[JacksHH]

Uh, what? Yeah, prohibition taught me that banning things doesn't usually work -- hence, my support for legalizing the guns involved and the drugs involved.

Which completely contradicts your point that they wouldn't have an incentive to sell them.

They'll have MORE freedom and incentive to sell them.

[VrQsgM7c]

Which completely contradicts your point that they wouldn't have an incentive to sell them.

They'll have MORE freedom and incentive to sell them.

Uh... no. Criminal elements work primarily by profit incentive.

Organized crime multiplied after Prohibition, because the value of alcohol skyrocketed due to lingering demand for it.

When alcohol was banned, people didn't suddenly stop drinking it.

The only reason these drug cartels sell what they do is because of the profit margins involved. If we legalized pot (for example), the value of it would fall dramatically, and the cartels would drop it as one of their markets.

Now, admittedly, this works best when both America and Mexico legalize something simultaneously, but even if Mexico didn't legalize pot while we did, the value of pot would be considerably less in America than it would be there.

So, under that scenario, the cartels would still sell it in Mexico, but they'd have very little incentive to sell it here.

[JacksHH]

Uh... no. Criminal elements work primarily by profit incentive.

Organized crime multiplied after Prohibition, because the value of alcohol skyrocketed due to lingering demand for it.

When alcohol was banned, people didn't suddenly stop drinking it.

The only reason these drug cartels sell what they do is because of the profit margins involved. If we legalized pot (for example), the value of it would fall dramatically, and the cartels would drop it as one of their markets.

Now, admittedly, this works best when both America and Mexico legalize something simultaneously, but even if Mexico didn't legalize pot while we did, the value of pot would be considerably less in America than it would be there.

So, under that scenario, the cartels would still sell it in Mexico, but they'd have very little incentive to sell it here.

Ok, organized crime multiplied after Prohibition. What happened to the sellers of alcohol during prohibition AFTER prohibition ended?

They already had the product, and a distribution system.

[VrQsgM7c]

Ok, organized crime multiplied after Prohibition. What happened to the sellers of alcohol during prohibition AFTER prohibition ended?

They already had the product, and a distribution system.

Yep, and when alcohol went back to being legitimate, profits went way down and so did crimes associated with it.

If we legalized pot (and if Mexico loosened its gun laws), the cartels would stop selling it here, and the price of pot would plummet.

A cartel can't compete with your neighbor's personal garden, because he could sell you pot with no distribution costs and very little overhead.

[Lån-Penge]

Whether such things get legalized or not is inconsequential to this discussion, though, that being of how derelict Holder and O'Siah have been...

[JacksHH]

Yep, and when alcohol went back to being legitimate, profits went way down and so did crimes associated with it.

If we legalized pot (and if Mexico loosened its gun laws), the cartels would stop selling it here, and the price of pot would plummet.

A cartel can't compete with your neighbor's personal garden, because he could sell you pot with no distribution costs and very little overhead.

If we legalize it, the cartels would be selling MORE here. Just as the people selling alcohol during prohibition times sold more, and made more after prohibition than they ever did during it.

As for crimes associated with alcohol. The U.S. Department of Justice Report on Alcohol and Crime found that alcohol abuse was a factor in 40 percent of violent crimes committed in the U.S. Crime and Alcohol

An estimated 32 percent of fatal accidents involved an intoxicated driver or pedestrian (the majority are drivers, however) with a blood alcohol concentration, or BAC, of at least 0.10 grams of alcohol per deciliter of blood, the most commonly used definition of intoxication.

Still think it's not a major contributor to crime and negligent deaths?

The cartel can't compete with someone's personal garden, and those who would grow it themselves are already doing so.

[VrQsgM7c]

If we legalize it, the cartels would be selling MORE here. Just as the people selling alcohol during prohibition times sold more, and made more after prohibition than they ever did during it.

As for crimes associated with alcohol. The U.S. Department of Justice Report on Alcohol and Crime found that alcohol abuse was a factor in 40 percent of violent crimes committed in the U.S. Crime and Alcohol

An estimated 32 percent of fatal accidents involved an intoxicated driver or pedestrian (the majority are drivers, however) with a blood alcohol concentration, or BAC, of at least 0.10 grams of alcohol per deciliter of blood, the most commonly used definition of intoxication.

Still think it's not a major contributor to crime and negligent deaths?

The cartel can't compete with someone's personal garden, and those who would grow it themselves are already doing so.

In the interests of not derailing this further, I'll simply leave you with this one question....

If what you say is true, then why don't we ban alcohol again?

[Johnny]

HAARP Data Says Japan Quake was Induced | Real News Reporter

This article should give you a good idea of the credibility of the source.

As far as the credibility--it's all over FOX news right now.

[Johnny]

The weapons are already legal.

What is illegal is selling them to an ineligible person. In this case there was all kinds of evidence that the guns being purchased were going to be used by someone other than the purchaser. That's illegal. Beyond that, there was reason to believe that the guns were going to be used by people who intended to use them for criminal activity. That's not only illegal but is also flat out stupid. On top of THAT it appears that this illegal activity was being conducted with the intent to manufacture evidence to support a political goal of restricting private ownership of semi-automatic weapons. That is tyranny.

Mexican nationals living in Mexico have never been allowed to own guns. In fact--we had some Americans that took guns down there a few decades ago for a hunting trip--and the c.r.a.p hit the fan over that one.

[Johnny]

I could be wrong here, but I believe gun laws are already much more restrictive in Mexico. If they had a market as open and legal as ours, then the value of these weapons would go down considerably in their market.

So, you're correct that the legality of these guns isn't an issue here, but it is over there.

The legality of the drugs being sold is an issue both here and there and could be similarly resolved through a process of decriminalization and legalization.

NO guns are allowed in Mexico to be held by the citizens. That's been their way since day one. A civilian even getting caught with a pistol can spend many years in prison over it.

[Johnny]

I was commenting on the credibility of RNR, not CBS. I realize that CBS was part of the source material for the RNR article, but there is a distinct difference in the reporting style of CBS vs. RNR. RNR is much more editorial.

I'm not suggesting that our government isn't part of a trade like this. I'm suggesting that sites like RNR editorialize the data presented.

For example, the link I provided showed them using actual data that is credible, but they intentionally twisted it to suit their own interpretation of the data.

That being said, Project Gunrunner doesn't seem that surprising when considering what the CIA has been connected to with drug trade in South America.

The War on Drugs is just as futile as most gun control efforts.

Both Mexico and the U.S. should legalize the weapons involved (and the drugs involved as well). Once all these markets are legal, the profit margins go way down, and cartels no longer have an incentive to sell them.

Well maybe this article from CBS will stop your accusations that there is some kind of conspiracy or smear--- And in this CBS article is says this:

As our CBS News Investigation has revealed, "Fast and Furious" was a secret program under which, sources say, ATF purposely allowed thousands of assault rifles and other weapons from the U.S. into the hands of drug cartels in Mexico. Insiders call it letting the guns "walk." Mexico requests info from U.S. on gun-running - World Watch - CBS News

[Johnny]

Upps and here we go a VIDEO--CBS news with an ATF agent--and what he was told to do. One of the walked guns found-was-after it killed a US border agent.

ATF agent explains why he let guns "walk" - CBS News Video

How many people have been slaughtered by these weapons now. I think it's up to about 24,000.

[JacksHH]

In the interests of not derailing this further, I'll simply leave you with this one question....

If what you say is true, then why don't we ban alcohol again?

Simple. People who want to do something are going to regardless of whether it's legal or not.

Whether that be drinking, doing drugs, or robbing people to get more drugs and alcohol.

Just toss them in a quarry breaking rocks for 20 years or so when they do.

[VrQsgM7c]

Well maybe this article from CBS will stop your accusations that there is some kind of conspiracy or smear--- And in this CBS article is says this:



Mexico requests info from U.S. on gun-running - World Watch - CBS News

For the last time.... I was commenting on their style of reporting, not the content so much.

CBS is less editorial and sensationalist in nature.

[VrQsgM7c]

Simple. People who want to do something are going to regardless of whether it's legal or not.

Whether that be drinking, doing drugs, or robbing people to get more drugs and alcohol.

Just toss them in a quarry breaking rocks for 20 years or so when they do.

...with the world's highest incarceration rate, we're well on our way towards that.

[JacksHH]

...with the world's highest incarceration rate, we're well on our way towards that.

That says much more than you realize apparently.

[POMAH_K]

Mexican nationals living in Mexico have never been allowed to own guns. In fact--we had some Americans that took guns down there a few decades ago for a hunting trip--and the c.r.a.p hit the fan over that one.

The guns weren't sold in Mexico nor (as far as anything I have read) did ATF physically transport weapons into Mexico. This program involves legally available weapons purchased by people legally eligible to purchase weapons BUT there was reason to believe that the weapons in question were going to be transferred to ineligible people and THAT is illegal.

The short version of the program was that licensed firearms dealers (FFL's) in the border area were asked by ATF to report any suspicious purchases. When the dealers did report those transactions they were told to go ahead with the sale anyway and report the weapons serial numbers to ATF for tracing. In these instances the FFL normally would not have completed the transaction because of their suspicion of illegal activity but were told to go ahead for the sake of the investigation.

[Johnny]

Simple. People who want to do something are going to regardless of whether it's legal or not.

Whether that be drinking, doing drugs, or robbing people to get more drugs and alcohol.

Just toss them in a quarry breaking rocks for 20 years or so when they do.

As long as you don't mind paying about 45K per person per year for them to break rocks--LOL

[Johnny]

The guns weren't sold in Mexico nor (as far as anything I have read) did ATF physically transport weapons into Mexico. This program involves legally available weapons purchased by people legally eligible to purchase weapons BUT there was reason to believe that the weapons in question were going to be transferred to ineligible people and THAT is illegal.

The short version of the program was that licensed firearms dealers (FFL's) in the border area were asked by ATF to report any suspicious purchases. When the dealers did report those transactions they were told to go ahead with the sale anyway and report the weapons serial numbers to ATF for tracing. In these instances the FFL normally would not have completed the transaction because of their suspicion of illegal activity but were told to go ahead for the sake of the investigation.

The short version of the program was that licensed firearms dealers (FFL's) in the border area were asked by ATF to report any suspicious purchases. When the dealers did report those transactions they were told to go ahead with the sale anyway and report the weapons serial numbers to ATF for tracing. In these instances the FFL normally would not have completed the transaction because of their suspicion of illegal activity but were told to go ahead for the sake of the investigation.[/

And that is the "smoking gun". One of them did show up after it killed a U.S. border agent. And as the CBS report states--this wasn't one or two guns--it was THOUSANDS of them.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_16...05-503543.html

My question to you all? How many of you want to take back that Pulitzer Peace Prize that Obama was given--LOL

[POMAH_K]

I think this 'sting' was a terrible idea as explained above. That said, what you're saying here is typical for any kind of 'sting' operation, e.g., drugs, money laundering, guns with controlled coverage unlike here, etc. It is also legal for law enforcement to conduct 'sting' operations and it's not considered to be engaging or tolerating criminal activity. For example, a cop is not deemed to be a drug dealer who violated drug laws just because he sold some dope to a distributor as part of a 'sting.'

Grrr....day not going as planned....frustration mounting.....

Check out this link - the thread linked to in particular - and keep in mind that the earliest post is on the last page of the thread.
cleanupatf.org

The thread doesn't directly corroborate what I was suggesting but it is some excellent background from "hands on" sources.