Since the Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that state and local governments cannot restrict the 2nd Amendment and must fall under federal law, I look forward to the 5 conservative justices also throwing state abortion restrictions out as unconstitutional.
It's all about rigorous intellectual consistency with these guys, right?
A lot of people, in the media and elsewhere, have been talking about the effects the exploding violence in Mexico's "drug wars" may have (and already are having) on the U.S., but not a lot of people are talking about the ways U.S. domestic policy decisions have affected the drug wars. The NY Times/MSNBC have a great report up on gun smuggling that's worth watching in its entirety (warning: graphic images), in which they discuss (among other things) the effects of the American gun trade on the Mexican drug wars. Specifically, that 95% of the weapons used in the drug wars in Ciudad Juarez are made in America and illegal in Mexico. Thanks to the Republican Congress's lifting the ban on assault weapons in 2004, "anybody with a driver's license and a clean record" can get these weapons, and they're making their way into Mexico, leading to the escalating violence and body counts.
All of the talk in the U.S. of how the violence "might spill over the border into the U.S." is ignorant in its one-sidedness. The border isn't a one-way road where things and people come from Mexico to the U.S. As this report demonstrates, while we may be worried about how violence might spill over from Mexico, we've conveniently forgotten how our weapons and violence have spread from the U.S. into Mexico. Until we acknowledge this and work to make these guns more difficult to get in the U.S. or elsewhere, things like this will continue to happen, and Mexico may end up suffering even more for our policy decisions.
Or so it seems-- even as Attorney General Holder causes gun-nut panties to twist is all sorts of hitherto unknown shapes, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi seems to be playing coy with respect to plans of reinstating the assualt weapons ban. Or maybe she's serious?
The assualt weapons ban was a fairly popular measure in its day. Even as the ban expired in 2004, polls consistently showed that the majority of Americans were in favor of the ban.
If the ban was popular in 1994 and 2004, why not now? Shouldn't reinstating it be easy? It could be that something is in the works and Pelosi isn't tipping her hand; consider for a moment, however, the possibility that the Democratic muckety-mucks have decided that the reinstatement of the assualt weapons ban (or other gun control legislation) is off the table.
Could it be considered an unnecassry distraction? Is this a strategic move? Or could it be that the Democrats have really just ceded the gun issue?
It will be interesting to see what happens with this (even if nothing happens; that will in itself be pretty instructive). I'm not a big gun control guy. I'm certainly not a gun guy-- I ascribe to the Al Franken school of thought with respect to guns (something to the effect of not wanting something in my house that is statistically more likely to kill someone unintentionally than intentionally). But gun control? Let's just say, after eight years of Bush, I understand the Montana militia point of view a little better. I'd be in full support of the assualt weapons ban, but not too excited about much more than that. I'd hate to see the Democrats lose seats in Congress because of gun control (and you know the NRA is just salivating at the chance for a showdown with Pelosi, Reid, and Obama).
