ready? So Bill will you sponsor a single illegal
alien?..just as immigrants were once sponsored here in the USA? Will you pledge and put $100,000 per immigrant in escrow against any cost to school districts. emergency
room costs, more teachers, criminal court costs, jail construction. I mean its the least you can do Bill for your ideals. What do you say?
Its hard for me to care about having to help out the child of a hard working illegal farm worker when we’re supporting the kids of second generation meth fiends. One of them is much more likely to grow up to be a productive member of society..which one do you think that is?
Nice feint Bill, but you actually answered your own question, as we certainly do have more than our share of problems dealing with our own abuses, addictions, and adversities without shouldering responsibility both socially, and financially of foreign citizens who break our laws by entering this country illegally. Also, meth addiction and drug/alcohol abuse isn’t unconditionally an American burden, but a global issue as well. My guess is that there are plenty of drug addicted foreigners illegally crossing our borders.
Then why don’t these brave, hard-working, conservative (and I’m guessing imaginary) Hispanics make themselves a decent country worth living in? Why don’t they elect honest politicans and stand up to the drug lords? Why don’t they help each other rather than arriving here expecting help?
Why is any of this my problem?
THe illegal immigrants either work under the table for cut rate pay, thus committing another crime called tax evasion, which can be a felony depending on the amount, or they purchase a fake SSN which can sometimes be someone elses real SSN, which is identity theft. More criminal behavior. Then, when they have knowledge of criminals in their communities, they don’t go to police, thus committing another crime, aiding and abetting, which allows criminals to commit more crimes, which involve drug trafficking and sometimes murder and other felonies.
See these aren’t honest people, hard working they may be. They don’t care about laws, nor do they care about those people who are hurt by their criminal conduct. They just want money.
So, quit apologizing for criminals. Quit denying their criminality.
I’m not too upset at Calderon. He’s President of Mexico. He boldly advanced the cause of his country, even if he was not totally truthful. I wish some of our Democrats would do the same.
Didn’t you know? Many democrats think that advancing the cause of our country is the biggest threat to the world today.
No one could accuse a modern-day Democrat of an excess of regard for the notion of American exceptionalism; Scoop Jackson has long ago left the scene. We are still wondering just where your sentiments lie. So far you sound suspiciously Kantian, a dedicated one-worlder whose regard for unarticulated universality would let national sovereignty be damned.
I’m for securing the borders. I think illegal immigration is a problem. I think with technology we have today it is possible to reduce illegals from mexico to a negligible problem and it is a matter of politics, not ability, which prevents the feds from doing this. I support the AZ law authorizing the police to ask anyone they suspect of being illegal for documentation.
Nothing I have said from my earliest posts contradict my position on these things.
My earlier posts has to do with the way you and most other conservatives are going about this. We should sympathize with the people coming here for a better life. We should recognize them for what they are: economic refugees. If we catch them coming in, we should put them up in a nice air conditioned facility, where they are fed a steak and a big glass of ice tea, by friendly sympathetic guards while they wait for a bus to bring them back to the border. Then we should bill Calderon and the Mexican government for the expense of the buses, the arresting cops, the guards, the air conditioned cell, the steak, and the ice tea.
But you don’t want to blame the Mexican government for allowing and creating a crises which forces these people to risk their lives for their families, you don’t want to blame our government for winking and nodding so that industries here can pay cheaper wages. No, you want to hate on poor peasant who comes here to work. You want to call him a criminal. At least thats what it seems to me that you and others in this thread want to do. It seems bigoted to me as a proud white southern conservative, so I know how it must seem to anyone of hispanic descent.
Well, again you are letting “seeming” get in the way of reality and sentimentality trump a due regard for the rule of law.
First of all, I am not a Southerner.
Secondly, the brand of sympathy you want me to adopt would have me indulge the illegal immigrant at the expense of those who have to pay for his presence. Alas, sympathy is not a basis for deciding issues of law, for in the mind of any particular person, some people will always elicit more sympathy than others; such is the subjectivity of emotion.
Lastly, because I call a person a criminal does not necessarily mean that I hate him. It only means that I recognize that his behavior eats away at the social fabric of the nation. Like many “sympathetic” people, you wax quite arrogant in your presumption to know my motives. I suggest you reexamine your premises.
You also presume much when you assert what I want. The fact is I do want to subject employers who knowingly hire illegals to the full penalty of the law. And I certainly intend to vote for another brand of politician, one who won’t pussy-foot on this issue.
The truth is, we citizens of the United States are under no obligation to comfort people who enter the country illegally. Other people who have come to America wishing to become citizens have gone through the process of the law. To show the kind of sympathy you have in mind to illegals is manifestly to diminish sympathy for the efforts of the lawful. I sure as hell want to blame the corruption of the fascistic government of Mexico for hindering the citizens of that country from improving their own lives at home. But Mexico is a sovereign nation whose government would resent any reproach I should wish to set upon it. I am quite powerless to change what happens in Mexico. I am sure you agree that it would be wrong for me even to try.
Well, yes, and from what you have previously written, one would suspect that you agree with them.
Welcome our new NAU overlords. I’m sure the UN can send election overseers to see that Obama’s re-election meets exacting Mexican standards of fairness.
Did Napolitano and Holder really leap to their feet to give a standing ovation for the criticism of an American law they had not read by a foreign head of state? If so, they should both be fired for incompetence and political posturing. They are bureaucrats not elected officals or politicians. They have a job to do and oaths to fulfill and are not at liberty to hem and haw and pick and choose which laws they like and don’t like until one they approve of comes along. I was willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt when he took office – I thought, maybe he’ll do some good but I have come to loathe this administration. They are the closest thing to outright traitors I have ever seen.
There had better be a substantial political correction in November of this year. Otherwise either we all submit to Obama’s and his niggling clients’ version of one-world socialism or we summon the spirit of Andrew Jackson and thereby dedicate ourselves to more resolutely popular action.
No mention of Hugo Chavez importation of not only 100,000 AK-47s from Russia..but an entire Kalashnikov factory?? Why not?
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20081026.aspx
Chavez is manufacturing AKs without serial numbers and sending them north to
wreck havoc on the USA.
Bill McMahon, deputy assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, revealed last July that of the 100,000 weapons recovered by Mexican authorities during their drug war with the cartels, only 18,000 were determined to have been manufactured, sold, or imported from the United States.
Of those 18,000 weapons recovered and tracked to origins in the United States, just 7,900 came from sales by licensed gun dealers.
Just 8 percent of the weapons recovered by Mexican authorities came from U.S. gun shops, and the majority of those are suspected to be illegal strawman purchases, where people who passed federal background checks bought firearms and illegally transferred them to criminals.
In going to the link, we learn that of the estimated 100,000 arms confiscated in the US, Mexico submitted 20,000 to the US for determination of origin. Eighteen thousand of them were determined to be traceable to the US, and only 7900 of them were traceable to gun dealers.
There is no information given about the other 80,000. There is no information indicating that Mexico had traced the origin of the other 80,000. Unless we have such information, it is more accurate to see the 20,000 as a random sample, of choosing 1 in five. In that context, it would be misleading to state “Just 8 percent of the weapons recovered by Mexican authorities came from U.S. gun shops.”
What would make you think the selection of guns to trace by Mexican authorities was random? Are you that trusting?
I could quickly tell you what gun types are liking to have originated from the U.S. versus other parts of the world.
The cartels use lots of G3′s – the old German battle rifle that was used by many Central and South American militaries. Don’t bother checking those. Don’t check the full-auto AK’s, Uzi’s, and FAL’s – They aren’t from the U.S.
What the Mexicans did is make a big pile of M16 type weapons (probably pulling out the ones they know where sold to the Mexican government before being sold to the cartels), and American brand pistols. And they still got dissappointing results.
If you were a drug lord, why buy a semi-auto assualt rifle on the northern border when, for the same price, you could get a case of full-auto military rifles on the southern border?
The other 80,000 were untraceable because they had no serial numbers. Since it’s been the law that guns manufactured in the US have serial numbers for decades.
Either these guns are of US origin and over 50 years old.
Or they were not from the US.
It’s highly likely that all, or almost all of the untraceable guns, were not from the US.
Thanks for the info. That makes more sense. After all, if the Mexican government could find 70,000 captured firearms with serial numbers, it would send all of them to the ATF for tracing, because it would have made their case even stronger.
I stand corrected, MarkTheGreat and OldSoldier.
When a right winger uses the phrase “widely debunked,” that usually means just the opposite. Apparently the source of the “debunking” are a couple of would-be Sherlocks at Fox News, who apparently used only their twisted version of common sense and partial snippets of factoids to try to counteract somewhat more reputable sources.
Did you even read the Foxnews report that you linked to? The ATF claimed that 90% of the “traceable” firearms found in Mexico came from the US. It equals about 17% of the total number of firearms confiscated by Mexican authorities.
So when a Leftwinger uses a link to USA Today in order to prove a point, and ends up proving himself wrong instead, does it still count as widely debunked?
Nice try, but… no cigar!
A Look at the Numbers
In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced — and of those, 90 percent — 5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover — were found to have come from the U.S.
But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.
In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.
So, if not from the U.S., where do they come from? There are a variety of sources:
– The Black Market. Mexico is a virtual arms bazaar, with fragmentation grenades from South Korea, AK-47s from China, and shoulder-fired rocket launchers from Spain, Israel and former Soviet bloc manufacturers.
– Russian crime organizations. Interpol says Russian Mafia groups such as Poldolskaya and Moscow-based Solntsevskaya are actively trafficking drugs and arms in Mexico.
- South America. During the late 1990s, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) established a clandestine arms smuggling and drug trafficking partnership with the Tijuana cartel, according to the Federal Research Division report from the Library of Congress.
– Asia. According to a 2006 Amnesty International Report, China has provided arms to countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Chinese assault weapons and Korean explosives have been recovered in Mexico.
– The Mexican Army. More than 150,000 soldiers deserted in the last six years, according to Mexican Congressman Robert Badillo. Many took their weapons with them, including the standard issue M-16 assault rifle made in Belgium.
– Guatemala. U.S. intelligence agencies say traffickers move immigrants, stolen cars, guns and drugs, including most of America’s cocaine, along the porous Mexican-Guatemalan border. On March 27, La Hora, a Guatemalan newspaper, reported that police seized 500 grenades and a load of AK-47s on the border. Police say the cache was transported by a Mexican drug cartel operating out of Ixcan, a border town.
‘These Don’t Come From El Paso’
Ed Head, a firearms instructor in Arizona who spent 24 years with the U.S. Border Patrol, recently displayed an array of weapons considered “assault rifles” that are similar to those recovered in Mexico, but are unavailable for sale in the U.S.
“These kinds of guns — the auto versions of these guns — they are not coming from El Paso,” he said. “They are coming from other sources. They are brought in from Guatemala. They are brought in from places like China. They are being diverted from the military. But you don’t get these guns from the U.S.”
Some guns, he said, “are legitimately shipped to the government of Mexico, by Colt, for example, in the United States. They are approved by the U.S. government for use by the Mexican military service. The guns end up in Mexico that way — the fully auto versions — they are not smuggled in across the river.”
Many of the fully automatic weapons that have been seized in Mexico cannot be found in the U.S., but they are not uncommon in the Third World.
The Mexican government said it has seized 2,239 grenades in the last two years — but those grenades and the rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) are unavailable in U.S. gun shops. The ones used in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Monterrey in October and a TV station in January were made in South Korea. Almost 70 similar grenades were seized in February in the bottom of a truck entering Mexico from Guatemala.
“Most of these weapons are being smuggled from Central American countries or by sea, eluding U.S. and Mexican monitors who are focused on the smuggling of semi-automatic and conventional weapons purchased from dealers in the U.S. border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California,” according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.
As usual, you have the facts and logic backwards.
Forget the statistics about the origin of the guns. Mexico claims it sends drugs to the US because Americans have a huge appetite for illegal substances. Obviously, Mexicans have a huge appetite for weapons & for the sake of international relations, the US sends guns to Mexico. Both countries are just participating in the North American Free Trade Agreement, right?
I’m not an expert but common sense tells me most firearms going to Mexico from purchases in US are for ordinary Mexican citizens for self defense because they cannot legally acquire them in Mexico. I am sure assault weapons, etc., are not reaching drug cartels from USA.
Looks like some of the trolls are taking another tack- saying that they mostly agree with conservative ideas, but not quite everything.. . trying to win by degrees, eh? Only a fool believes that full auto weapons are being purchased at gun shows and then shipped to Mexico. just another UN type attempt to disarm one of the last bastions of individual rights.Keep buying ammo, we are going to need it, I fear. . . .
To Bildo: The fundamental difference between the Fox News piece and the USA Today one is that the former was massaging the news while the latter was only reporting it.
To Fireyourguns: There actually is a legitimate *dispute* on the numbers, but most of the authoritative sources have it in the 80-90%. The DHS disagrees (it’s been in a turf war with ATF over all this) and their comments are in the appendix of this GAO report. But a disagreement by a minority does not exactly amount to a “debunking” in any case.
“But a disagreement by a minority does not exactly amount to a “debunking” in any case.”
It does when the facts are on their side.
BC, if you are going to post then do so responsibly. Don’t post that a US Today article is an example of unbiased reporting early in the morning. It causes a great deal of damage to computer equipment as readers spew coffee due to explosive bursts of laughter.
There is no authoritative source putting the guns in Mexico as being 80-90% from the US. There are only wet dreams from those who put their fingers in their ears and cry “LA-LA-LA”. That is all they have since they have nothing even approaching the truth to support their anti constitutional agenda.
If Mexico could prove that 80-90% of the guns in Mexico are from the US they would have sent all of them here to prove their case. They can’t so they obfuscated. They can’t because close to half of all guns in drug lord’s hands in Mexico come from the Mexican army and Mexican police.
There have been two precipitate drops in crime in Arizona. The first was when gun laws were liberalized so that law abiding citizens may own firearms. The second has been when illegal aliens started leaving the state in large numbers first due to the recession and second due to stepped up enforcement of illegal immigration laws.
If Mexico could prove that 80-90% of the guns in Mexico are from the US they would have sent all of them here to prove their case. They can’t so they obfuscated.
Nails it.
To Michael: Did you actually click on the USA Today link and compare how they reported the news versus Fox’s little interpretation? Fox News is not a legitimate news organization, and I regard using them as a source the same as someone using something like Hot Air or The Free Republic — nothing but worthless, confused opinionating, and ultimately malicious spinning, twisting and outright BS.
For all the right wing’s bashing of the old news media — much of it admittedly deserved, but for mostly very different reasons — they fail to realize there are no legitimate alternatives at this time. Deliberate SEO manipulation of Google search results has made finding good info harder and harder all the time, and so called citizen journalists are no more than the equivalent of newspaper stringers at best, but without anyone fact checking and proofing their work.
I personally see the so called new media as increasing political antagonism because everyone can get his or own own set of philosophically agreeable “facts” from any number of boutique media outlets catering to specific demographics. Hence another likely reason for the eye-rolling polarizations in the country that seem to get worse even when you think they possibly can’t.
I have looked at many of USA Today’s stories and they show that that paper has an agenda. Of course everyone has an agenda. What is lacking today is the honesty to admit it.
It has been the insane lengths the main stream media have gone too to control citizen’s thoughts through selective reporting, tone manipulation in stories and outright fabrication and or incompetent fact checking. They have tried to take us far beyond the left anyone in this country would have believed possible even 20 or 30 years ago. The trust of the country hasn’t been betrayed so badly since the Yellow Journalism of the late 1800s. That is why the internet has become so important. It gives some chance of seeing wisps of truth among the offal being shoveled at the public, a chance to sift a wide range of information for a few pearls of truth.
It isn’t just the “antagonism” of the msm but the great lopsided shift. America was slightly left of center and slightly right of center for most of its history. Now politics is right of center and so far left of center that anyone over 40 now would not have believed in such a worship of socialism and condemnation of capitalism and of America’s history.
I stand by my points. Guns from America are a tiny fraction of the guns in Mexico. The partial info given to us only points to this. Look at what is said and what is not said, what is claimed and what is hidden or minimized.
Mexico has been a democracy in name only for all its history. It is an oligarchy of incredibly wealthy families who’s only thought for its people are how much can be taken from them without revolution. If Mexico still controlled California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas the people would still be just as poor. You don’t see that in the papers either do you?
To Michael: No, the so called MSM’s greatest sin is that it is no longer a collection of independent journalistic sources diligent in fact checking, exposing government and corporate corruption and misbehavior, and striving in general in keeping a neutral tone in presenting the facts fairly and in context: it’s now mostly the corporate media with an eye on profitability and in not upsetting too much its corporate parents. The result is more and more infotainment, an increasing low density of gathered facts, less checking of those facts, more timidity and impotency in going after powerful politicians and corporations, and an overall ever increasing diffusion of “news” in general.
Not long ago I watched the local TV news for the first time with some visiting family members and it was genuinely laughable about how little actual news was covered in a half hour. How much time can anyone afford in just getting well-informed?
I personally have certain milestones for when the state of the US news media took major steps downward, basically stories that got widely circulated and commented upon, but with little if any actual journalistic investigation: the first was Mike Barnicle’s alleged plagiarism of George Carlin (nope, didn’t happen); the second was the media “coverage” of the invasion of Iraq (there were plenty of red flags for there being deceit and lies afoot); and the Killian memos (nobody thought to even look up other early 70′s military memos for comparison, never mind what was then common office tech and proper military formats, or even really rummage through the official DoD records.)
Things since have only gotten worse, if not so stepwise.
BC, I agree that the media has a terrible record on getting facts strait. I have been a witness for a number of newsworthy occasions. The newspapers and TV news broadcasts consistently get not much more than 50% of the facts right. However I see purposeful manipulation of information as worse then mere incompetence for journalism.
That is why the New York Times in now irrelevant. It is incompetent and purposefully attempts to manipulate the information given to the citizens of America. It prints all the news that fits its agenda. It is the poster child for the rest of the media, the roadmap to the depths that the rest appear to aspire too.
Of the guns sent to the BATF, 80 to 90% were traced to the US.
You assume as you were trained to, that the guns sent to the US was representative of all guns captured.
Reality, as always does not favor the position you were instructed to take.
Of the 90% of guns that were not sent to the US, none can be traced to the US, for various reasons.
They are either types that are not sold in the US. That is, fully automatic weapons, grenade launchers, etc.
They had no serial numbers, which ALL guns manufactured in the US have.
Every topic is debatable, BC. Each and every person of course, will dig and dig to find facts supporting their argument, while naturally ignoring those facts that don’t. Taking a piece that was obviously either written by, or linked to a Government official/employee, and then pretending that the “source” was from “a couple of would be Sherlocks from Fox News” is clearly disingenuous at best, an outright lie, in fact! You should at least attempt to be honest in making your arguments, based on the merits of the article written, and not on a snarky attempt at smearing reporters just because they happen to be employed by a news agency who’s constant, and continuing #1 rating makes your somewhat involuted head explode! Good day!
BillinOlympia is a left wing moonbat and he only operates on emotion , hysteria and projection. Don’t feed the TROLL
Q: What do you call it when a foreign head of state lies through his teeth directly to your face?
A: Diplomacy.
the simplest solution is to turn off the jobs and entitlement spigot. If illegals can’t find work because employers face fines if they hire them and the Gov’t teat is too hard to suck because of stringent qualification hurdles, they will self-deport. the problem with this theory is that it depends on government workers to do their jobs properly and businesses to eat higher labor costs.
If he is worried about the flow of guns or contraband of any kind across his borders then he should want more than anything to SECURE THE BORDER!
He should use his resources to build a FENCE and enforce it from his side.
All his gun allegations are arguments for a secure, patrolled fence. Every time anyone raises this issue it provides an opportunity to point out this obvious fact.
That is exactly correct.
I can’t be too angry at President Calderone. His lies and hypocricy are in the interest of his country. If we are going to have a lying, hypocritical president, I wish that he would be as interested in our country’s interests as President Calderone.
Let’s take President Calderone at his word and build a fence along the entire US-Mexico border that will keep those icky US guns out of Mexico.
Calderon is a lieing skunk and would make an excellent DemocRAT Congressman.
I’m sure many of the weapons did come from the US. Our government supplied many thousands of military weapons to the Mexican Government. Those are routinely stolen by the drug criminals.
Other than those, it is far cheaper to buy military weapons in the arms bazzars of Latin America, Africa, and Asia. You can get the true automatic weapons easily there. Those weapons are hard to get in the US. That’s where most of our illegal automatic weapons come from. Thankfully, they’re relatively rare, here.
Anyway, who cares what the Tin Pot Leader of a failed Turd World hellhole that is infesting the US with its criminals, has to say. Of course, it bolsters the current Criminal Regime in Washington. Criminals hang out together.
7,000?!!!
“and noted there were more than 7,000 gun shops along the border.” The border according to wikipedia is 1,969 miles long. That’s basically 3.5 gun shops PER MILE. That is a gun shop every 500yds. Sounds like a plan!!!
Maybe Calderon’s real concern is that armed American citizens are better able to defend themselves from Mexican criminals. /gratuitous but well-deserved snark
‘Real assault weapons are fully automatic machine guns and submachine guns…”
No. “Assault Weapons” is a legal term. In CA, for example, it includes semi-automatic shotguns with detachable magazines, and a lot of versions of the AR15, SKS, and AK series weapons which are completely legal in other states. The term “Assault Weapon” has nothing to do with the capability to fire or be easily modified to fire in a fully automatic mode. In fact, any weapon which can be easily modified to fire as fully automatic is classified as a machine gun and banned under US law, unless it is a pre-ban weapon and registered appropriately under the proper classification with taxes paid.
Assault rifle is the technical term for certain firearms capable of select fire between full and semi-auto fire.
Assault weapon” is an invented term. In the firearm lexicon, there is no such thing as an “assault weapon”. The closest relative is the “assault rifle”, which is a machine gun that fires a medium power rifle cartridge. The authoritative source is the Department of Defense Small Arms Identification and Operations Guide: Assault rifle is defined as “short, compact, select-fire weapons that fires a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges” – i.e. a machine gun.
Firearms often referred to as “assault weapons” have no greater firepower than a hunting rifle or handgun. They are styled to look like military weapons, but have no greater killing capacity than other civilian weapons. By coming up with a name for guns that appear menacing, anti-gun groups have promoted confusion in the public, and to some extent legislators, and the media, about common firearms. With this confusion, they were able to push through laws that banned certain firearms based only on their appearance, not on the basis of its use in crime, its ability to inflict injuries, or any other semi-logical reason. Because of this, you will often hear people in the gun rights movement refer to the “ugly gun ban”.
“Assault weapon” in CA also refers to any long arm with a pistol grip, or a flash hider, or a detachable high capacity magazine, or a bayonet lug, or a folding stock. As such it has no real meaning other than to make illegal a series of firearms based on features unrelated to their lethality. A bolt action rifle firing the century old .30-06 round is deadlier than an AR, yet having a spiffy wood stock and bolt action is temporarily safe from the banners.
Well, unless you put a scope on it, in which case it morphs in the eyes of the Brady Bunch into a “sniper rifle.”
In any event, as used by politicians and the media, it is a term completely useless in classifying a firearm. It gives the metrosexual elite a delicious chill when contemplating the inbred racist yokels in flyover country.
Exactly. Note, “Assault Weapon” was invented to permit politicians to label specific SEMI-AUTO weapons (with little functional or performance difference from hunting rifles) they didn’t like so they could ban them. “Assault Weapon” as a legal term does take on a very specific meaning determined by politicians which can vary state-to-state, or even within a state as the the law changes over time. Again, in CA, note that the very definition indicates these are SEMI-AUTOMATIC firearms, not full auto or weapons which can easily be converted to full auto as they are already covered under the NFA, are heavily regulated by ATF, and the inventory of weapons in the public domain was frozen in 1986 with no new units being permitted:
“12276. As used in this chapter, “assault weapon” shall mean the following designated semiautomatic firearms:
(a) All of the following specified rifles:
(1) All AK series including, but not limited to, the models identified as follows:
(A) Made in China AK, AKM, AKS, AK47, AK47S, 56, 56S, 84S, and 86S.
(B) Norinco 56, 56S, 84S, and 86S.
(C) Poly Technologies AKS and AK47.
(D) MAADI AK47 and ARM.
(2) UZI and Galil.
(3) Beretta AR-70.
(4) CETME Sporter.
(5) Colt AR-15 series.
(6) Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR110 C.
(7) Fabrique Nationale FAL, LAR, FNC, 308 Match, and Sporter.
(8) MAS 223.
(9) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, and HK-PSG-1
(10) The following MAC types:
(A) RPB Industries Inc. sM10 and sM11.
(B) SWD Incorporated M11.
(11) SKS with detachable magazine.
(12) SIG AMT, PE-57, SG 550, and SG 551.
(13) Springfield Armory BM59 and SAR-48.
(14) Sterling MK-6.
(15) Steyer AUG.
(16) Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78S.
(17) Armalite AR-180.
(18) Bushmaster Assault Rifle.
(19) Calico M-900.
(20) J&R ENG M-68.
(21) Weaver Arms Nighthawk.
(b) All of the following specified pistols:
(1) UZI.
(2) Encom MP-9 and MP-45.
(3) The following MAC types:
(A) RPB Industries Inc. sM10 and sM11.
(B) SWD Incorporated M-11.
(C) Advance Armament Inc. M-11.
(D) Military Armament Corp. Ingram M-11.
(4) Intratec TEC-9.
(5) Sites Spectre.
(6) Sterling MK-7.
(7) Calico M-950.
(8) Bushmaster Pistol.
(c) All of the following specified shotguns:
(1) Franchi SPAS 12 and LAW 12.
(2) Striker 12.
(3) The Streetsweeper type S/S Inc. SS/12.
(d) Any firearm declared by the court pursuant to Section 12276.5 to be an assault weapon that is specified as an assault weapon in a list promulgated pursuant to Section 12276.5.
(e) The term “series” includes all other models that are only variations, with minor differences, of those models listed in subdivision (a), regardless of the manufacturer.
(f) This section is declaratory of existing law, as amended, and a clarification of the law and the Legislature’s intent which bans the weapons enumerated in this section, the weapons included in the list promulgated by the Attorney General pursuant to Section 12276.5, and any other models which are only variations of those weapons with minor differences, regardless of the manufacturer. The Legislature has defined assault weapons as the types, series, and models listed in this section because it was the most effective way to identify and restrict a specific class of semiautomatic weapons.
top
12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, “assault weapon” shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
(A) A folding or telescoping stock.
(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
(b) The Legislature finds a significant public purpose in exempting pistols that are designed expressly for use in Olympic target shooting events. Therefore, those pistols that are sanctioned by the International Olympic Committee and by USA Shooting, the national governing body for international shooting competition in the United States, and that are used for Olympic target shooting purposes at the time the act adding this subdivision is enacted, and that would otherwise fall within the definition of “assault weapon” pursuant to this section are exempt, as provided in subdivision (c).
Just goes to show that “El Presidente” gets his information from those same trashy and anti-american news sources that most liberals do. CNN, MSNBC, NYT, 7 etc.
Besides being arrogant beyond belief, Calderon has shown himself to be ludicrously ignorant and undereducated!
I wonder if he went to school in the US???:-)
Bob Owens wrote: “President Calderon’s assertion that Mexico has seized around 75,000 guns and assault weapons in the last three years — and that more than 80 percent of them came from the United States — is a bald-faced lie. It simply is not remotely connected to the truth.”
Bob Owens’ assertion regarding President Calderon is itself a bald-faced lie. Perhaps he should know better than to trust Reuters when he levels such an accusation.
Here is what Calderon actually said in his speech to Congress:
“We have seized 75,000 guns and assault weapons in Mexico in the past three years, and more than 80 percent of those we have been able to trace came from the United States.”
There are plenty of points to object to in the Calderon speech. But this Reuters lie echoed by Owens isn’t one of them.
I asked BATFE about this awhile ago:
20-April-2009
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Office of Public and Governmental Affairs
99 New York Ave. NE
Mail Stop 5S144
Washington, DC 20226
To whom it may concern,
I am writing regarding the issue of cross border flow of firearms from the United States to Mexico.
I understand that 90% of those firearms seized by Mexican authorities, and which are then also submitted to ATF for tracing, have been traced to “various sources” in the United States (2007, 2008).
Can you please tell me what those various sources are and what number of firearms are in each category?
I realize these numbers may be imprecise, but I am particularly interested in those which should be very clear. Which of these weapons can be traced to official aid provided by the United States to Mexico? That is, which, if any, of these firearms were legally imported by Mexico from United States law enforcement or military sources, or other government departments or programs?
I assume that such transfers from law enforcement or military sources in the United States will have been precisely documented.
In addition, can you provide a breakdown by type of weapon? Handguns vs long guns and the number of semi-automatic, automatic and other types would be extremely helpful.
Thank you in advance,
Duane Hershberger
etc…
I got a non-responsive response. This is my response to that (haven’t heard back yet):
25-June-2009
W. Larry Hord
Assistant Director
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Office of Public and Governmental Affairs
99 New York Ave. NE
Mail Stop 5S144
Washington, DC 20226
Mr. Hord,
I am in receipt of your letter dated 22-June-2009, a response to my inquiry of 20-April-2009. The information was not helpful and I do need further assistance.
In my April 20th letter, I asked for specific information about the sources of US firearms submitted to BATFE for tracing. You indicate that you have no information about “the total number of firearms seized by government authorities in Mexico.” Thank you for letting me know that cannot answer that question, but I did not ask it.
What I did ask, and what has not been answered, regards information you certainly have.
What are the various sources in the United States of those firearms submitted by Mexican authorities to the BATFE for tracing? That is, of the submitted firearms you have, or have had, in your possession – where in the US did they come from?
I specifically inquired about the following: “Which of these weapons can be traced to official aid provided by the United States to Mexico? That is, which, if any, of these firearms were legally imported by Mexico from United States law enforcement or military sources, or other government departments or programs?
I assume that such transfers from law enforcement or military sources in the United States will have been precisely documented.
In addition, can you provide a breakdown by type of weapon? Handguns vs long guns and the number of semi-automatic, automatic and other types would be extremely helpful.”
I think it is obvious to both of us that you have this information, since you have had the firearms in question in your possession for the purposes of tracing them.
Thank you in advance,
correction:
Machine gun ban was not Clinton era, it was adopted May ’86. If you are shopping for a machine gun and don’t have an FFL with SOT you’ll be looking for the ones listed as “pre-may” and not as dealer sample.
AWB did nothing about full autos, it was just silly cosmetic changes to semi-auto rifles and annoying magazine capacity laws.
Why are any of you surprised that Democrats would applaud foreigners who want to strip us of our borders or Bill of Rights?
Thank you! I’ve always found it laughable when people argue that the Mexican cartel war is fueled by guns from the US. As far as I know, the cartels are using full-autos, rockets, and grenades, stuff not easily obtainable in the US. If the guns did come from the US, you’d hear about cartels getting into shootouts with semi-autos with five-round welded magazines–probably wouldn’t make for a very long fight.
It is my belief that Calderon’s entire speech was written by someone on the Obamao staff.
I have long thought that the first step in solving Mexico’s problems is to guard the borders and force them to deal with their problems, acknowledging there will be greater personal suffering before they take control of their destinies. Second and maybe just as important is to allow every mexican citizen to arm himself as desired. Will the gangs dare take control if they knew all in the community would take responsibility to shoot when the necessity or opportunity arose?
OK if we have a problem with US guns getting into Mexico, lets build the fence and patrol it. Check more vehicles going in and out. Seems like we might have some common ground.
We can make this backfire on El Presedente’s Obama and Calderon.
Did anyone mention that there was an article stating that if was estimated that over 100,000 Mexico Army personnel were either discharged, retired or deserted and never returned their M-16′s? Now those are full auto weapons that went unaccounted. Also there is the rumor that as South America turns to dictators and AK’s there is an abundance of former democracy friendly M-16′s being sold to overthrow guerrillas and drug cartels. Mexico is probably sweeping as many of these under a rug that must be as high as Popocatepeti.
This dead horse cannot be beat any more. BillyOlympian and others need a reality check. Substitute the following senario,
You arrive at your home from work one day to find it occupied by a family, your outraged and ask them to leave, but they say look we have cleaned your house, washed your dishes and my husband has mowed your lawn and weeded you garden, all those jobs you don’t like to do. We want you to feed us, give us medical care, pay for our children to go to your school. You are outraged so you call the police, who inform you that you live in a sanctuary city and there is nothing they can do. You call you congressman who informs you he counts on the voting bloc who support those who have occupied your home, so there is nothing he will do. So suck it up and pay. It is always easy to empathise when it isn’t you who are involved in the problem. The people of Arizona have had it up to their collective eyeballs. Those who aren’t experiencing what have to contend with need to sit down and shut-up.
It is already a well-known fact that 99% of the illegal assault weapons in Mexico came from Mexico’s own law enforcement agencies or their military or other hispanic nations in South and Central America – not the United States. Calderon is the personification of of a lie.