The Curious Case of the Walking M-16s

Discussion in 'Politics' started by HozayBuck, Jan 10, 2011.

  1. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16
    by L. Neil Smith

    Attribute to The Libertarian Enterprise

    In any country with free and conscientious news media, this story would generate eight-inch newspaper headlines and TV interrupted for bulletins. In the United States of Socialist America, the result is silence.

    If the United Nations and the Federal Communications Commission had their way, you wouldn't be reading this account, but only what they allowed you to see and hear. Aspiring fascist dictator Janet Napolitano would have me arrested in a midnight raid as a "domestic extremist" for writing this, and you for reading it. If it were up to Governor Jay Rockefeller, the Internet itself would never have been invented.

    Barack Obama would have your ISP tattooed on your forearm. You will pardon these preliminaries, I trust, if I add that what you're about to learn makes the event called "Watergate" seem like small potatoes. It shows one government agency in particular, and government in general to be just what we have always said they are. It demonstrates in the clearest way possible that Robert LeFevre was right when he said "Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure."

    The story itself is relatively simple.

    There is a shooting war going on right now, along the border between the United States and Mexico, involving rival organizations, referred to as cartels (a term once applied to oil conglomerates), struggling for control over the illegal traffic in drugs. Various factions of the Mexican government have their part in it, and, peripherally, so does the American federal government, as well as those of various border states. Just in the past couple of years, thousands of individuals, innocent and otherwise, have been murdered in this war, including American citizens standing on their own property.

    None of this would be happening if there were no drug laws and the substances in question were allowed to drop to their natural market prices. Nor does it have anything to do with the issue of immigration, legal or illegal, with which it is being deliberately, if erroneously, conflated.

    Just as immigration opponents are cynically trying to use this war to push their propaganda, so the advocates of victim disarmament have been trying to use it to impose more and harsher laws against free exercise of the unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right of every man, woman, and responsible child to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon—rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission. The Obama Administration and its vile Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives—criminal architects of the Waco Massacre—have been particularly guilty in this connection. Broadcast far and wide by the whorish mass media, their claim—as ridiculous as it is on its face—is that American gun dealers are supplying the Mexican drug cartels with the weapons they are using to fight the war on the border.

    It's a win-win scenario—for fascism.

    Their idea, of course, is to generate something resembling a justification for further restricting the freedom to and buy and sell weapons. The trouble, as usual, is that the facts don't support their lies.

    The vast majority of weapons involved are items no American gun dealer is allowed to carry: fully automatic rifles like the AK-47, rocket propelled grenades, and similar hardware. Until recently, better-informed observers were of the opinion that most of this war machinery was coming from corrupt arsenal personnel in the Mexican Army.

    That may still be the case, for the most part.

    We now know, however, that the flow of weapons to the south is indeed, in part, coming from within the United States, not from dealers or their civilian customers, but specifically from the BATFE, which has been caught "walking" weapons—recently five hundred semiautomatic AR-15 rifles—across the border into Mexico in order to "boost" the statistics they have been using to try to limit our rights.

    Five hundred items the media can call "machineguns" or "assault rifles". Five hundred civilian-legal weapons to "prove" their lying claims.

    Let me repeat that for our slower readers in Keene, New Hampshire: the BATFE is smuggling semiautomatic weapons into Mexico to support their claim that the drug cartels are being equipped by American gun dealers.

    One more time: the Mexican cartels get their guns from the U.S. government.

    For those who can't—or won't—believe me, here are some URLs where the story first broke. The articles contain further references. My hat is off, principally to David Codrea and Mike Vanderboegh for telling us what's going on. My personal thanks to Kirby Ferris, as well.

    Sipsey Street Irregulars

    "Border Patrol agent killed with ATF-smuggled AR? Some ATF agents seem to think so."

    Sipsey Street Irregulars 'Blog

    David Codrea/Gun Rights Examiner

    "ATF source confirms 'walking' guns to Mexico to 'pad' statistics"

    David Codrea 'blog

    In the past, I have been criticized for accusing the proponents of victim disarmament, in effect, of deliberately arranging for violent and bloody events like Columbine, Dunblane, and Port Arthur to happen, usually at crucial moments in the legislative process, in order to advance their agenda of total control over the lives of other human beings.

    As I write these words, what I'm confident will prove to be another carefully contrived and photogenic shooting has just been carried out in Tucson, Arizona, where someone in a crowd has fired on a Democratic congresswoman and her entourage, conveniently fulfilling several purposes at once: damaging the reputation of gun owners and shooters in general, especially non-Democrats; making Janet Napolitano look good (along with her defamation of everyone she can't control as "domestic extremists") in the home state where she achieved political power by stepping on the innocent faces of those who exercise their Second Amendment rights; bringing into disrepute Arizona's new Vermont Carry law, and generally besmirching a state that all collectivists despise.

    Scavengers like National Public Radio are already beginning to feed.

    But what this story of putrescent BATFE corruption proves, beyond the palest shadow of a doubt, is that I was right, and that my critics are all wrong. Somehow, when socialists extol the warm, fuzzy, humane visage of their political philosophy, they always forget, along the way, to mention the evil, leering, ugly, brutal faces of its enforcers.

    What we are left to wonder now is whether the gory sacrifice of one of their own was simply meant to cover up the story of 500 smuggled M-16s.

    Stranger—and more despicable—things have happened.
     
  2. The_Blob

    The_Blob performing monkey

    4,230
    4
    Hey Hozay, got a link so that I can find/follow the other links? :dunno:
     

  3. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16
  4. townparkradio

    townparkradio Family Friendly DJ

    101
    0
    I realize this is not your writing, so don't take this personally.

    Whenever I hear that sentiment in real life, there's a part deep in my reptile brain that makes me want to punch the person who says it. Repeatedly, until they are in enough pain to have ACTUAL need for narcotics. You know what else would make it stop happening? If people wouldn't buy the damned drugs in the first place. It's stupid to blame the enforcers of the law for those deaths. It's like saying "child molesters are likely to murder children because if they are caught molesting, they go to jail. If child molestation was only legal, there'd be a lot less murdered children".

    But let's pass on that right now. At the absolute BARE minimum, the blame is shared by both enforcers and purchasers. If you a law is unjust, it must be changed; but in order for change to happen, there has to be determined action. People misunderstand what civil disobedience means. Civil disobedience is not smoking pot in the privacy of your own home and then bravely claiming it should be your right to do so. Civil disobedience would be to blaze up right in front of police, in such massive numbers, that eventually the laws must be changed. That will never happen, because this is not about any civil rights, it's about people who want to get high.

    I have yet to hear a single druggie volunteer to quit using drugs in order to save the lives they're so concerned about, but I've met far far far too many who are more than willing to exploit the deaths of those persons to further their cause. You point out to them that they are willing to let others die so they can get high, and they invariably insist that "their" drugs come from local sources.

    At the end of the day, I don't care what you do and actually think some drugs should be treated exactly like alcohol is. We all have our vices, and so what? Now I believe that far too many drunks are allowed to mess their kids up but... that's an entirely different topic.

    It makes me ill when people use these flawed arguments blaming everyone but themselves for the consequences of their actions. Another thing that really gets my goat is Medical Marijuana. Yes, some people do need it. However, I doubt it's even a fraction of the number of persons who receive it. In Montana, you used to be able to get a medical marijuana card by simply talking to some "doctor" over a webcam, and pay him $50 to do the paperwork for you. People think this is funny "ha hah I can blaze up right next to a cop and he can't do anything". Yeah. Hilarious.

    Unfortunately, the world actually IS made up of adults, and adults DO tend to notice these abuses. Congratulations, your infantile behavior is helping keep medical marijuana out of the hands of persons where it is not legal that actually may need it. The other states see pathetic "doctors" prescribing for everything from insomnia to narcolepsy, to ACNE. They see the clinics with the pre-made scrip cards. There was a medical marijuana clinic in late January in my own hometown, and I was able to flatout ask the provider what illnesses are most likely to get me a card; and I received answers.

    We're all adults here. You know as well as I do what that was really about. You know as well as I do other states see this shady crap and say "no, not in my town." Guess what? The buyers are as responsible for this as the enforcers are as well. If you have a false medical marijuana card, or you cheer when someone games the system to get one? You're proving in spades that, like the above issue, you don't give the slightest crap about those poor sick persons.

    You just want to be able to get high, and you don't care who it hurts to get there.
     
  5. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16
    townparkradio

    I hear you and to a point I agree with you.. I do believe that keeping pot illegal has a great deal to do with the problems it causes.. do I think little Johnny should be able to sit in the park and toke? no of course, just as he isn't supposed to be sitting in the park drinking booze... Prohibition was tried, it failed... America went on a binge.. after it was legal not so much... crime dropped for sure..

    As far as drugs go.. for me " ME" nobody else.. I say shoot em where you find em.. the smugglers I mean of course..not little Johnny... kick his *** till his nose bleeds if you want.. but the term is "WAR on Drugs".. so.. in a war you kill them before they kill you.. kill enough and they will find another way.. locate the leaders and use a nice 100 billion dollar stealth plane and drop a nice big MOAB on the bastards.. if it takes out their entire clan tuff chit.. poison our kids and we kill you and yours..

    I know this is not the PC way to go.. but I'm not PC.. and I could do it in a heart beat ..push the drop button, pull the trigger.. and not lose a moments sleep...

    The world has no respect for us, they don't fear us , they poke us with sticks and get away with it... I don't like that...

    If I want to drive along the border in "MY" country without fear then I should be able to.. if not then I should be able to kill anybody who try's to harm me or mine.. I take the "Should" back... I would..Will.. Our so called leaders have reduced our country to a bunch of scared wimps... well not all of us.. but I want it to end.. I want my country back.. for me and mine..

    If CA , AZ , NM, were given to Mexico tomorrow it would be a slum in a month.. and they would be crossing over the new border the next day.. they want what we have but they don't want to earn it, live it, be it.. American I mean...of course.. if they have so much damn pride, go to Mexico City and take "their" country back...

    I'm sorry for this rant!!.. it's not directed at you or anybody I'm just sick and tired of the left, the Liberals, Dimocraps, and liberal media... This is the United States of America... no the United Socialist States of AmeriKa... we are a Republic.. not a Democracy.. we are not sheeple.. well about 50 % are....

    Anyway...sorry ... rant over...

    But I don't think the above article was based on that one little para..
     
  6. kyfarmer

    kyfarmer Well-Known Member

    638
    0
    No suprise's on that one. They have been breaking it off in the general public's bussiness for a very long time. Maybe at the start, ya reckon. :sssh: