the Mexican Drug War

Funkenpants wrote:
Sorry, Mexico. We're trying to help, but it's critical to the NRA that some gun shops along the border make a profit out of your problems:

WASHINGTON — The National Rifle Association on Wednesday filed a lawsuit challenging a new federal regulation requiring gun merchants along the border with Mexico to report bulk sales of certain semiautomatic rifles, contending that the Obama administration exceeded its powers by imposing the rule last month without Congressional permission...The rule requires licensed firearms dealers in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas to report within five days whenever someone buys more than one weapon like a variant of the AK-47 assault weapon. The rule covers any semiautomatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine and ammunition larger than .22 caliber.

We really do have a ridiculous little country here. We can't do anything that makes god damned common sense. Heaven forbid that someone be unable to profit from something that materially ruins the lives of others.

Wow, I'm not used to thinking of the NRA as lunatic fringe, but they sure sound that way in those pull quotes.

DSGamer wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
Sorry, Mexico. We're trying to help, but it's critical to the NRA that some gun shops along the border make a profit out of your problems:

WASHINGTON — The National Rifle Association on Wednesday filed a lawsuit challenging a new federal regulation requiring gun merchants along the border with Mexico to report bulk sales of certain semiautomatic rifles, contending that the Obama administration exceeded its powers by imposing the rule last month without Congressional permission...The rule requires licensed firearms dealers in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas to report within five days whenever someone buys more than one weapon like a variant of the AK-47 assault weapon. The rule covers any semiautomatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine and ammunition larger than .22 caliber.

We really do have a ridiculous little country here. We can't do anything that makes god damned common sense. Heaven forbid that someone be unable to profit from something that materially ruins the lives of others.

If the executive can just decree this in these states for AK-47s, what is to stop them from decreeing it in all states for all guns?

LeapingGnome wrote:
If the executive can just decree this in these states for AK-47s, what is to stop them from decreeing it in all states for all guns?

So you just want them to ignore the fact that thousands of firearms bought in those border states end up in the hands of drug gangs in Mexico?

I, personally, see no problem with requiring all firearm dealers to report bulk sales of semi-automatic rifles.

The NSSF are also asking for a writ of mandamus to compel the ATF to adhere to the operative language of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. A writ of mandamus is an order from a court to an agency, in this case, ordering them to perform their duties correctly.

LeapingGnome wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
Sorry, Mexico. We're trying to help, but it's critical to the NRA that some gun shops along the border make a profit out of your problems:

WASHINGTON — The National Rifle Association on Wednesday filed a lawsuit challenging a new federal regulation requiring gun merchants along the border with Mexico to report bulk sales of certain semiautomatic rifles, contending that the Obama administration exceeded its powers by imposing the rule last month without Congressional permission...The rule requires licensed firearms dealers in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas to report within five days whenever someone buys more than one weapon like a variant of the AK-47 assault weapon. The rule covers any semiautomatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine and ammunition larger than .22 caliber.

We really do have a ridiculous little country here. We can't do anything that makes god damned common sense. Heaven forbid that someone be unable to profit from something that materially ruins the lives of others.

If the executive can just decree this in these states for AK-47s, what is to stop them from decreeing it in all states for all guns?

Don't you already have to register guns you buy and get background checks and whatnot?

Background checks, yes (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993). Registration depends on where you live and local gun laws. Nationally no because it goes against the earlier mentioned Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

The act also forbade the U.S. Government or any agency of it from keeping a registry directly linking non-National Firearms Act firearms to their owners, the specific language of this law ( Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 (2) (a)) being:

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

OG_slinger wrote:
LeapingGnome wrote:
If the executive can just decree this in these states for AK-47s, what is to stop them from decreeing it in all states for all guns?

So you just want them to ignore the fact that thousands of firearms bought in those border states end up in the hands of drug gangs in Mexico?

No, I did not say that.

I would encourage everyone, especially those living in Mexico to watch this.

[url=http://www.ted.com wrote:
TED: Ideas worth Spreading[/url]]In this passionate talk from TEDxSanMigueldeAllende that's already caused a sensation in Mexico, Emiliano Salinas, son of former president Carlos Salinas de Gortari, confronts the current climate of violence in Mexico -- or rather, how Mexican society responds to it. He calls on ordinary citizens to move from denial and fear to peaceful, community-based action. This is the first talk posted on TED.com that was delivered in a language other than English. (It has English subtitles by default.)

http://www.ted.com/talks/emiliano_sa...

RedJen wrote:
I would encourage everyone, especially those living in Mexico to watch this.

[url=http://www.ted.com wrote:
TED: Ideas worth Spreading[/url]]In this passionate talk from TEDxSanMigueldeAllende that's already caused a sensation in Mexico, Emiliano Salinas, son of former president Carlos Salinas de Gortari, confronts the current climate of violence in Mexico -- or rather, how Mexican society responds to it. He calls on ordinary citizens to move from denial and fear to peaceful, community-based action. This is the first talk posted on TED.com that was delivered in a language other than English. (It has English subtitles by default.)

http://www.ted.com/talks/emiliano_sa...


I agree with a lot of what he says, but

1) He's quite the wrong guy to spread the message, his family name has way too much baggage. He seems all right and it's a nice speech, but... I dunno, like Stalin's son giving talks about human rights. His dad almost ruined the country forever.

edit: Yeah, just reading the comments on that page you can get an idea of how controversial the guy is

2) Some of it is too naive in regards as to what the vast majority of the population in Mexico can actually do. In terms of money and survival, and education. It's a much more complex social problem than just "Yeah, let's get communities together and FIX IT WITH OUR HEARTS".

Just a simple social problem, as an example: Everyone I know, personally knows "someone" involved in the drug trade. Friends, or family, or the neighbor, etc. I myself know that some relatives are involved in that. What am I supposed to do? I don't use drugs and I live a decent life. The community itself is involved in the drug trade.

Yeesh.

Social media users who denounce drug cartel activities along the Mexican border received a brutal warning this week: Two mangled bodies hanging like cuts of meat from a pedestrian bridge.

A woman was hogtied and disemboweled, her intestines protruding from three deep cuts on her abdomen. Attackers left her topless, dangling by her feet and hands from a bridge in the border city of Nuevo Laredo. A bloodied man next to her was hanging by his hands, his right shoulder severed so deeply the bone was visible.

Signs left near the bodies declared the pair, both apparently in their early 20s, were killed for posting denouncements of drug cartel activities on a social network.

"This is going to happen to all of those posting funny things on the Internet," one sign said. "You better (expletive) pay attention. I'm about to get you."

Holy sh*t. Those are some forward thinking oppression techniques. I have to assume that's based on the results of social media in the Arab Spring. That's some seriously cold-blooded, vicious sh*t right there.

I double post because I'm scared.

Everytime I check this thread it makes me terribly unhappy, I can't believe what some people are capable of doing to one another. I should stop visiting this thread, but I feel like the world should probably be paying attention to this, and burying my head in the sand is not the right approach. Not that I can help in any meaningful way, but still... Blargh.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2003743/Mexican-drug-cartels-force-kidnap-victims-fight-death-gladiator-style-contests.html

Now kidnapping people for essentially human cockfighting. I hate to say this as I'm generally against war and especially against our current wars, but I could see the US going to war with various cartels soon. Very soon. And by war I mean US soldiers and tanks crossing into Mexico, airstrikes, you name it. This is insanity. Can we end the war on drugs, please?

Good luck, unless we suddenly elect a bunch of libertarian or green party candidates in 2012.

This may be something that should go into another thread, but at this point what the hell would happen if the war on drugs ended?

Prohibition led to the financial backing and development of large groups of people with the skillset to smuggle illicit materials. Once alcohol was no longer a source of income they largely moved into harder drugs and other illegal pursuits.

Here in Mexico by all accounts we have groups of people that are even more skilled, funded, and vicious. If tomorrow we wake up and 21-year olds can buy heroin, crack, etc at WalMart, then what do these groups do instead? I doubt that they will go quietly into the night.

Probably they'll use their money and guns to take over the Mexican government completely, and go legit. Right now, they benefit from tough drug laws, so they WANT a weak government that the US spends lots of money and equipment and, ideally, soldiers propping up. Once we're no longer artificially making the product scarce and expensive, they'll need to move into other businesses to maintain their lifestyles, and I suspect they will do so at gunpoint.

One of the few goods things about the hyper-militarization of US policing is that there's no way it would work here, but down in Mexico, once the cartels no longer need that government to maintain the fiction of a winnable drug war, they'll just take it over outright.

Malor wrote:
Probably they'll use their money and guns to take over the Mexican government completely, and go legit. Right now, they benefit from tough drug laws, so they WANT a weak government that the US spends lots of money and equipment and, ideally, soldiers propping up. Once we're no longer artificially making the product scarce and expensive, they'll need to move into other businesses to maintain their lifestyles, and I suspect they will do so at gunpoint.

One of the few goods things about the hyper-militarization of US policing is that there's no way it would work here, but down in Mexico, once the cartels no longer need that government to maintain the fiction of a winnable drug war, they'll just take it over outright.

Gangsters did many new things when prohibition ended in the states..."going legit" was not even close to the main one.

Nomad wrote:
Gangsters did many new things when prohibition ended in the states..."going legit" was not even close to the main one.

Joe Kennedy built his fortune through bootlegging.

I don't even know if I should bother updating with every crime, it's something every day.

http://www.narcoviolencia.com/2011/0...

35 dead bodies dumped on the street in front of a popular shopping Mall in Veracruz.

Nomad wrote:
Malor wrote:
Probably they'll use their money and guns to take over the Mexican government completely, and go legit. Right now, they benefit from tough drug laws, so they WANT a weak government that the US spends lots of money and equipment and, ideally, soldiers propping up. Once we're no longer artificially making the product scarce and expensive, they'll need to move into other businesses to maintain their lifestyles, and I suspect they will do so at gunpoint.

One of the few goods things about the hyper-militarization of US policing is that there's no way it would work here, but down in Mexico, once the cartels no longer need that government to maintain the fiction of a winnable drug war, they'll just take it over outright.

Gangsters did many new things when prohibition ended in the states..."going legit" was not even close to the main one.

What were these many new things that were not legit? I can tell you one thing they didn't do was sell booze at ridiculous margins because of laws that cant be enforced. Thats what this is about.

jowner wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Malor wrote:
Probably they'll use their money and guns to take over the Mexican government completely, and go legit. Right now, they benefit from tough drug laws, so they WANT a weak government that the US spends lots of money and equipment and, ideally, soldiers propping up. Once we're no longer artificially making the product scarce and expensive, they'll need to move into other businesses to maintain their lifestyles, and I suspect they will do so at gunpoint.

One of the few goods things about the hyper-militarization of US policing is that there's no way it would work here, but down in Mexico, once the cartels no longer need that government to maintain the fiction of a winnable drug war, they'll just take it over outright.

Gangsters did many new things when prohibition ended in the states..."going legit" was not even close to the main one.

What were these many new things that were not legit? I can tell you one thing they didn't do was sell booze at ridiculous margins because of laws that cant be enforced. Thats what this is about.

No, but they did sell cocaine at ridiculous margins. I'm not arguing that we should keep up with the war on drugs since the criminals will move on to something worse, I'm saying that if we do something to dry up their current revenue we need to be prepared for these guys to turn to gun-running, human trafficking, or some other violent pursuit and be proactive about it.

Sure, but there's not the same kind of money in those enterprises, so they will get steadily weaker as the government forces find them and lock them up. Without that endless gusher of cash, they become defeatable.

So, yeah, there might be more crime in other areas for awhile, but it will be inherently self-limiting.

Mex wrote:
I don't even know if I should bother updating with every crime, it's something every day.

http://www.narcoviolencia.com/2011/0...

35 dead bodies dumped on the street in front of a popular shopping Mall in Veracruz.

One of my friends was discussing this with a take to the effect "yet another reason to avoid meth and coke", yet she'll happily smoke a bowl of weed.

Am I right in suggesting to her that she's just as much part of the problem as meth-heads? Or am I confusing reality with the TV show Weeds?

Jonman wrote:
Mex wrote:
I don't even know if I should bother updating with every crime, it's something every day.

http://www.narcoviolencia.com/2011/0...

35 dead bodies dumped on the street in front of a popular shopping Mall in Veracruz.

One of my friends was discussing this with a take to the effect "yet another reason to avoid meth and coke", yet she'll happily smoke a bowl of weed.

Am I right in suggesting to her that she's just as much part of the problem as meth-heads? Or am I confusing reality with the TV show Weeds?


I think it is probably worse than meth. A lot of meth is made here in the states.