...because everyone knows if it wasn't for the all-too-easy availability of land and the lack of reasonable, common-sense land control, things never would have gotten to this point...
The FBI is advising law enforcement officers across the country that a Texas cell of Los Zetas — an increasingly powerful arm of the Mexican Gulf Cartel drug trafficking syndicate — has acquired a secluded ranch where it trains its members to “neutralize” competitors in the United States.
...
Trainees are reportedly taught about home invasions, firearms and ways to run vehicles off the road in order to kidnap occupants who owe drug debts.
The story goes on to describe the Zetas as a "small band of military deserters." Which just shocks the hell out of me. I mean, from the way the Mexican government tried to spin the whole thing, the root of the problem was the "unregulated border gun shows" and the availability of semiauto rifles in the United States. And everyone knows no one south of the border would ever help the cartels out, and that the Mexican government would NEVER hide anything that would expose its culpability, eh? I mean, if I remember right the worst thing they've done is refuse to divulge the serial numbers of the weapons they've confiscated from the cartels, and what's the big deal about that?
(and yes, that was sarcasm...)
Seriously though, I'd bet that "small band of military deserters" is much bigger than anyone wants to acknowledge, especially when one takes all the cartels into account and the lucrative benefits they likely offer. And I'd love to ask those who keep beating the gun ban drum is going to help the situation considering the other weapons and tactics the cartels use.
Assuming the social utility arguments have any place in this debate. Which they don't, but I did see some comments at The Smallest Minority yesterday on the post Kevin wrote about Mike B.:
Mike W. had this to say: "The 'public safety' argument is pure bullshit. Denying islamic fundamentalists freedom of religion might conceivably further 'public safety.' Denying due process, right to counsel, or self-incrimination rights could certainly be seen to further 'public safety' and further a 'government interest.' That doesn't mean 'public safety' justifies wholesale infringements of those rights or our 2nd Amendment rights."
And he's absolutely right. But there was an interesting point raised -- the debate ultimately isn't about the participants, but the observers, as they might learn something or even change their mind, as this guy said. And as Linoge said, the facts are on our side, so we might as well use them. Furthermore, the logic is on our side as well. I honestly never really thought about changing the minds of the observers of the debate, but that indeed does serve as an invaluable purpose of the debate.
|