Team Obama Halts Talk of Assault Weapons Ban

[friendly_iconoclast]

Source: Newsweek

A Gun Ban Gets Shot Down
Michael Isikoff
NEWSWEEK
March 28, 2009

From the magazine issue dated Apr 6, 2009
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is now the second member of President Obama's cabinet to get shot down by the White House over the politically sensitive issue of assault weapons. After meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderón, Clinton said that reinstating the U.S. ban on assault weapons—which was passed in 1994 and expired in 2004—is one step this country could take to curb the flow of guns to Mexico's drug cartels. "These military-style weapons don't belong on anybody's street," Clinton told NBC. Within hours, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that he was unaware of "any plans" to push for such a ban—even though Obama had backed one during last year's campaign.

Attorney General Eric Holder had a similar experience a few weeks earlier. After he endorsed a ban at a Feb. 25 press conference, Justice officials were instructed by White House aides to drop the issue, according to administration and congressional aides who asked not to be named due to political sensitivities. What's behind the shift? A budding relationship between the gun lobby and Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill. After Holder mentioned the ban, the National Rifle Association sent out action alerts to its members and bombarded Hill offices with calls. Sixty-five House Dems dashed off a letter to Holder opposing such a ban, while Speaker Nancy Pelosi—echoing the NRA's mantra on all gun-control issues—said she backed "enforcing the laws we have now."

NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre told NEWSWEEK that Hill Democrats have "learned their lesson" from 1994, when they enacted the ban and subsequently lost control of Congress. They've also learned that cozying up to the NRA can pay big dividends. Last year Democrats received 20 percent of the nearly $1.2 million that the NRA pumped into congressional campaign coffers—more than twice what it gave to Dems just six years earlier. The way things are going, this could be more than a shotgun wedding.




Read more: http://www.newsweek.com/id/191414

---

It seems that the President realizes that an assault weapon ban is no longer just an election-losing
issue, it is also un-Constitutional, thanks to the Supreme Court ruling in Heller vs DC

[Tim01]

1. White House, agenda, urban policy, crime, AWB

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy /


"They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent."


From President Obamas website. He says he wants to make the Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

[rq4a]

94. Change People Want

People voted for change in November. I voted for a change in how to run the war. I think many Americans voted for that kind of change too. It would be delusional to think that Americans also voted for a change in gun laws. Election after election proves it. Americans don't want that change.

[HPSteam]

122. WANT? Wants a terrible thing

First: When is a LAW not a LAW? When it's not a fuckn LAW! Can you see the game they play? As i recall, the AWB was a provision to a Bill not LAW, and it cost the dems dearly,losing both the HOUSE and SENATE. Ask a grown-up in the WHITE, someone might remember. And look, the GSL is back to, tiered regurgitated ideas. You wanted change at least reword it, how fuckn lazy can you get. What's left to believe in if our leaders forsake us with lies,old tiered lies? GOD! GBA

[katandmoon]

2. So Obama bends over for the NRA too. Fucking coward.

The majority of Americans support the assault weapons ban.
It's disgusting that Democrats use the ban as an excuse for anything.

Oh, by all means, gun worshippers -- let your dick extensions kill as many people as possible, as often as possible, as quickly as possible, if it makes you feel like real men!

[MercutioATC]

6. The majority of Americans are completely ignorant when it comes to firearms.

Can you tell me what's so horrible about the dreaded "assault weapon"?

[1]

8. awb supporters are like those that oppose stem-cell research...

they don't really know why, they just do.

a little education on the actual facts would probably change their minds. but they don't want to know the facts.

they are staunchly opposed and don't want to hear any more about it...

[cliffordu]

14. Yep.

[Vroomfondel]

25. This idiot-magnet awb has to rear its head....

every time a democrat is elected? What distracting nonsense. Any half-wit with a modicum of eye-hand coordination can do much more damage with a run-of-the-mill duck-gun than with the magical, mysterious "black guns" that the unlearned call "assault weapons". Jesus. L-E-A-R-N, people. Keep fucking with the gun issue, and you'll lose elections again, for another decade.

[Lorien]

28. Then stick to your "duck guns". nt

[Paladin]

41. People With Those "Duck Guns" As You So Scornfully Call Them.....

.... in many instances aren't possessed of the radically right-wing political views that the pistols-and-plastic-semiautos crowd exhibits. Yet again, confirmation of this is available every day in our very own DU Gun Dungeon. Not many Winchester and Ithaca types down there; the AK-47 and Glock boys have taken over the place. And their Democrat-hating, Obama-trashing, NRA-approved politics go on, non-stop. Along with their twisted, death trip fantasies. It isn't the "scary" appearance of assault weapons that's the truly ominous element, here---it's the disturbed mindset that comes with such weaponry.....

[X_Digger]

50. Gee, only 20% of gun owners hunt..

So there are more of 'us' than 'them'.

I, among many younger hunters, do hunt with scary looking guns. They're lighter, more durable, and have less recoil.

Don't let facts get in your way, though- 25% of NRAs campaigning was done for democrats, a 15% increase since 2004. What are you going to do when it reaches 50%? What boogeyman will you have to shake a stick at then, eh?

[Paladin]

66. Lighter, More Durable, Less Recoil, .....

...but the main reason you're using such firearms is because of those "scary"-looking features.

And as far as the NRA going to 50% Democratic support in the future: hold your breath. Even if it happens, the DU Gungeon will still be overflowing with the same old Democrat trashing that's been going on down there for years......

[X_Digger]

69. No, we're not hung up on appearances like some

I pick the best tool for the job. In generations past it might have been a springfield 03, which in its day was 'ooh, scary military styled' too. Now they're relics.

Depending on the game I'm hunting, and the distance I expect to cover, I choose a caliber appropriate to the situation. For javelinas in AZ, it was 223. I could get a mini-14 that looks like a conventional rifle, or I could get an AR-15 that shaves almost two pounds off and has a more comfortable stock. Same 5 rounds in the magazine, just a lighter rifle. Less kick, so if I miss and wound one, I can quickly reaquire sight and take the animal down rather than chancing it getting away and dying a slow painful death.

For hogs here in Texas, I haven't decided which caliber. A lot depends on where I'll be hunting because that determines the distances I'll have to shoot. If it's less than 400 yards, I'll probably pick something like 6.8spc. Since I can pull two pins and replace he 'upper half' of the same rifle with one that shoots a different caliber, it makes sense to stick with the AR platform.

Just for you, I'll go get some spray paint and make it camo so that it looks more like a 'huntin gun'.

re NRA support for dems- I'll feel sorry for a lot of antis when it does reach 50%- they'll be a boat without a rudder. Gotta have an evil scary conglomo-mega-lobbying-something-or-other-windmill to tilt at.

[Paladin]

71. I Hope You And Your "AR Platform" Are Happy Together.

And I stand by my previous comments, most of which you didn't respond to.....

[X_Digger]

73. Which part?

I addressed why I use and AR-15 to hunt, and I addressed what I see trending.. more RKBA friendly Dems getting the NRA thumbs up.

Was there another point in there?

[Tim01]

77. I can't make you not think guns are not scary. That's on you.

The features are functional. Be scared of whatever you like.

And as far as the gungeon being full of democrat trashing, people who don't like democrats can't stand this place, they are not here.
People are at DU because they are democrats or at least sympathetic to democrats. If democratic officials stop attacking the second amendment, the 2nd amendment democrats will just be happier with their political party. And there will be an influx of new democrats, I could give you a list of names.
There are a lot of people who have democratic ideas on everything except the attack of the 2nd amendment.

[ManiacJoe]

99. If by "scary" you mean "ergonomic"

then you are correct.

If that is not what you meant, please point out the scary features and what makes them scary.

[HALO141]

108. And lets not forget drop safe.

"I, among many younger hunters, do hunt with scary looking guns. They're lighter, more durable, and have less recoil. "

The scary guns are drop safe. Most sporting firearms are not.

[HPSteam]

118. With that said....There referred to as Bird or Goose Guns.....

I was a member of a Private Range/Shooting Club (IWLA) for
16yr. in Md. and proud just to be in their number! And it's
true that they Had no use for arms like the
HBAR,FAL's,H&K's and thought only idiots owned (that
Commie shit)AK's and surrogates.Never bothered me watching a
beer sucked down between target change.DON'T TOUCH/HANDLE A
WEAPON!!!PERIOD!During target change.That's a LAW. And their
Shotgun of choice? What are they doing,
Trap,Clay's,Turkey,Fowl Hi/Low land etc..etc The most
expensive Shotgun i ever fired was a Merkel O/U ,$20,000.00
,not the most $ i've handled either. When i here the name
"Redneck" to describe or label someone, a life
style or vehicle(s) gives me a smug little smile. Because
Redneck's are if anything truly (all inclusive) and the
Fuckin heart & soul of this Nation! GBA

[HPSteam]

124. Guns...guns...gun

IT'S the water,gotta be the water! But Shotguns are Assault weapons. Look at the assortment of loads, types and actions and hey, there also Black or could be painted. Right. Seems like somebodies just pushing the buttons for affect.

[primavera]

46. Then the majority of Americans shouldn't have them, should they? n/t

[X_Digger]

51. A majority don't know how a race car is different than a tricked out 4 banger..

Shouldn't have them, either?

[primavera]

52. Nope

If you don't know how to safely drive a race car, no, you shouldn't have one of those either.

[X_Digger]

57. Nice dodge.. (no, not the car)

Assault Weapons are the tricked out 4 banger, NOT the race car.

[HALO141]

110. The majority of Americans don't. (n/t)

[HPSteam]

123. On your knees or else

The playing Field is to level/even and they don't like that. It could lead to self-rule, Anarchy, Revolution, Hemorrhoids and worst case scenario global cooling. (What can't be controlled can't be trusted) GBA

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. Obama (albeit grudgingly) shows respect for the Constitution, and you kick him for it.

You are suffering from the 'But Everybody I Know Voted For McGovern!' Effect.

The majority of Americans that you are in contact with support an assault weapons ban.
The majority of Americans don't.

Anne Richards (like you), falsely thought restricting guns was more popular than it really is,
and lost her re-election bid to George W. Bush.

That worked out not so well for the country and the world. Wouldn't you agree?

President Obama, being smarter than the average bear, having looked at the polls, listened to smart people, remembered history, and read the Supreme Court decisions regarding gun laws, did the smart thing.

As an aside:

What's with the phallic imagery in your posts about guns? Are you not aware that +/- 40% of American gun
owners are women?

Or are you, like, the last Freudian?

[No Elephants]

32. In fairness to Anne Richards, the SCOTUS had not ruled then. And, if we had listened to Ann,

we would not have had Dummya in the WH for the past 8 years.

And, in order for your post to work, you'd have to prove that the gun issue alone was what got Dummya elected and re-elected. I very much doubt it was.

[primavera]

48. By which you mean he respects what Mad Dog Scalia mistakenly believes...

... the Constitution to say.

Strange that, according to you, no one supports restricting guns, yet, according to all of the polls, a very solid majority of Americans favor stricter gun control laws and have for decades.

So, in sum, President Obama, having read the opinions of rabid right-wingers on the current Supreme Court and having looked at the polls, chooses to do nothing to accommodate the majority's repeatedly documented desire for stricter gun control. Sure sounds like a coward to me.

[friendly_iconoclast]

80. Folks like you do a great job of convincing people who already agree with you.

And convincing yourselves that you speak for most Americans. Because you either ignore, belittle, or
outright fear those who disagree. You don't need to know the facts about what you write about,
you only need to know "you're agin' it".

Just like Republicans.

Look at the frothing fits you and your 'allies' have posted here on this very thread after receipt of the news of Obama's stance.

~That's~ what I wrote.

Oh, and to be brutally cynical about electoral politics-

Any Democratic politician worth his or her salt can perform the following calculus, and
President Obama certainly did:

"If I squelch an assault weapons ban, some people will be pissed and not vote for me.
A small fraction will go Green Party, but not many. I stay in office, the Democrats stay in power,
and we achieve 80-90% of what we want.

If I attempt an assault weapons ban, 30-40% of the electorate will actively vote against me
and the Democratic party, I may very lose my office, the Republicans will regain power, and any good we might have done will go down the sewer."

I don't like 'cafeteria Constitutionalism' coming from Republicans, I sure as Hell hate it
coming from my own party, and I will do my utmost to keep people like you and your ilk
from handing the next midterm elections to the Republicans, like you did last time an
assault weapon ban was in play.

[rq4a]

92. A telephone poll is not a vote.......

A telephone poll is not a vote. Gun restrictions don't have votes. Let me fill with an approximation of how votes go:

[Tim01]

9. Why are you so obsessed with penises?

[bluestateguy]

10. If you ban those guns, what makes you think people will turn them in?

More so, what makes you think the criminals will turn them in?

What would you have happen to people who choose not to turn in their banned guns?

How would you enforce the law?

[1]

11. dude, if you ban those guns people do not have to turn them in. it is still legal to own them...

we had the sacred assualt weapons ban from 1994 to 2004. and anyone that owned one of the banned weapons before the date of the ban could still legally own it, sell it, trade it, shoot it at a range... whatever.

nobody... john q. public or the bad guys had to turn them in. as a matter of fact, any weapon built before the date of the ban could still be legally sold as brand new. and there were millions of them available in gunshops across america even into 2004. the manufacturers saw it coming and stepped up production. you don't think they are doing that now?

to paraphrase a favorite movie... "this word 'ban.' i do not think it means what you think it means."


but again, that would require a little knowledge on the part of awb supporters...

[cliffordu]

13. You win. stupidest asshole post of the day.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[virginia mountainman]

22. RIGHT...ROFLMO!!

The Majority??? REALLY?!?!? LOL than why is the AW Ban a GUARANTEED ELECTION LOOSER????

It is REFRESHING, to see MY PARTY, and the PARTY of my forefathers, slowly returning to the roots of its power, and defending the WHOLE bill of rights!! As it should have long ago...

LOL and what is with the penis reference?! Why do you keep talking about them for???

If you don't like MY Party, you can feel free, to go over to the "republican side" with Sara Brady, M Bloomberg, and Paul Hemike.....They feel the same way YOU DO...

[No Elephants]

33. Um, it isn't a guaranteed election loser. See Post # 2, for just one example. As far as YOUR

party, LOL. Republicans are, in general, more pro-gun control than Democrats? Is that REALLY the position you want to go on record as asserting?

[virginia mountainman]

44. HELL YEA!! I have absolutely no problem standing up for our civil rights..

Why do you????


And YES, it is FACT that most of the "movers and shakers" in the gun control movement are Republicans.

Sara Brady Founder of the Brady Campaign...Republican
Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign....Republican
Mike Bloomberg, Bombastic mouth peace and proud supporter of Gun Control, Republican
Caroline McCarthy, poorly spoken supporter of all things gun control, WAS a Republican until she realized she need to be a Democrat to win in her district....

[SteveM]

104. Add to the GOP list: Charles Krauthammer & former AG Gonzalez

[Mr. Hyde]

23. what about all the women who support the second amendment?

Are they trying to compensate for a small penis too?

[No Elephants]

35. No, for being stuck with a guy who has such a small penis that his manhood has to be tied up

not just in guns but in assault weapons. Of course, the desire to compensate is subconscious, or she'd probably simply divorce powerless Mr. Teeny Weensy, rather than deal with something as dangerous as assault weapons.

[spin]

55. Can you post a link to statistics that show...

that men who own "assault weapons" have a small penis? Or is it merely your own personal experience that led you to this belief?

[SteveM]

105. HA! LOL.

[Tim01]

85. Why are you thinking about penises?

[Lorien]

27. Seems to be doing just that

catering to the small but vocal thumb sucking bed wetting assault weapon hugging brigade. Very disappointing.

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. Looks like someone caught a bad case of "I only like PART of the Constitution"

Possibly from the recent Bush Jong Il crowd

Fortunately, it can be treated by sipping chamomile and a close reading
of Thomas Jefferson, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Robert L. Williams.

Repeat as necessary.

[1]

31. i heard if you light a candle and turn off your lights once a year, that helps too...

i don't know this to be true.

its just what i read...

[SteveM]

106. "small but vocal"? You might re-consider...

Estimates have the civilian ownership of semi-auto carbines ("assault weapons" to the controllers) in excess of 15,000,000. This number significantly exceeds the total number of hunters in the U.S., and places this class of firearm into the No. 1 best-selling rifle (save the .22s and .17s) in this country. In fact, this weapon (especially the AR 15) is evolving into the "new" hunting rifle. What will the gun-controllers now say when they discover that their "we don't want to take your hunting weapons" agitprop has been fused together by their own logic? Ironic, that a group which prospered by the INTENTIONAL confusion of semi-auto with full-auto will in a few years get pay-back when the "assault weapon" is confused with the "hunting weapon."

I don't know whose beds you have been in, but how many of those folks really sucked thumbs and wet beds? Why are you in bed with them?

[w4rma]

30. I strongly support Obama on this issue of *not* touching the AWB with a 10 foot pole. (nt)

[totodeinhere]

54. I agree that Obama should push for an assult weapons ban.

But calling President Obama a "fucking coward" is way over the top, and I object to it. He is no coward. You can disagree with him on this issue, but you owe him an apology.

[spin]

58. Why do you feel that the prior AWB was a success?

It was very successful for Republicans. Just the mere talk of reinstating it is hurting the Democratic Party and if Obama doesn't take a solid stance against the ban, will cause a loss of Democratic seats in Congress at the midterm.

God forbid that a ban passes. Obama can kiss his second term bye-bye. We'll be stuck again with another one term President.

[totodeinhere]

64. Too bad my crystal ball isn't as clear as yours. n/t

[spin]

79. I don't claim to be Nostradamus but...

you can always learn from history.

So why is the law being allowed to die?

*********snip*******

And Democrats — many convinced that the ban's passage cost them at least 20 seats in Congress in the 1994 elections and that Al Gore's support for gun-control measures cost him the presidency in 2000 — largely have backed away from pushing gun control.

*********snip********

The Democratic Party's approach to gun control has shifted because of the perception among party strategists that the issue is radioactive with many voters. Four years ago, Gore pushed for a national system to register gun owners. Party officials believe that was a key factor when he lost West Virginia, Arkansas and Tennessee, three states where hunting is popular. The election would have swung to Gore if he had won any of those states.

This year, Kerry has redefined the issue for his party. Although he supports renewing the ban, he has cast himself as a champion of gun owners' rights. On the campaign trail, he plays up his background as an outdoorsman and has posed for photographs dressed in hunting gear and holding a 12-gauge shotgun.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-09-09-assa...

(Note: John Kerry's attempt to portray himself as a outdoorsman backfired badly with real hunters and many gun owners. The laughter at the range was long and raucous.

The assault weapons ban was a "feel good" law that accomplish nothing except get the manufacturers of the crippled assault rifles to alter their appearance slightly. High capacity "clips" were still readily available just more expensive.

If anything the assault weapons ban dramatically increased the sale of military looking semi-auto rifles. All the shooters I know just had to have one and they all had to have high capacity "clips". I was an exception, although I am now considering buying one. If I do, it will probably be a better investment than gold, real estate or the stock market.

We finally have a Democrat as President and a slight control of both houses. Much good can be accomplished for the citizens of this country if we just refrain from pushing stupid "feel good" laws that merely alienate a significant number of voters who WILL show up at the polls for the midterm election and will make a difference.

We can instead concentrate on enforcing the laws we already have on the books and target criminal owners of firearms. Honest people are NOT the problem. We could also improve existing laws to insure that those with severe mental problems are stopped from purchasing weapons by the existing background check.

[Iktomiwicasa]

86. Obama pushing for a new ban

will make him a one term president, with a majority handed back to the opposition in the House and Senate. Is that what you want?

[cottonseed]

59. I don't believe most Americans support this.

[rq4a]

88. Most Americans Voted For Guns

Most Americans vote for guns. It is that simple. They are voting at the gun stores and they are voting at the polls. Not only are progun people are the majority, they majority is also pro-concealed gun permit. The anti-gun group is really a fringe group.

[TerribleLarryDingle]

78. What a ridiculously pig headed remark.

Obama is no Fucking coward but you sure sound like one.

[east texas lib]

84. Screech much?

Not very supportive of the president, either, by the way.

[rq4a]

87. You are a fringe group

You are a minority trying to hijack democaracy. Fankly I am tired of the lunatic fringe groups trying to get what they want. You don't get what you want because you don't have votes on your side. It is that simple.

[rl6214]

93. Dick extensions huh?

Didn't take long to get that out of the way, did it?

[Tejas]

102. Bait much?

katandmoon (1000+ posts) Sat Mar-28-09 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
2. So Obama bends over for the NRA too. Fucking coward.
The majority of Americans support the assault weapons ban.
It's disgusting that Democrats use the ban as an excuse for anything.

Oh, by all means, gun worshippers -- let your dick extensions kill as many people as possible, as often as possible, as quickly as possible, if it makes you feel like real men!

-------------------------------------------------------


Thank goodness you this in the Gungeon instead of GD, nothing but outright falsehoods.

Why?

[SteveM]

103. Ah, the Salami Meister has spoken (nt)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

113. Another drive by posting by a so called liberal calling our President a coward.

[HPSteam]

120. Very few can walk the walk or talk and walk but hear me....

(It's better to have a GUN and not need it then need a GUN and not have it!) NOTE: Gun sales are way up and i mean way up, people are scared, scared shit-less! Guns don't kill people, my Government does. Get the facts before the History books are re-written.If you missed your chance to buy a GUN then buy GOLD.GBA

[David__77]

3. good.

I don't want it to be passed.

[bluestateguy]

4. I'm pro-choice

Pro choice on abortion and pro-choice for people who choose to own a semi-automatic rifle.

The Bill of Rights includes the 2nd Amendment too. The ACLU seems to neglect that.

Gun control is racist and elitist.

[No Elephants]

34. The ACLU tends to fight battles no one else fights. If the ACLU does not fight for gun

rights, the very well heeled gun lobby will. And, as you well know--or should know--, it was only very recently-end of June 2008--that the SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd amendment is a personal right, even though the Constitution speaks of a militia. Prior to that, it was far from established that gun rights were unrelated to militias.

And, IMO, the Roberts court was simply wrong to ignore the militia language. Not as though the Constitution contains a lot of excess verbiage. I hope the SCOTUS overrules that decision even faster than the Roberts court is overruling the pro-choice decisions of the Rehnquist Court.

At that, the Roberts Court's decision was about the right to keep a handgun at home for purposes of self defense. It said nothing about assault weapons.

Further, the fact that a right exists under the Constitution does not mean that the right is unlimited. Gun folk seem to want a lot less regulation of guns than there is of any other civil right. Until cases further define the scope/limits of gun rights, the ACLU would be wasting a lot of scarce resources going to court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.h...

BTW, just out of curiosity, how do you know that nowhere in the US is the ACLU fighting for gun rights, or are you relying solely on propaganda that probably pre-dates the June 2008 decision? Cases take years to arise and then wend their way through lower courts and the right was articulated nine months ago.

Your knock on the ACLU for not fighting for gun rights could not be more bogus.

[X_Digger]

39. See ACLU's own website..

BTW, just out of curiosity, how do you know that nowhere in the US is the ACLU fighting for gun rights, or are you relying solely on propaganda that probably pre-dates the June 2008 decision? Cases take years to arise and then wend their way through lower courts and the right was articulated nine months ago.

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

This is post-Heller-

"The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue."

[beevul]

43. Your opinion...

"And, IMO, the Roberts court was simply wrong to ignore the militia language. Not as though the Constitution contains a lot of excess verbiage. I hope the SCOTUS overrules that decision even faster than the Roberts court is overruling the pro-choice decisions of the Rehnquist Court."

Your opinion ignores that the bill of rights is a restriction on governmental power. And thats not just MY opinion, thats a verifiable fact. Here, let me verify it for you:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org /

The founders said so themselves.




Your opinion ascribes meaning to the "militia language" where no such meaning has EVER existed, rageful howlings of Helmke and the brady camp (republicans) notwithstanding.


Reading the militia language for what it is - that being justification - is in no way ignoring it.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, BECAUSE a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

See that word "because" in the above sentence? Its quite similar to "being" in A2.

[Caliman73]

111. gun control is also ineffective

It does not decrease murder rates, it only decreases murder by firearm. People who are anti-firearm seem to think that taking firearms away will magically make people happy and peaceful, just like Prohibition made people sober, except it didn't and further gun restrictions won't stop people from committing crimes.

Instead of focusing on an object we need to focus on what causes people to commit crimes of violence. My guess is that desperation, greed, poverty, feelings of isolation, and other societal factors need to be addressed to bring violence under better control. A gun is a tool. In the hands of a person who respects the law and other people (which the vast majority of gun owners in the US do) it is basically a paper weight. In the hands of people who respect neither, they are deadly. Then again, so is a bat, or a tire iron, a knife, etc...

My solution is perhaps a simplistic one. It is two fold: 1. We need to address the societal factors that contribute to violence, most importantly poverty and inequality. People need jobs and mental health services available for when there are difficulties. If people feel they have more of a stake in society, their community, and in their personal lives, they are less likely to risk losing it by committing crime. 2. Since we all know that guns used inappropriately, can be very deadly, crimes committed with guns should receive longer sentences. People who are willing use a gun to rob or threaten, should get long sentences even if they do not harm the victim physically. People who use a gun to commit violence should receive especially long sentences without parole. The incentives to belong to society that are created by having access to jobs and quality mental health services, and the disincentives created by longer mandatory sentences for using firearms illegally should serve to reduce violence.

[1]

5. obama is absolutely correct on this issue...

"These military-style weapons..."

military looking weapons that are no different than regular semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols.

why are they so afraid of how a rifle looks?

bravo, president obama. he isn't afraid of how things look...

[No Elephants]

36. "So and so is correct" typically means nothing more than "So and so's opinion agrees with mine."

[excess_3]

12. what features do US --> Mexico guns have?

that make them assault weapons?

.............................
from Wiki. (definition of assault weapon)

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

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher

[cliffordu]

15. and they are prolly painted black.....

[excess_3]

17. what would stop Mexicans from fabricating a bayonet mount?

what would stop Mexicans from fabricating a bayonet mount,
and/or, a flash suppressor, a folding stock, grenade launcher.

if that is what they wanted?

[1]

18. HA! i love that definition...

"* Folding or telescoping stock"

omg! that could reduce the overall length of a rifle or shotgun by 9 to 18 inches! now that is scary.

"* Pistol grip"

ummm... this one amazes me. i got nothing.

"* Bayonet mount"

now see? here we have an actual argument! bayonet attacks are one of the leading... oh, wait. no. they are not. nevermind...

"* Flash suppressor"

again, this one amazes me. this has nothing to do with the lethality of a weapon. another cosmetic "scary" itam...

and finally...

"* Grenade launcher"

ummm... these are already illegal in all 50 states. as well as the grenades that the launcher could launch. i don't even know why this is on the list.


such amazing legislation awaits us for the next awb. i can't wait to read the stupidity of the next bill...

[dashrif]

42. I will repost this

Total murders.............................14,860..........100.00%
Handguns...................................7,543...........50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non bayonet)...1,954...........13.15%
Fixed bayonet on assault weapons...........1,914...........12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)....................1,598...........10.75%
Hands, fists, feet, etc......................892............6.00%
Shotguns.....................................517............3.48%
assault weapons..............................442............2.97%

So the real total for assault weapons is 15.85% we must do something bayonet charges will rise with the price of ammo going nuts. Please we have to stop this before some nut has a bayo rampage and takes out a whole mall, it is to deadly for anyone to have. You my ask me why because it never needs reloading and a full speed charge with lots of screaming can defeat body armor.

old usmc training vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eI2Ef7sH8c
redneck improved bayonet my god no we are so doomed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-ScV2jFiUg
proof on how deadly a fixed bayonet can be in trained hands watch the buttstroke to the head http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDeyGrUV-CI

Please sign my petition to outlaw bayonet lugs on assault weapons if gangs found out about them entire cities would perish overnight

1.Dashrif
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

[ProHeloPilot]

16. Wouldn't recommend this move...

Bad move. A real loser with blue dogs. Distraction. No upside.

[The abyss]

19. More cartoon news.

Assault Weapons are a military classification that was defined in the late 1940s via extrapolation studies that picked apart warfare tactics over a period spanning both world wars including the Spanish Civil War. It identified a class of weapon all participants had attempted to develop but was idealized by the MP43/44 and shortly after developed by the Soviets into the AK47 series.

It has nothing to do with any weapon available to US civilians since 1934.

We, the people, gave up that option long ago.

[raimius]

81. Almost....

The exact term would be "Sturmgewehr" (German, with the English being "assault rifle"). Assault rifles are SELECT-FIRE rifles chambered in an intermediate round (most commonly 7.62x39, 5.56mm, .223cal, or 5.45mm). ALL of the true assault rifles in America are NFA Title II firearms and have been heavily restricted since 1934, and banned for civilian production since 1986.

"Assault weapons" do not qualify, as they are semi-automatic ONLY, by definition (assuming one uses the '94 federal definiton).

[sutz12]

20. I'm glad, mostly...

I'd love to see it reinstated, but it is a fight we don't need right now.

We DO need to figure out how to stop the flow of guns south into Mexico. That is the proper emphasis now when it comes to guns.

[virginia mountainman]

24. The Mexicans are not even trying ...

For example, here is a link to a satellite photo, of the Mexican boarder south of San Diego..

Notice the HUGH complex in the center of the photo...That is the American side, with all of its lanes, checking out cars coming north...

See that little white building with just a couple of lanes to the south of the much larger one???

That is the Mexican side, checking the cars going south.......

http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&hl=en&ll=32.542576,...

If they Mexicans where serious, they would have a building at that border crossing that would be at least the size of a large gas station....

[No Elephants]

37. The HUGH complex?

[friendly_iconoclast]

26. Thing is, we don't what the actual flow of guns south into Mexico is like

Since the Mexican goverment, to my knowledege, has not provided the serial numbers of the guns
they claim to have seized to the US government.

I suspect that most of the weapons seized are sourced from non-US makers, and the ones that ~are~
from the US have been diverted from MX government arsenals.

In other words, the Mexicans are blaming the gringos to save face, and some USAians either
believe them and/or are willing to go along with them for the purpose of promoting a new assault weapon
ban.

But that's just cynical old me...

[HPSteam]

119. HOW to stop the gun flow....

First, give HRC a calculator to help Her with the Big Lie because those numbers are a little off. And why would the fine people of Mexico or better yet their government help perpetrate the Lie? Maybe a promise of State Hood was made now that would kill 3 birds with one lie. Jokes on Mexico.

[HPSteam]

125. Till the cowards come by

How long do ya think it'll take finding and taking all them
guns any old way. Huh, 2, 300 hundred years.

[Doctor_J]

38. Sure glad that we liberals "won" in November

[MercutioATC]

40. Not all liberals are scared of guns.

Gun bans are NOT something real liberals do,

[virginia mountainman]

45. Real Liberals do not pick and choose ....

Amongst our civil rights, that is what Republicans do....

It is clearly ALL, or nothing..

[fascisthunter]

47. real liberals can read and understand what they read in the Constitution

gun nuts make shit up t suite their agenda. No where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to own or sell an assualt weapon. But it does say "well-regulated militia"... so your talking point is garbage.

Also, real liberals aren't as scared of people attacking them as you are so they never really see the need to protect oneself in the manner you see necessary. By saying people should have guns, you are creating a self-fullfilling prophecy. That's why I consider gun-nuts to be really gun lobbyists for gun manufacturers.... some really do believe the rhetoric, others know it's crap but repeat it so others do the same. Both are tools for the gun industry and not champions of people's constitutional rights... although they love to pretend they are... It's garbage...

[primavera]

49. Nice post, well said

[spin]

53. "real liberals aren't as scared of people attacking them ..."

try explaining that to my daughter who was able to stop an intruder forcing open the sliding glass door of our home by pointing a .45 cal revolver at him. Note: a burglar alarm was blaring and a 60 lb Labrador Retriever was in the house.

[paulsby]

76. ah, the "scared/fear" canard

1 of the 3 illogical ones used by gun grabbers, civil-rights opponents.

the others are the "penis" and "need" canards.

i have fire insurance. i am not "scared" of my house burning down.

i carry a firearm. i am not "scared" of being presented with deadly force.

i merely choose to be prepared.

[hack89]

65. As a 40 year old man, I am a member of the militia

according to Federal law. Can I have one?

[rq4a]

91. Duty to own a gun and train

Yes you can have one. Not only can you have one, but it is your duty as a good citzen to own one. According to the Militia Act of 1792, it is your duty to keep your personal weapon at home and to train with it. Not doing so is to poor citizenship and neglecting your democratic duties and responsibilities.

[raimius]

82. Nice attack on the ones arguing, rather than the actual argument.

Yes, both sides do make stuff up.
However, once one looks into the facts and statistics, there are well-founded arguments on both sides. I side on the pro gun-rights side.

You are correct that the constitution says nothing about assault weapons, which makes sense since the term came into vogue in the 1980s and is a cheap knock-off of the term "assault rifle" (developed in the 1940s, by the Germans). Similarly, the 1st Amendment makes no mention of fax machines, should we ban those as well?

As was discussed in the Heller case, the militia-clause is a reason for, not a limitation on the PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms. The point is not garbage, but Constitutional law. If you are going to argue legalities, it would be best to frame your argument on the law.

I see quite a few people who are aware of the fact that over 1 million violent crimes occur in the US every year. I know a lot of people who have taken steps to protect themselves. Some study martial arts, carry pepper spray, have a whistle and cell phone, or travel in groups at night; while others have firearms. Are you claiming that NONE (not a SINGLE MEMBER OF THAT GROUP) is an actual liberal? If so, how did you come to that conclusion?

[rq4a]

90. Sorry but your horribly wrong. Not even close

Developments last year in the Supreme Court are very clear. Your wrong. Not only are you wrong, but your not even close. Heller v DC is very clear. The militia clause means nothing to individual gun ownership. Gun ownership is a right completely seperate from any militia membership.

Since your wrong and now that you know it. What do you do? Do you change your mind and join people with the correct ideas?

[TheWraith]

96. Really? Then why haven't you read the constitution?

The statement about a "well regulated militia" is a preamble to the enumeration of a right. It's not a limiting clause in any way, and has ALWAYS been recognized as not being a limiting clause. It's explaining one of many reasons why the right needs to be protected on the federal level. Same with the fourth amendment: It explains that the purpose of requiring warrants is to protect people's right to be "secure" in their papers, possessions, etc..

As to not mentioning assault weapons, the first amendment doesn't mention computers: therefore, obviously, the founding fathers didn't intend us to have them and they must be banned.

[rl6214]

97. Nice try but

"gun nuts make shit up t suite their agenda. No where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to own or sell an assualt weapon. But it does say "well-regulated militia"... so your talking point is garbage"

When the constiution was written an assault weapon was a musket so they did have a right to own an assault weapon. What is a "well regulated malitia"? It is a group of citizens, non-military, that can be called upon in times of need to suppport the military/government using their own weapons they keep at their homes. No garbage here.

[HPSteam]

117. Guns....figures lie and liars figure...............

WHAT in DODs name are you so scared of any way? It's small minded people like you that caused me to STOP shooting at the range,just the idea of being pulled over by police and given the 20Qs scared me.If my WEAPONS are taken from me will i be pay'd current value for all WEAPONS? Something tells me not! WILL my dog also be taken due to nothing other then her BREED? SO were would it all STOP,were will it stop.Was the Bill of Rights read to you/for you/near you? I'm made to feel i don't fit in, out of place don't belong but non-tax paying ilegals climd a fence are embraced with open arms and allowed to stay. And what do you know about Prophecy? Look this one up, 666 ,and that's says it all. HPS

[cottonseed]

60. What's with the eye rolling? Obama never ran on the AWB.

I think it's misdirected smart-assery.

[one-eyed fat man]

107. some directed smart-assery

You either got snookered or failed to read what he put on his website as candidate.............

http://obama.3cdn.net/84b2062fc4a5114715_ftxamv9ot.pdf

Pay attention to this part..

"As a long-time resident and elected official of Chicago, Barack Obama has seen the impact of fully automatic weapons in the hands of criminals. Thus, Senator Obama supports making permanent the expired federal Assault Weapon Ban."

as long as you missed that part, we won't point out the duplicity of saying since "fully automatic weapons" are a "problem" that some how a ban on guns which ARE NOT fully automatic addresses the "problem."

[gulfcoastliberal]

56. I was surprised by Clinton's boldness when she said they would go to congress

to try & reinstate the AWB. She practically guaranteed the administration was going to lobby the hill for it.

[cottonseed]

61. Good

[lanlady]

62. can't believe this crap

We have people on DU who defend assault weapons?? After all the mass murders that take place each year on our streets, schools, universities? If a crib manufacturer's design causes 2 infant deaths, the crib is withdrawn from the market. But guns? Assault weapons? They cause thousands of deaths each year and you all rush to say, oh it's not the fault of the weapons it's those crazy psychos who SO EASILY GET HOLD OF THEM AND THE AMMO TO BLOW AWAY THEIR FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS. I lived thru Va Tech and I have no patience for this argument and the way gun defenders parse the 2nd amendment into a license to arm to the teeth and kill. I want a full scale crackdown, ban, whatever has to be done, on the sale of deadly weapons so we have no more Va Techs or Columbines. If Obama's going to cave to the NRA, then FUCK HIM, next time another Tech takes place, it's on his conscience.

[X_Digger]

63. You do realize..

..that an AWB wouldn't have stopped the Tech shootings, right? He used handguns, not evil assault weapons?

The only way that I can see for you to get what you want is a door to door search and confiscation of every single firearm.

You let us know how that's progressing.

[lanlady]

68. and what exactly WOULD stop this violence?

The kid got off 200+ shots in a matter of minutes. And that's not a weapon used in an assault? I don't care how the NRA or the gun makers choose to categorize weapons to fool the public about their lethality. It was a weapon of mass destruction, period.

[X_Digger]

70. I understand your frustration..

It is a terrible tragedy when things like this happen. Of course Cho assaulted those folks with his handguns. But that doesn't mean they fall into the category of 'assault weapons'- those are a legislated category of guns. They're much like other guns that aren't being targeted (no pun intended) but they have certain features. Those features don't make them any more dangerous than their non-targeted counterparts, so I'm left scratching my head.

My frustration (and a lot of pro-2a folks) is that the response to these tragedies from lawmakers is to propose laws that wouldn't have prevented the situation that started it, or that would simply be circumvented. For example, during the '94-04 ban, by removing certain features from some guns, the guns lost he distinction of being 'assault weapons'. Perfectly legal. That's why the AWB gets lambasted as a 'feel-good / do-nothing' measure.

Another thing that makes us scratch our head is that many of the targeted guns are of less power / lethality than 'huntin guns' that are not targeted for a ban. Not that we want those hunting guns banned too, but it doesn't make much sense to ban popular, medium power guns alone.

Assuming the lawmakers know this, it makes me wonder about their long-term agenda. If they can ban the 'scary looking' guns, when they are only used in less than 3% of crimes, what's next?

In the case of Cho, I think we need to have a comprehensive mental health plan on the table. These lone wackos who go off the deep end are the problem, not the means by which they inflict their mental aberrations on the rest of us.

In the case of criminals, not wackos, I'd think more measures to deter the use of guns in crime would be a start. Stop concurrent sentencing for crimes committed with a gun. Legalize many of the recreational drugs and clear out the nonviolent offenders currently there.

Maybe it's a guy thing- we like to 'fix' things. My wife gets so mad at me when she gets upset at something and I suggest a means to make sure it doesn't happen again. What she really wanted was commiseration.

[Paladin]

72. Congrats On The 19th Century Attitude Towards Women, Mr. "Guy Thing"

I commiserate with your wife---or is she your "Marital Platform"?

[X_Digger]

74. tsk tsk tsk..

That the best you got?

[rq4a]

89. Public Confusion is Anti-gun

It is clearly stated in an anti-gun website:

"The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm

The catagories are clear. The anti-gun people are depending on confusion for success. Public policy based on confusion is not good.

[TheWraith]

95. Pardon me, but reality is calling you.

Your post clearly demonstrates that either you don't give a damn about facts and language, or you're simply ignoring both in the interest of having your borderline hysterical rant.

The fact of the matter is that the Virginia Tech shooter used two perfectly ordinary pistols, of the kind that are about 100 years old. Calling them anything else, or trying to brand them as "assault weapons," is fearmongering worthy of the Bush administration.

I strongly suggest that you tone down the chestbeating and look up the dictionary definitions of "assault weapon" and "weapon of mass destruction." You'll find out that you're wrong by a few orders of magnitude.

[one-eyed fat man]

109. you must not have watched the cell cam footage

Cho wandered around for almost half an hour shooting people, casually reloading while the campus cops established a perimeter keeping anyone from interfering with him.

Just like the Columbine massacre, people bled to death while cops waited outside. Seems like Cho got so tired of waiting for the cops, he just shot himself.

[virginia mountainman]

114. Let me clarify

Even if the 1994 assault weapon ban was STILL in place, and had never expired...

It would have DONE NOTHING to prevent Cho, from purchasing the EXACT GUNS he did, and doing what he did...


In Short...

IT DIDN"T DO ANYTHING,(that would effect Cho) THEN, NOW, OR IN THE FUTURE.

[hack89]

67. About 450 murders per year due to all rifles and shot guns

if you want to save lives, I can think of a dozen or so other causes that will have a significantly greater impact.

[paulsby]

75. they don't cause any frigging deaths

criminals misusing them do.

unless you want to talk about accidental deaths, in which case gun accidental deaths rank FAR below other causes.

more kids frigging drown for example.

the only way to prevent the possibility of VA tech is to magically make ALL weapons dissapear, not just assault weapons.

a decent shooter can cause plenty of carnage with a revolver for fuck's sake.

furthermore, VA tech implemented a stupid gun ban that ENSURED that law abiding citizens would NOT have arms to defend themselves.

here in WA state, there is no such ban. and the UW is not a free fire zone as many gun grabbers would predict on a college campus that does not ban guns.

[raimius]

83. several issues here...

First, my condolences for experiencing the horror of the VT murders. I lost a friend in a similar shooting, and I would not wish that pain on anyone or their family and friends.

To the issues:
1. The problem we face is that criminals don't follow the laws. Cho should never have passed the NICS check, but the state of VA did not upload mental health records into the system. Similarly, he broke VT's ban on weapons on campus. Then, he broke several laws against assault and murder.
We can write thousands of gun laws (the US already has over 22,000), but what good will that do against someone who ignores them?

2. A child dying from an incorrectly designed/functioning crib is not the same as a firearm doing exactly what it is designed to do--propel a projectile, in a specific direction, at velocities humans cannot achieve by muscle power. When firearms do not function correctly, they are recalled, just like baby cribs.

3. Firearms are not responsible (in the legal way of thinking) for those deaths (minus the defective ones already mentioned). The end user is responsible for ensuring that no crimes are committed with the machine (firearm, car, computer, etc.).

4. The 2nd Amendment is NOT a "license to kill." It makes no mention of authorized killings. It ONLY acknowledges the right to keep and bear arms. The appropriate use of said arms is highly regulated by other laws.

5. If you are going to institute a full scale crackdown on deadly weapons, you will also have to ban things like propane tankes, fertilizer, cars, knives, scissors, hands and feet. Obviously, this will not work. Humans have been killing each other for thousands of years. This fact is unlikely to change in the near future.

5. (b) who are you to tell others what they can or cannot possess? Is it your place to deny other people the ability to pursue their legal hobbies and/or defend their lives from immediate danger from other humans or animals? In my opinion, you hold no such authority.

[HPSteam]

121. Shit, that's the whole can of worm's in a nut shell! But....

will any one listen or try to make sense of it all. No one to prosecute, and they want..need THEIR pound of flesh for THEIR closure! And so goes the circle of pain. GBA :patriot:

[friendly_iconoclast]

100. The only difference between antis and Freepers is the parts of the Constitution they want to shred

To 'keep America safe', of course...

Freepers: OMG, TERROR TERROR TERROR! Terrorists are gonna kill us all, we can do without the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. It'll be on the ACLU's head if they succeed.

Antis: OMG, GUNS GUNS GUNS! Guns are gonna kill us all, we can do without the Second and Fourth Amendments. It'll be on the NRA's head if they succeed.

[X_Digger]

101. Sad, but true :(

[east texas lib]

112. Bingo!

Well said!

[virginia mountainman]

115. LOL GREAT ONE!! NT

[Xela]

98. Good news, thanks for sharing. ntxt

notxt.

Xela

[SsevenN]

116. Lying idiots. Anti-gunners are liars.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/myth-percent... /

EXCLUSIVE: You've heard this shocking "fact" before -- on TV and radio, in newspapers, on the Internet and from the highest politicians in the land: 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States.

-- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it to reporters on a flight to Mexico City.

-- CBS newsman Bob Schieffer referred to it while interviewing President Obama.

-- California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said at a Senate hearing: "It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico and used to shoot judges, police officers and mayors ... come from the United States."

-- William Hoover, assistant director for field operations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, testified in the House of Representatives that "there is more than enough evidence to indicate that over 90 percent of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States."

There's just one problem with the 90 percent "statistic" and it's a big one:

It's just not true.

In fact, it's not even close. By all accounts, it's probably around 17 percent.

What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, "is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."

But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.

"Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market," Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News.

Video: Click here to watch more on where the guns come from.

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.

Boatloads of Weapons

So why would the Mexican drug cartels, which last year grossed between $17 billion and $38 billion, bother buying single-shot rifles, and force thousands of unknown "straw" buyers in the U.S. through a government background check, when they can buy boatloads of fully automatic M-16s and assault rifles from China, Israel or South Africa?

Alberto Islas, a security consultant who advises the Mexican government, says the drug cartels are using the Guatemalan border to move black market weapons. Some are left over from the Central American wars the United States helped fight; others, like the grenades and launchers, are South Korean, Israeli and Spanish. Some were legally supplied to the Mexican government; others were sold by corrupt military officers or officials.

The exaggeration of United States "responsibility" for the lawlessness in Mexico extends even beyond the "90-percent" falsehood -- and some Second Amendment activists believe it's designed to promote more restrictive gun-control laws in the U.S.

In a remarkable claim, Auturo Sarukhan, the Mexican ambassador to the U.S., said Mexico seizes 2,000 guns a day from the United States -- 730,000 a year. That's a far cry from the official statistic from the Mexican attorney general's office, which says Mexico seized 29,000 weapons in all of 2007 and 2008.

Chris Cox, spokesman for the National Rifle Association, blames the media and anti-gun politicians in the U.S. for misrepresenting where Mexican weapons come from.

"Reporter after politician after news anchor just disregards the truth on this," Cox said. "The numbers are intentionally used to weaken the Second Amendment."

"The predominant source of guns in Mexico is Central and South America. You also have Russian, Chinese and Israeli guns. It's estimated that over 100,000 soldiers deserted the army to work for the drug cartels, and that ignores all the police. How many of them took their weapons with them?"

But Tom Diaz, senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center, called the "90 percent" issue a red herring and said that it should not detract from the effort to stop gun trafficking into Mexico.

"Let's do what we can with what we know," he said. "We know that one hell of a lot of firearms come from the United States because our gun market is wide open."