Incendiary Image of the Day: And We’re Worried About Guns Flowing OUT?

Before U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was gunned down by drug thugs wielding ATF-enabled firearms, the Obama Administration was busy talking up the “Iron River” of guns flowing from American gun stores to the Mexican cartels. A river of their own creation (e.g., Operation Fast and Furious), promoted with carefully massaged statistics (e.g,. guns submitted by the Mexicans to the ATF’s eTrace system). The Iron River was but a trickle compared to the hundreds of thousands of guns sold to the Mexican military and police by the US of A. And that trade is but a dripping faucet compared to the tens of billions of dollars worth of illegal drugs flowing into the U.S. Just sayin’ . . . [click here for the full graphic]

comments

  1. avatar IdahoPete says:

    And the killings will continue until we repeal drug prohibition, the same way we repealed booze prohibition. Decriminalize it, and you remove the monetary incentive for the cartels. When was the last time anyone heard of a shootout between a Bud distributor and a Coors distributor?

  2. avatar Aharon says:

    1) Repeal the prohibition against marijuana and start growing hemp too for sale inside of the USA.

    2) Build a real wall and barriers, sniper towers, barbed wire, etc along the entire length of the southern border ie militarize the border.

    1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      Fences that keep people out… also keep people in.

      How about we recognize that “national borders” are a completely arbitrary construct designed to differentiate between which mafia exercises exclusive “rights” to violence over the people within those borders.

      Why can people not freely move throughout the world for their own betterment, so long that they’re not violating the inherent rights or property of other individuals?

      1. avatar Redleg says:

        Sounds suspisciously like “can’t we all just get along”. When are the opep border advocates going to realize that the world is NOT a friendly place, and that there will always be wolves to take advantage of the sheep?

        1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

          Do you need government to force you to get along with your neighbors? Is the only reason you don’t unjustly aggress against other people because you fear the punishment of government? What legitimate claim does government have over your life? Do you own yourself or does government own you?

      2. avatar Redleg says:

        Are you allowed to use force if necessary to keep your neighbors off your property and out of your house? Are you and your neighbors allowed to decide the company that you want to keep, and to use force if necessary to keep people who mean you harm out of your neighborhood?

        1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

          Yes. And all your questions are with regard to individuals and their inherent property rights. A government entity cannot own property, only individuals can. That’s why I made the point that “national borders” are an arbitrary construct. As long as a person is not infringing upon another person’s legitimate property, why are they not allowed to move freely?

          BTW, even if we want to make the arguement that governments can own property, the only way for them to get that property is through force (war) or theft (taxes or “eminent domain”), so it wouldn’t even be legitimately owned.

        2. avatar Redleg says:

          So there is no such thing as a legitimate government?

          Are you and your neighbors going to spend 24/7/365 patrolling the borders of your collective properties to keep those who want to do you harm out of your neighborhood, and off your property, or are you willing to allow a duly established and elected government to enforce laws that are designed to allow you the ability have reasonable trust that your home will be secure when you are away?

          Without some form of government, who is going to ensure that those who are not willing to conform to the social contract that you are asking for is enforced?

          Borders, national or otherwise, simply define the area within which a government has been empowered by those living within it to enforce that contract.

        3. avatar Henry Bowman says:

          A government is legitimate if it’s voluntary.

          So, a bunch of families coordinating security of their individual properties through voluntary cooperation would be a legitimate function of defending property rights.

        4. avatar Mark N. says:

          Sorry Henry, neither facts nor law nor history support the proposition that governments cannot own property. A course in the history of law would relieve you of your disinformation. Historically, the ownership of land was at the consent of the ruler/lord/emperor/king. In England, for example, and until the Magna Carta, the king owned all of the land, granting his noblemen estates at his pleasure in return for the promises of support from the proceeds of those estates, principally armed men and taxes. There were no hereditable estates, and castles and land would change hands at the king’s whim, or the change of the regent. The Magna Carta changed all that, guaranteeing heredity of estates unless forfeit through treason.
          The United States owns all land that has not been sold to private ownership or that is retained by the sovereign indian tribes. States, counties, cities, municipalites of every ilk, all own property, both real and personal. Yes, states can be toppled, but the land invariable goes to the next successor sovereign, whoever or whatever that might be. It was not until the late 20th century and continuing to today that anyone has seriously argued that the right of conquest is illegitimate. To me, it is is silly concept; we cannot rewrite many centuries of history and return all lands to the “original” settlers (many of whom migrated elsewhere anyway). Nor am I persuaded that reestablishing regional tribalism is a sound societal goal.

  3. avatar Thomas Paine says:

    what’s with the big arrow coming out of Lubbock TX, that goes nowhere?

    is that the TTAG headquarters?

  4. avatar BLAMMO says:

    Very comprehensive. Why am I not seeing this in a US-published rag (like I don’t know the answer)?

  5. avatar Freeport56 says:

    All the Gangs Black, Hispanic, Asian have firearms from theft and Black Market sales. There are least several dozen international arms sellers in Mexico trafficking arms to the cartels. This also includes the Mexican Police and Military who decide to go to work for the cartels and bring their weapons with them.

  6. avatar Sanchanim says:

    Amazing…
    It goes to show you we need to secure our boarders. The legalization of some drugs is another story, but it is critical we stop the influx of drugs and illegal aliens into our country.

  7. avatar Mark N. says:

    If the US Army and Marines cannot stop the Taliban in the hills, deserts and mountains of Afganistan (which if I recall correctly is roughly half again the size of California), what makes anyone think that the Border Patrol will be able to stop the flow of humans and drugs over the hills, deserts and mountains of the southwest?

  8. avatar jwm says:

    make it a felony with mandatory jail time to hire an illegal and look how quick the jobs dry up. wouldn’t take but a few well publised cases to get the point across. legalize drugs and make rehab available and cheap for those that want it. let all law abiding citizens carry and see how it helps the crime rate.

    1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      So, you acknowledge each persons’ inherent self-ownership in being able to put whatever substances into his body or own and use his property as he sees fit, but he’s not allowed to voluntarily contract with other individuals for services? You might need to reassess your logic there.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        neither one of us is using “logic”. igave my opinion as did you. we can’t know if my opinion is valid until we put it into practice.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      The agricultural practices of this country cannot survive without migrant workers, whether legal or illegal. California is but one example; both Alabama and Georgia were hit with huge crop losses when the immigrants, legal and illegal both, fled to avoid new laws banning hiring, leaving no one to harvest crops. Grain crops can be harvested by machine, as can cotton, beets and potatoes. But not vegetables. Do you grow your own? You’ll have to if we manage to cut off the flow of labor from Mexico.

  9. avatar jwm says:

    i don’t hold with that “we can’t get it done” without illegal migrants. instead of paying a legal worker 15 bucks an hour they pay an illegal 7 bucks and get fat off the profits. the work will get done without the illegals, just at a lower profit margins.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email