Previous Post
Next Post

 “The flow of high-powered weaponry from the United States to Latin America and the Caribbean exacerbates soaring rates of gun-related violence in the region and undermines U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere,” the Council for Foreign Relations (CFR) opines. Which is kinda funny if you think about it. ‘Cause Latin America is awash in “high-powered” weaponry that we, the United States, sent southwards. You know, officially. Yes, well, that inconvenient truth has been swept under the rug for some time now. The ATF’s Mexico-related “recovered gun” stats—which form the basis for the whole “iron river” meme—somehow manage to ignore the tens of thousands of recovered AR-15s stamped with the words “Property of the Mexican Army.” Since the Fast and Furious scandal broke, the feds stopped beating that drum. Which hasn’t stopped the CFR . . .

As this article makes clear, the CFR is undaunted by the defeat of gun control on the federal level. Just like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership, the CFR reckons the Obama administration should end-run Congress and pull the strings of power to git ‘er done.

In the absence of major legislative action, the Obama administration should pursue the following executive and diplomatic actions—consistent with the Second Amendment—to reduce the trafficking of firearms that contribute to crime and violence across the Americas: 

Just a quick interruption here. Don’t you just love it when gun control advocates pay lip service to Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms? Neither do I. OK. Here’s the CFR’s strategy to stop the “gun violence” in Mexico:

Expand nationwide the state-level multiple-sale reporting requirement for assault weapons. In 2011, the Obama administration adopted a federal rule that requires gun dealers in California, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico to report sales of more than two semiautomatic rifles to the same person within a five-day period. Unintentionally, the rule shifted gun sales to states not covered by the requirement, prompting the need for improved oversight of all suspicious semiautomatic firearm sales.

Incorporate strategies to reduce existing stocks of illegal firearms into U.S.-Brazil dialogue on defense and security. As home to the two largest firearms industries in the hemisphere, the United States and Brazil have a mutual interest in incorporating this topic into their ongoing bilateral policy dialogues. For example, sharing best practices regarding gun buyback programs in border regions on the U.S.-Mexican and Brazilian-Bolivian borders will build mutual confidence between the two largest Hemispheric powers.

Exclude firearms and ammunition products from the Export Control Reform Initiative. As currently crafted, President Barack Obama’s reform initiative may make it easier for U.S. manufacturers to export military-style weapons to allies. Liberalizing export restrictions on firearms poses a serious security risk to the Americas; potential reexport of firearms without U.S. oversight could jeopardize local law enforcement efforts to keep weapons from criminal groups and rogue security forces in the region.

Apply the “sporting test” standards of the 1968 Gun Control Act. This provision prohibits the import of weapons not “suitable or readily adaptable for sporting purposes,” including but not limited to military-style firearms. Throughout the 1990s, under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, the ATF adhered to the sporting test guidelines, preventing thousands of assault weapons from entering the U.S. firearms market. Enforcement of the test lapsed under President George W. Bush and has not been reestablished under President Obama.

Continue to support federal, state, and local initiatives to improve regulation of the U.S. civilian firearms market. As grassroots organizations prepare their long-term legislative strategies, the White House should back state and local legislation, based on reforms in Maryland and Connecticut, which bans the sale of assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, broadens existing background check requirements for firearm purchases, and modernizes gun-owner registries by requiring, among others, that buyers submit their fingerprints when applying for a gun license. While piecemeal regulation of the U.S. civilian firearms market does not represent a comprehensive solution, passage of state and local measures, including gun buyback programs, will reduce the number of weapons in circulation and available for smuggling and generate momentum for a broader federal approach over the long run.

Are these guys naive or what? One one hand, the conclusion admits “Strengthening U.S. gun laws will not eliminate gun violence in Latin America, where weak judiciaries and police forces, the proliferation of gangs and black markets, and deep inequality exacerbate violent conflict.” On the other hand, “Nonetheless . . .” Who cares what follows from that qualifier? More people than should.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Yikes… Did you catch the part where he must be talking about firing a .50 without hearing protection? I guess it probably happens all the time in the military, but I like the option of hearing protection.

  2. It’s “two or more” semi-auto rifles must be reported to Obama, not “more than two”. Unless I misread or misremembered.

      • The CFR is basically a drinking club of media and political types to get together and prove how smart they are.

        I mean when Erin Burnett of CNN, George Clooney, and Angelina Jolie are members, we know we’re dealing with a real bunch of deep thinkers here…

        From their membership page:

        “CFR’s membership represents a group unmatched in accomplishment and diversity in the field of international affairs. With nearly 4,700 members and term members, CFR’s roster includes top government officials, renowned scholars, business leaders, acclaimed journalists, prominent lawyers, and distinguished nonprofit professionals.”

        Funny, I thought the folks above were teleprompter readers and people that pretend they are someone else for a living.

      • Sir Zog: I know too much about the CFR. My comment was strictly about the name of the organization.

        As for the erroneous version, “Council For Foreign Relations,” I’m all for that, but that’s an entirely different activity. I’m all for foreign relations. That’s the most interesting kind, really.

  3. So the CFR shows it is completely ignorant about guns and the Second Amendment (“assault weapons,” “assault rifles,” “high-capacity magazines,” “sporting purposes,” etc…). It amazes me how many intelligent, well-educated people come across as complete imbeciles when it comes to the subject of guns and the Second Amendment. I am also rather surprised as I thought the CFR was a conservative organization.

    • The CFR is a neoconservative organization. The neocons movement evolved from the Trotsky (the former Soviet communist) movement in the US. They wrapped their movement in the flag of patriotism in the 60s, infecting the Johnson administration, then every presidency since. They care nothing for concepts like rights and liberty. Their only interest is achieving power for their members.

      • Would have to disagree there. Neoconservatism did not evolve from Trotskyism, it evolved as a counter to things like Soviet Communism (which included Trotskyism) however. It has had some people who are themselves former ultra-leftists and/or communists who then saw the fallacy of their ways and converted, but did not become completely right-wing. Neoconservatism does care about rights and liberty, but differs from the more libertarian conservatism in many ways. Unfortunately, neoconservatism has never been very reliable on the issue of gun rights.

        • “NeoCon” simply means “new con”. It was a very transparent power-grab from the days of the wholly evil “St. Ronnie” onwards.

          There’s nothing “conservative” about those people, they’re only in it for the power. When I was a kid in the early 70s, a “conservative” wanted to limit fishing so that there would be fish for future generations. They wanted to limit resort development so that there would be a pristine beach for their grand-kids. They wanted National Parks so that there would be areas free of idiots drilling oil wells, let alone fracking our way to oblivion.

          While this all could be construed as a ‘no true Scotsman’ logical fallacy, that’s what “conservative” means for my family and used to mean in general context not that long ago.

        • Seconding the ‘Neocons are not Trotskyites’ assertion.

          If anyone wonders where the old-school anti-communist Democrats went, they were basically run out of the Democratic party after Viet Nam, laid low for a while, and eventually worked their way into the Republican party, where they were dubbed ‘NeoCons’: ‘New Conservatives’.

          They’re not particularly conservative, though. Old habits die hard.

    • CFR has nothing to do with political ideology. There’s no Republicans and Democrats, there’s no Sunnis and Shi’ites, there’s only haves, and have nots. The CFR tends to include the worst and lamest of haves, petrified that more have nots are getting wise to their preference of destroying the middle class to pad the bottom line for the upper class with a meek and self-enslaved lower class work force. We can call them commies or neocons or whatever buzzword we want, the point is no matter which letter precedes their names as individuals they hate the individual freedom of Americans. People are surprised they hate guns for some reason, I’ve been following them since they basically wrote the Patriot Act BEFORE 9-11, and I am completely unsurprised by this development. An enemy of freedom is an enemy of freedom, it doesn’t matter if the duck calls itself Republican or Democrat.

      Focusing on how to label a group left or right above all else will destroy the end goals of anyone who loves freedom.

  4. “Throughout the 1990s, under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, the ATF adhered to the sporting test guidelines, preventing thousands of assault weapons from entering the U.S. firearms market. Enforcement of the test lapsed under President George W. Bush and has not been reestablished under President Obama.”

    Wait, someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the whole ‘sporting test’ guidelines have still been in force – hence the reason why Canada could get the semiauto Tavor for the past 6 years, but it wasn’t until the IWI plant in Harrisburg got running that US buyers could get one. If ‘sporting test’ is no longer enforced, we should be seeing a much greater variety of imported guns…

    • Also there are also zero background checks performed at gun shows, pistols can shoot down airplanes, and grenade launchers can be bought at the five and dime.

      The More You Know

  5. Are these guys naive or what?

    No, far from it. What they are is an international cabal of Euro-style vultures who love our money and hate the rules that prevent them from owning ALL of it. And the one rule they hate most, aside from our ineffective securities and banking laws, is the Second Amendment.

    • They’re worse than Euro-style. They’re Fidel Castro style. Google the CFR’s Latin America expert and anti-gun-rights expert, Julia Sweig.

      • Yea, read the review on her latest book- seriously deep navel gazing with no talk of the slow suffocation of freedom upon the civilian population in Cuba, during 50 years of communist rule. Apparently she’s been a Castro fan-girl since her PhD thesis, at Johns Hopkins, if not at UC Santa Cruz- AKA the lazy leftists school of non-judgemental pass/fail rigor, and most ridiculous nit-wittery on the West Coast.

        • I dunno about Santa Cruz being the champion for West Coast academic nitwittery, there’s a fair bit of competition for that title. Berkley, anyone?

    • Ralph, They’re quite happy with our (now) pathetically ineffective banking laws. They just want them to disappear completely…

  6. Do you have a link to the “tens of thousands of recovered AR-15s stamped with the words “Property of the Mexican Army.”? Mahalo!

  7. The CFR is one of those organizations pushing for centralized world government (with their members in control, of course). They know that sort of fascism won’t be popular in the US, so they need to get rid of our pesky guns to keep us in line. The CFR is the closest thing there is to an Illuminatiesque secret society trying to take over the world.

    If you look at their membership, you’ll see all the warmongering, anti-gun, anti-liberty, pro-fiat currency fascists. It’s a veritable who’s who of corrupt, vile, amoral sociopaths.

    James Baker
    Bush I
    Clinton (his and hers)

    And there are quite a few giants from the “news” industry on there as well:
    Charlie Rose
    Diane Sawyer
    Stephanopoulos (he qualifies for both lists)

    • All currency is ultimately fiat, including gold. There is nothing that gives gold some kind of value that paper currency does not have. Gold is just a shiny metal that humans give value to because we decide to give it value, same as any other thing. It is itself thus ultimately a fiat currency.

      Didn’t know that so many leftists were members of the CFR though! No wonder it is anti-gun.

      • By definition, it’s not.Fiat means “because we say so”, but gold and silver evolved as money in a free market.

      • Gold, silver, and other precious metals have inherent “value” because they are required for a variety of industrial processes. To make actual things. Things that can be traded, regardless of a currency collapse.

        None of which can be inherently fulfilled by paper currency, regardless of origin or denomination. The only things one can do with paper currency for sure is turn it into papercrete or grind it down to cellulosic insulation.

  8. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but is it not true that the US Government is the world’s largest arms merchant? And that US military arms manufactured here do not leave the country without the express permission of the US Government? And that the US Government uses arms sales as a way to make friends and influence people–some governmental, some not? So how can these (many former government officials) people be against arms deals, when they are the bread and butter of American international relations, and have been for over a hundred years?

  9. Yeah, this is pretty pathetic- recycling the already discredited “90% of guns in Mexico from US gunshops” kind of myth, that TTAG and others helped expose as complete fraudulent propaganda.

    I’m guessing Julia has gotten the memo its time to start talking this up, undoubtedly as part of the progressives desperate effort to rehabilitate Hillary’s “legacy” in time for 2016.

    CFR’s website talks a lot about leadership and global values- it makes me laugh when the elites like these blathering blowhards, or the nitwits at the UN, or the bankers who are bankrupting the EU start lecturing us little ole’ citizens here in the US, about gun-rights, especially when leadership includes such luminaries as Madeline Albright….

    ” the Aspen Ministers Forum, which, under the leadership of Madeleine K. Albright, convenes former foreign ministers from around the world to focus on international security ”

    Yeah, like that’s really worked out security wise- all those group hugs by Carter, Obama, Madeline and Hillary with the Paleostinians…don’t forget the effort to destabilize Honduras when they voted in someone who didn’t support the State party line. And, yeah- hows that narco terrorism thing working out, down south, anyway? Pretty much about the same as Libya-can-you-say-Benghazi, and now Syria.

Comments are closed.