mexico's largest drug cartels join forces

oh yeah i bet theyre ONLY using fully automatic weapons and grenades, every single one of them. Give me a break. And we're not talking about domestic crime either, it about weakening the cartels IN mexico who buy their guns from the us.

It's not about criminals breaking the laws, its about denying them the opportunity to break the law. Of course criminals are still going to try and find the guns, but it will be harder, and thusly they will have to spend more money, for less weapons of lower quality.

Seriously, fuck the law abiding citizen who thinks hes entitled to an ak-47.

just fuck him.

  42Orange said:

oh yeah i bet theyre ONLY using fully automatic weapons and grenades, every single one of them. Give me a break. And we're not talking about domestic crime either, it about weakening the cartels IN mexico who buy their guns from the us.

 

It's not about criminals breaking the laws, its about denying them the opportunity to break the law. Of course criminals are still going to try and find the guns, but it will be harder, and thusly they will have to spend more money, for less weapons of lower quality.

 

 

Seriously, fuck the law abiding citizen who thinks hes entitled to an ak-47.

 

just fuck him.

this i agree with

  alpaca said:

  Hanratty said:

  Al Hounos said:

  GORDO said:

or legalizing drugs.

 

This is the only real solution. Look at what happened to american organized crime after prohibition ended.

 

 

do you think this Mexico violence puts any added pressure on the legalization argument?

 

 

i was flipping the channels yesterday and saw this exact argument on fox news

 

 

now there are arguments from both non-smokers and smokers, coupled with california having no money AND obama okaying the dispensaries...why not tax the largest cash crop

 

 

i can't see them legalizing anything other than weed though

yes, the economy and massive budget deficits at all levels and to a lesser extent, this drug war, should create the most fertile ground for weed legalization to sprout from that we have ever had.

It's still not going to happen though. I'm pretty sure Obama has said several times that he opposes legalization.

and yeah, hard drugs and psychedlics, never.

As long as they don't damage the WATMM server, everything should be fine.

can someone explain to me the american love affair with weapons?

Mexico has the coolest rebels. The Zapatistas have their own ska band, and they're actually quite good

  azatoth said:

can someone explain to me the american love affair with weapons?

Guns are very much a symbol of "freedom" for some. Not to mention a representation of masculinity, power, and domination. Its been a deeply ingrained part of our culture since the very beginning of the establishment of the usa.

  ezkerraldean said:

Mexico has the coolest rebels. The Zapatistas have their own ska band, and they're actually quite good

omlol that is awesome

edgey, you make me sick. why on earth would a decent, law abiding citizen need a fucking assult rifle? there is not good person on earth who has any need for seriously destructive, dangerous weaponry, and if your actually boohooing at the possiblity of these weapons becoming illegal, then i really cannot understand you atall.

  messiaen said:

edgey, you make me sick. why on earth would a decent, law abiding citizen need a fucking assult rifle? there is not good person on earth who has any need for seriously destructive, dangerous weaponry, and if your actually boohooing at the possiblity of these weapons becoming illegal, then i really cannot understand you atall.

Zombie Apocalypse

Ok, im prepared to concede zombie apocalypse as a need for assault weapons. I take it back.

  messiaen said:

edgey, you make me sick. why on earth would a decent, law abiding citizen need a fucking assult rifle? there is not good person on earth who has any need for seriously destructive, dangerous weaponry, and if your actually boohooing at the possiblity of these weapons becoming illegal, then i really cannot understand you atall.

got to agree. absolutley no need for a civilian to have assault rifles. wtflol?

  42Orange said:

  Salvatorin said:

This looks awesome, I hope this escalates.

 

what the fuck is wrong with you.

You can't tell me it wouldn't be awesome to be around while the world transitions, and everything you know and believe in, your whole moral upbringing, is tore down? I'm just saying, passively, I'd like to see every opportunity for world disruption get their fair amount of success.

  Joyrex said:

  GORDO said:

  Joyrex said:

  GORDO said:

or legalizing drugs.

 

 

also it's not a matter of having an effective armed fore against it, it just doesn't work.

 

colombia tried, didn't work. it's a matter of gathering and using intelligence.

 

Well, to be fair, Columbia had the problem of the FARC using the drug trade to fuel their Civil War... in Mexico, it's just greedy Cartels wanting more money and a country out of which they can operate with impunity.

 

they had both problems and when they used brute force to try to solve them they became one. andres escobar wasn't a "revolutionary". mexico has had it's share of "guerrilla" groups, there are a few active still.

 

the brute force approach the US took in their "war on drugs" also failed.

 

Agreed.

 

  Salvatorin said:

  42Orange said:

  Salvatorin said:

This looks awesome, I hope this escalates.

 

what the fuck is wrong with you.

 

You can't tell me it wouldn't be awesome to be around while the world transitions, and everything you know and believe in, your whole moral upbringing, is tore down? I'm just saying, passively, I'd like to see every opportunity for world disruption get their fair amount of success.

 

Yeah, real awesome until somebody cuts open your wife right in front of you and takes your unborn baby and forces the fetus to give themselves a blowjob. You are a fucking dumbass.

agreed, anarchy is cool and all until you have a family to take care of and feed. best solution to the "drug problem" is to legalize everything and tightly control it.

  Luke Fucking Hazard said:

jesus fucking christ

this is somewhat recursive

  messiaen said:

edgey, you make me sick. why on earth would a decent, law abiding citizen need a fucking assult rifle? there is not good person on earth who has any need for seriously destructive, dangerous weaponry, and if your actually boohooing at the possiblity of these weapons becoming illegal, then i really cannot understand you atall.

...aside from the zombie apocalypse...

so your reason behind needing brutally powerful automatic weaponry is so that you can shoot bottles? what on earth are you going on about. these weapons make it extremely easy for unpleasant, evil people to kill as many people as they want. but makiong them illegal and therefore harder to get would be a human rights travesty because you wouldnt be able to shoot targets with them? grow up.

  Al Hounos said:

  alpaca said:

  Hanratty said:

  Al Hounos said:

  GORDO said:

or legalizing drugs.

 

This is the only real solution. Look at what happened to american organized crime after prohibition ended.

 

 

do you think this Mexico violence puts any added pressure on the legalization argument?

 

 

i was flipping the channels yesterday and saw this exact argument on fox news

 

 

now there are arguments from both non-smokers and smokers, coupled with california having no money AND obama okaying the dispensaries...why not tax the largest cash crop

 

 

i can't see them legalizing anything other than weed though

yes, the economy and massive budget deficits at all levels and to a lesser extent, this drug war, should create the most fertile ground for weed legalization to sprout from that we have ever had.

 

It's still not going to happen though. I'm pretty sure Obama has said several times that he opposes legalization.

 

and yeah, hard drugs and psychedlics, never.

i haven't looked into too much, but with his stop of the raids i bet it would be chill for california to legalize, hell the whole west coast probably would

but i agree there won't be any federal legalization

  messiaen said:

so your reason behind needing brutally powerful automatic weaponry is so that you can shoot bottles? what on earth are you going on about. these weapons make it extremely easy for unpleasant, evil people to kill as many people as they want. but makiong them illegal and therefore harder to get would be a human rights travesty because you wouldnt be able to shoot targets with them? grow up.

lol

I see no "brutally powerful automatic weaponry" anywhere in this thread.

That big scary looking black rifle in the video is less powerful than a common hunting rifle and is only semi-auto and thus not even an assault rifle. It is fun to shoot at bottles though. :)

Less powerful IDM rifles ftw?

  Dreddy Schwager said:

  messiaen said:

so your reason behind needing brutally powerful automatic weaponry is so that you can shoot bottles? what on earth are you going on about. these weapons make it extremely easy for unpleasant, evil people to kill as many people as they want. but makiong them illegal and therefore harder to get would be a human rights travesty because you wouldnt be able to shoot targets with them? grow up.

 

lol

 

I see no "brutally powerful automatic weaponry" anywhere in this thread.

 

That big scary looking black rifle in the video is less powerful than a common hunting rifle and is only semi-auto and thus not even an assault rifle. It is fun to shoot at bottles though. :)

Seriously... An AR-15 is a brutally powerful weapon? It's a semi-automatic small bore rifle. I've gone skeet shooting with more powerful weapons, that AREN'T on the ban list (they don't LOOK dangerous! lol.).

Punish criminals, punish crime, do not punish the innocent. As far as gun trafficking (selling guns illegally), that is a trafficking issue, not a rights issue. So punish the traffickers (less than 1% of all gun dealers in the entire country), not everyone else.

When will you realise that criminals do not care about law. If someone is intent on taking someone elses life, do you really think they're concerned about a minor infraction? Do you think they obtain these weapons by legal means? Have you ever looked into the number of crimes committed by legally registered firearms? Over 80% of gun crime is committed with illegally obtained firearms... so, I'll say it again, they don't care about the gun laws, so the only people being punished are those that already obey the law.

In regards to freedom:

You can choose NOT to own firearms with or without gun control measures.

You lose that choice, you lose that freedom, with gun control measures.

So, feel free to oppress yourself, by imposing law on yourself, but don't force your agenda on others. You are not any safer with gun control legislation (statistically proven to have no effect on lowering violent gun crime, look into the expired assault weapons ban), you are only less free to make the decision yourself.

"Je ne suis pas d'accord avec un mot de ce que vous dites, mais je me battrai jusqu'à la mort pour votre droit de le dire."

It's disappointing that most media outlets have nothing better to do than sensationalize these issues. There's very little conversation about root causes and treatment. In many ways this is all very political, militarizing the border, tougher gun control and immigration laws, validating Plan Mexico. Narcosphere has an interesting article about recent coordinated busts related to some of this.

Curious what some of you consider what constitutes an assault rifle. I got into a discussion about this the other night. I for the most part believe in the right to bear arms, but I do think there are circumstances and places where gun control is acceptable if condoned by the public. I don't agree with most federal gun regulations that present themselves on the basis of public safety because that is an entirely circumstantial viewpoint. While gun regulation might make sense in the inner city, it doesn't in the back country of Alaska. I think full on gun bans should be limited to city, county and maybe state jurisdictions - not federal. If a bunch of red neck hicks want to own a closet full of guns, so long as they all vote for it I don't see why its of any grave concern to the rest of America.

Back to the assault rifle stuff. Last night the discussion I got into was quite interesting because a good number of the people present felt that a semi-automatic weapon was equal to an assault rifle. This is important because there has been talk about semi-automatic weapon regulations and bans, which I don't support. I think just about any rational person can agree that people don't need to own AK-47's, but I often find that the discussion of assault rifles seeps into a discussion about any weapon that can fire more than 1 round without reloading. I propose anyone who thinks semi-automatic weapons have no 'use', protection or otherwise, head out into the wilderness with a bolt action rifle and cross paths with a grizzly and her cubs.

I think my biggest gripe with the whole gun issue debate, or American politics in general, is that these issues become polarized. We got anti-gun people who want safety and peace of mind, and we got pro-gun people who rattle on about the need to protect themselves and freedom. Nobody seems to want to address the middle ground - that there are thousands of law abiding gun owners who own a couple weapons for hunting, target practice and should the need arise, a form of defense. These people shouldn't be punished because a bunch of anti-gun people can't see why anyone would need a gun, and because a bunch of pro-gun people think they shouldn't be inhibited in what kinds of weapons they can own, nor should they be punished because dimwits are selling guns illegally to mexican cartels. While we're on the subject, lets ban Alcohol because people drive drunk.

The inherant problem with "middle ground" is that the opposing argument, being "extremely left" or "extremely right" holds more merit, because of the depth of the argument (they make a "stronger case" because of the extreme aspect of the argument).

Each side must one up the other to prove their point, escalating their argument just to keep up with the opposing viewpoint. Sooner or later, middle ground isn't an option, and the only way to "win" is by carrying an extreme viewpoint. The old addage rings true, "give them an inch and they'll take a yard". Gun activists cannot tolerate even the slightest infraction of their 2nd amendment rights, because we live in a country of law, and law is based on precedent, and once the precedent has been set, it opens the door for further legislation. So they are unwilling to concede any degree of rights they feel are theirs (for fear of more legislation). Likewise, to keep up with the argument, gun opposition must carrying an equally impressive strong argument, by going in the extreme opposite.

Common sense no longer prevails, and polarity is all that's left.

Well unfortunately I agree with you on that, which is why I hate modern politics so damn much. Non the less, us 'middle grounders' know enough about paper tigers to get by.