Correction: Rodrigo Camarena is a contributor to The Guardian who is based in Mexico City. I falsely assumed he was in Britain.
Rodrigo Camarena of The Guardian thinks that Democrats and their agents in the ATF should gain from Project “Gunwalker” (a/k/a “Fast and Furious”), instead of being held accountable for their criminal activity.
My response:
“I thank you, Rodrigo Camarena and the rest of the non-Americans, for arrogantly trying to command the politicians here to put leashes on us so we’re just like you. Few things do a better job of convincing Americans to wake up and stick up for their rights than seeing Europeans getting up on their hind legs to tell us what to do.
Even more preposterous, you presume that a major scandal involving a Democrat administration, in which the bureau chief is about to resign, makes the case FOR the Democrats gaining political advantage. Generally, when government officials are caught doing illegal things, causing the deaths of innocents in a cynical ploy to skew statistics, it’s time to sack them and put them behind bars, to hold them accountable.
Gun shop owners tried to alert the ATF, but were told to let the straw buyers walk. The criminals here were the government agents. If any laws should become stricter, it should be the laws which concern the actions of government agents. Make their activities more transparent by opening records of their operations to the public. Increase prison sentences for law enforcement officials who engage in illegal activities on the job.
But leave the peaceable American civilians alone. They’re not responsible for what Kenneth Melson’s ATF did in their illegal scheme.
Nor are they responsible for the actions of a mentally disturbed man.
The fact is, the right to the most effective tools of self defense is inalienable to all human beings. No one has an obligation to allow themselves to be hurt or killed so that their neighbors might get a false sense of security.
Also, there’s one additional thing that Democrat politicians know, which you don’t seem to. It’s why most of them are too afraid for their political careers to vote for any bill which would infringe on Americans’ rights even further. During the Clinton administration, the “Assault Weapons” (aka scary LOOKING guns) ban caught gun owners unprepared. The Democrats lost control of Congress because of that and many Americans fought long and hard to keep that ban from being renewed—and were successful.
They will NEVER be unprepared for a political fight, ever again, regardless of your fantasies about exploiting the acts of a madman or the crimes of government agents.
Beyond the political contests, there are plenty of gun owners who will simply say “no” to any more legal infringements of their rights. They aren’t the frightened little poodles that inhabit your island.“
Hat tip: Sipsey Street Irregulars
A response to a man who would rather die than see another handgun.
Correction: Rodrigo Camarena is actually American (not that it should matter whatsoever).
For an overwhelming number of responses to all of Elliot’s points search for replies to Elliot’s nick “Diafono” in the extended comments section of my piece:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/24/gun-control-gabrielle-giffords?commentpage=all#start-of-comments
Thanks for reading!
Rodrigo
Twitter: @Ro_Camarena
Mr. Camarena, why did you repeat the lie that “70% of firearms recovered from Mexican crime scenes in 2009 and 2010 originated from the US”? The first person in the comments to debunk this false information was “CautiousOptimist” (about 16th on the list).
But more importantly, why didn’t you recognize that drug prohibition causes the horrible violence going on in Mexico, as well as much of the violence and property crime in the US? Indeed, the War on Drugs has been an excuse to toss out the bulk of the Bill of Rights, to treat American civilians as second-class people (underneath law enforcement and the politically connected). End prohibition and you end the horrible violence in Mexico. You also end much of the violent and property crime in the US, avoid the prison overcrowding problem, and save hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on an unwinnable, immoral war.
That was a tremendous oversight in your article.
I thought Jarhead1982A offered the most informative comments to your article, overall, that I saw.
As a number of the participants of that comment thread pointed out, the two sides are so far apart—down to a basic epistemic level—that there simply is no way to have a useful discussion.
I’ve engaged in these sorts of on-line debates since the 1980s and this was fairly typical of the more rancorous exchanges.
I would agree with Billy Beck, whom I’ve read for 15 years, that there can be no reconciliation with people who refuse to acknowledge that your life is your own. Americans raised to understand the ethics of individualism are far less likely to be fooled by the various logical fallacies which have been used for millennia to justify tyranny. Far from being “Rambo” or “redneck” or “cowboy” types, these Americans (and a few outside the US) are often the most enlightened with respect to human rights.
Because, you see, rights all derive from the axiom that each human being owns his or her life. If you won’t acknowledge that, the whole basis for any ethical argument you attempt is corrupt.
Hi Elliot,
Thank you for your response. As I stated in my article, my so-called “lie” about the number of weapons recovered from Mexico during a specific two-year period (2009-2010) are the results of a a congressional report which you can read here.
The evidence that you and reader “Cautious Optimist” use to refute my source (which doesn’t really address failures in the congressional report itself) comes from “CNSNews.com” (slogan: The Right News, at the Right Time) which is a subsidiary of the Media Research Group a “conservative content analysis organization.”
Nevertheless the trusted CNS article in question claims that “the most lethal weapons used by drug cartels in Mexico are smuggled from Central America.” This is true if you’re referring to grenades and light anti-tank weapons as the cable that their using as their source clearly states (Cable 09MEXICO880) but not true if you’re referring to firearms (the topic of the piece). Interestingly enough, when referring to firearms the same cable clearly states that: “approximately 90 percent of all firearms seized and traced are from the United States.” Why would CNSNews.com fail to mention this? Who can we trust if not CNS news????!?!?!?!
Also the Factcheck.org article isn’t relevant either because it is based on an older analysis by the ATF (from 2007-2008), based on a smaller sample of weapons and, again, doesn’t directly contradict or refute any of the findings from the congressional report that I submitted as my source.
Thank you for reading,
Rodrigo
I also note that you have not addressed my points about this all being the consequence of drug prohibition. To anyone who steps back to survey the big picture, it is patently obvious that the War on Drugs has caused the violence in Mexico and the US, making both nations less safe and the citizens less free.
As James Carville kept reminding Clinton in 1992, “It’s the economy, stupid.”
In this case, it’s the War on Drugs, and ignoring that is, well, stupid.
HI Elliot,
I don’t know if “all” of this is a consequence of drug prohibition. I definitely think that organized crime groups in Mexico benefit from prohibition but they also get much of their income from human trafficking and other gray areas of the economy. The violence is the product of a confluence of factors (poor Mexican institutions and rule of law, fighting between cartels, the government’s military campaign, etc) but I don’t know how you can argue that it is not made worse by the cartels’ easy access to semi-automatic, and automatic firearms brought in from the US.
Nobody is talking about doing without the second amendment. I’m advocating for better gun-regulation much like many gun-owners themselves are (http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-11.shtml).
I most definitely argue that the cartels’ use of straw buyers from legal gun stores in the US is a minimal factor, at best, in the level of violence. The overwhelming cause of the violence is the profit incentive for drugs. When billions of dollars are flowing from US drug users to the suppliers, those who want a piece of that lucrative payoff become increasingly ruthless. And, they can afford to pay for huge arsenals.
Even if you shut down gun stores in the US, thus preventing straw buyers, the cartels could still buy illegal guns on the streets, just as US criminals can do now.
I don’t care about the second amendment or the NRA. Amendments can be repealed. Besides, the second has been wholly ignored in court cases from disarming blacks after the Civil War to US vs. Miller, and subsequent cases. The NRA compromises out of political pragmatism, rather than making a principled stand. And, I don’t care if Fudds(*) and other sellouts choose to cave in to the demands of gun control groups, falsely thinking that by “playing nice” they can get gun grabbers to accept a middle ground and back off.
The individual right to self defense is inherent and inalienable. It isn’t created by any piece of paper. Nor does it only apply to people in the US. It applies to all peaceable individuals.
I favor complete repeal of drug prohibition, taxes on alcohol and tobacco, and prescription drug laws (though I recognize the right of pharmacies to require doctor prescriptions). This is because I recognize the right of adults to do what they want with their own bodies, so long as they aren’t harming others.
Finally, I am for open borders. I recognize that the vast majority of people who come to the US are decent, hard-working people who only want a chance at the American dream. Except for a bit of Cherokee, my ancestors came here for a better life and the “brown people” who scare anti-immigrant groups are no different. I grew up in San Antonio and worked side by side with migrant workers in summer jobs. I know they aren’t the dangerous threat that fascists like Joe Arpaio would like people to believe. Not only would open borders allow good people a chance to find honest work without risking dangerous border crossings or expensive immigration processes, they would further deprive the cartels of the “coyote” business, to which you refer.
(*) Fudds: Named after Elmer Fudd, those gun owners who only care about guns for hunting and who stupidly agree to negotiate away the right to own guns for other reasons.
I overlooked that you mentioned “automatic firearms” there. Automatic firearms are not available for sale in gun stores, because of the National Firearms Act (1934) and the Gun Control Act (1968).
Automatic weapons from the US come from military sales to the Mexican military. Those have absolutely nothing to do with gun control laws governing civilians.
One more thing: if gun control reduces crime, and Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws for private citizens, why isn’t Mexico a gun free paradise?
I just noticed none of my links posted.
The argument destroying CNS article that Elliot and reader CautiousOptimist cite:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/us-embassy-cables-90-percent-most-lethal
About CNSNews:
http://www.cnsnews.com/static/about_us
About the bullshit conservative Media Research Group that operates CNSNews:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Research_Center
The Cable that CNS News cherry picks from which actually states that “approximately 90 percent of all firearms seized and traced are from the United States.”
http://dazzlepod.com/cable/09MEXICO880/1/
For the full discussion and article in questions see the comments at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/24/gun-control-gabrielle-giffords?commentpage=last#end-of-comments
If you’re attempting to “refute” an article by calling into question the political leanings of the owners of the news organization, I’ll simply point out that you are using the numbers as misrepresented a number of times by Democrat politicians whose agenda is gun control.
The fact is, the “70%” which you tout as representing the number of American arms found at crime scenes is not that at all, if you pay close attention to the very report you yourself cite. It is a percentage of a percentage of a percentage. First, only semi-automatic or lesser guns are examined. The fully automatic weapons, which are far more dangerous, are from military sources, either from other countries or from US military sales to Mexican military, which were then stolen by deserters or thieves. Of the semi-automatic or lesser guns, only those of American manufacture which the Mexican authorities decided to give to ATF for tracing were examined by ATF. And, of those, only a given percentage were traced to sales in the US.
Regardless of the political leanings of CNS, your numbers were a percentage of a percentage of a percentage, but you, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and on down the line all reported only the last number.
That is dishonest.
Most US politicians stopped throwing that number around when they were roundly criticized for the deception at the time. Only the hard core propagandists still use it.
And, that is part of what “Gunwalker”/”Fast and Furious” is all about. It’s ATF and their Democrat masters illegally funneling arms sold from US gun stores into Mexico. I’ve been following this for months, back when it was only mentioned on a few weblogs by people who were contacted by whistle blowers trying to find some people in Congress to protect them. It took weeks, if not months to actually make the news. Besides CBS, the rest of the mainstream media is quite late to reporting the story. Since it doesn’t fit the narrative for those promoting gun control, it’s been downplayed by CNN and the like. And, the Obama administration has been stonewalling Congressional investigators over it. But the fact is, that ATF broke the law to inflate the numbers and have yet to be held accountable. Why you consider that a reason to reward the ATF and Democrats by giving them the political victory they seek to achieve by deception is beyond me.
Even if it the congressional report is based on “a percentage of a percentage” it still points to tens of thousands of weapons reaching the Mexico from the US. Nevertheless, even if no weapons were being trafficked to Mexico through the US why would better laws on weapons purchasing and monitoring bother the law-abiding gun-owners that you seem to be speaking for? Can you give me any non-conspiratorial (“don’t tread on me”) arguments against improving gun legislation for all?
And no, I don’t think that the ATF and democrats should be awarded by of the recent scandals. I am simply pointing out an instance where democrat proposals on gun-control and the new republican line against the ATF seem to be nearer to each other than before. This, to me, looks like an opportunity for consensus.
Also, i’m not refuting the CNS Article based on their bias (that’s just incidental). It just explains why they blatantly misrepresent a Wikileaks cable that clearly states “approximately 90 percent of all firearms seized and traced are from the United States.”
You can see it here:
http://dazzlepod.com/cable/09MEXICO880/1/
Why is “don’t tread on me” a “conspiratorial” argument? I find it to be a principled stand for the right of an individual to self defense. That some people who may be paranoid also make the argument is not a reason to discount it, any more than saying that since Hitler was a vegetarian, all arguments for vegetarianism are inspired by Nazis.
When I studied history in school, or as an adult, I could see how nations collapsed, wars broke out, or people succumbed to allowing incremental tyranny to take control of their countries. But too many people today seem completely oblivious of the parallels between today’s headlines and history. While groups like the Oath Keepers (whose members are from law enforcement or the military) are lambasted as being paranoid for stating that they will lay down their arms and refuse to follow orders to put civilians in concentration camps. And yet, we know that concentration camps are a recurring event of the 20th century. So, one could argue that anyone who worries about concentration camps in the US in modern times is “conspiratorial”, but ultimately that boils down to denying that governments would ever use such camps. And, it doesn’t hurt to draw a line in the sand that the government will never cross. It’s only a problem if the line isn’t drawn and people are unprepared for the eventuality.
As for “reasonable” gun laws, I oppose all laws preventing peaceable individuals from buying guns, including automatic weapons. I oppose mandatory registration, mandatory background checks, and any mandates or restrictions on ammunition.
I have no objection to merchants or manufacturers choosing to register their guns and perform background checks on buyers, if they so choose.
Nor do I argue that mentally ill people who pose a threat to others have a right to a weapon. They lack the capacity to be responsible. People with a history of using weapons to rob, assault, or kill others have a right to weapons have given up their right to own weapons by their actions.
I think that this enough back and forth. Any readers of this thread and that in the piece should be able to form an opinion on the topic by now.
Thank you for your comments. I enjoyed our exchange.
Best,
R
“While groups like the Oath Keepers (whose members are from law enforcement or the military) are lambasted as being paranoid for stating that they will lay down their arms and refuse to follow orders to put civilians in concentration camps.”
I don’t recall reading that they would lay down their arms. They did say there are orders they would not obey, but I don’t think they said they’d lay down their arms.
Also, the numbers you’re using from a Congressional source are tainted by their bias. Here’s a letter with a more honest set of numbers from Senator Grassley’s office: http://grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=35489
On Hardball with Chris Matthews on October 20, 2009, he interviewed Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers. Rhodes stated, “…what we’re calling on active duty military and police to do is to simply stand down and refuse to comply with unlawful orders.”
Unless I find something else, I’m going to assume that I remembered incorrectly, and that you are right that they won’t necessarily disarm, but “stand down.”