February 25, 2009

Should the US perform Mexican customs duties?

ABC Reports US is a "Vast Arms Bazaar"

Of special interest is this quote:
Drug gangs seek out guns in the United States because the gun-control laws are far tougher in Mexico. Mexican civilians must get approval from the military to buy guns and they cannot own large-caliber rifles or high-powered pistols, which are considered military weapons.

The ease with which Mr. Iknadosian and two other men transported weapons to Mexico over a two-year period illustrates just how difficult it is to stop the illicit trade, law enforcement officials here say.

The gun laws in the United States allow the sale of multiple military-style rifles to American citizens without reporting the sales to the government, and the Mexicans search relatively few cars and trucks going south across their border.

So, in reality what this "news article" is presenting is an opinion piece that states the U.S. government should be responsible for policing smuggling into Mexico. Considering that Mexico routinely supports illegal immigrants leaving their country across that same border, I suppose it is not surprising.

Maybe, and this is just one man's opinion, what we really need to do is bring back our military from the far-flung corners of the globe and forcibly annex our corrupt, crime-ridden, violent, barbaric southern neighbor.

If we bring the Mexican provinces into the fold, force them to grant their civilians the same freedoms enjoyed in the United States, and execute corrupt Mexican officials, we can create a win-win situation for everyone. It would certainly solve the border problem if there were no border to police.

Oh, that's right. First we really need to clean up the criminal activity and corruption in our own country!

The Austin Gun Rights Examiner has an article laying out in precise detail just how this corruption works: Big Government vs. Your Civil Rights. The salient passage (minus internal links) being:
One of Obama’s biggest corporate donors is the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Meagher and Flom, LLP, who contributed $505,774 to Obama’s presidential campaign, and a total of $1,699,345 to all candidates (3rd highest law firm total). By comparison, the entire “gun rights” lobby spend $1,898,904 during the election cycle. Skadden, Arps represents the inventors of a “firearm safety system,” patent number 6499243, which adds a biometric activator that links a gun to one owner. The “Summary of the Invention” section of the patent application notes:
The safety system further makes use of a person’s fingerprint data, which is a unique personal property that is highly suitable for tracking and control. [Emphasis added]
Sidley Austin LLP contributed $565,788 to Obama, and $1,415,394 to all candidates (5th highest law firm total ). Sidley Austin represents the inventors of the “Gun identification kit,” patent number 7380706. This invention provides a way for every gun to have a spent cartidge case made available for entry into a ballistic fingerprint database. Of course, such a database is useful only if all firearms are entered into it:
Because the vast majority of publicly owned firearms have not been used in the commission of a crime, they will not show up in [such a] database. It would therefore be desirable to provide a means for increasing the number of firearms for which…information and data is available.

And, of course, just a few hours ago I pointed out that important facts about Barack Obama's career were mentioned by neither the Second Amendment advocates nor the Republican Party campaign supporting John McCain. How can voters be expected to make intelligent decisions when they are not provided with real facts? Instead of insane innuendo about his birth certificate, why did the opposition never once reveal the facts about his illegal and unethical management of the Joyce Foundation?

So, any hotshot Federal Prosecutors out there looking to go down in history? All you have to do is prepare a case against Obama, Holder, and Emanuel and successfully get the trio imprisoned for treason, accepting bribes, misuse of power, and anything else you can think of that describes the obvious corruption going on among our senior employees.

For in the end, this is supposed to be a "nation of the people, by the people and for the people", which means our public servants are supposed to serve us, not the other way around.