The Green Libertarian

...because our freedom and future matter...

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Welcome to the Green Libertarian Dot Net

Another example of how the US is NOT responsible for illegal weapons in Mexico

E-mail Print PDF

See also:

The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.


In recent news, the airwaves have been filled with Obama, Holder, Hiliary all decrying the mass murder and mayhem in Mexico due to US guns. Eager to blame the ever EVIL GUN SHOW LOOP HOLE, the claim was blindly made and accepted that 90% of the illegal guns recovered in Mexico were traced back to the United States. While a half truth, it turns out the 90% of the guns sent to the US to be traced are from the US. 

Later we found out, when the media got their heads out of somewhere, that the guns with import markings listed as the US (which is required here) get sent to the US to be traced. Of those, 90% are from the US. No surprise!

However, those account for only 17% of the illegal guns in Mexico. So let's do the math:
100 x 17% x 90% =  ~16
So out of 100 illegal guns recovered in Mexico, 16 are apparently from the US.

The assertion that the US is responsible for Mexico almost melting into chaos gets even more crazed when you consider that the guns from the US, available in the US to civilians, are largely semi-automatic neutered versions of their true military counterparts. Why would Mexican drugs lords want to be running around blazing WASR-10s when they can easily obtain fully automatic weapons from the corrupt Mexican police and army, from across the border into South America, and numerous illegal shipping channels from Asia?

Today's news is another example of what most Americans don't get: that the weapons recovered in Mexico are not even available here in the US unless they were stolen from the US government.

Displayed here is very likely a fully automatic 50 BMG anti-aircraft gun.
(NOTE: Dear Liberal reader, no you cannot buy this at a gun show)

What else used in this standoff????? 50 grenades, hmmmmm let me seeee NOT available in the US.


So what is the cause of the strife in Mexico?

  1. the US led DRUG WAR
  2. the corrupt Mexican government
  3. economic inequality
All of which are the responsibility of the US and Mexican goverments. But somehow we'll keep finding ways to blame law abiding Americans.....



For (part) of the full story:

Last Updated on Sunday, 07 June 2009 11:48

Next step? No guns allowed for... 'extremists'

E-mail Print PDF

Reposted from:


Next step? No guns allowed for right-wing 'extremists'
Bill empowers attorney general to forbid firearms for those 'suspected dangerous'

Posted: May 09, 2009
12:10 am Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.

A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans as potential "threats," could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others – any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential "extremism."

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any "known or suspected dangerous terrorist." The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is "appropriately suspected" of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general "has a reasonable belief" that the gun might be used in connection with terrorism.

Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill's language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a person's Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being "dangerous."

"[Rep. King] would deny citizens their civil liberties based on no due process," objected Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. "A 'known terrorist?' Look, if the guy has committed an act of terrorism, we shouldn't have to worry about him being able to buy a gun; he should be in jail!"

Pratt further warned WND of the potential overlap of H.R. 2159 and a recent DHS memo that warned against potential violence from "right-wing extremists," such as those concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty.

"By those standards, I'm one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano's terrorists," Pratt said. "This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they're all potential terrorists. Actually, we could rename this bill the Janet Napolitano Frenzied Fantasy Implementation Act of 2009."

gleCreateDomIframe('google_ads_div_WND_NWS_C0200' ,'WND_NWS_C0200');

Pratt's biggest concern, however, is the sidestepping of the Constitution and due process that the nebulous language of this bill could permit.

"Unbeknownst to us, some bureaucrat in the bowels of democracy can put your name on a list, and your Second Amendment rights are toast," Pratt told WND. "This is such an anti-American bill, this is something King George III would have done."

As WND reported, right-wing "extremists" aren't the only Americans on the DHS watch list.

Two weeks before the U.S. Department of Homeland Security penned its now notorious warning against "right-wing extremists" in the United States, it generated a memo defining dozens of additional groups as potential "threats."

That memo, the "Domestic Extremism Lexicon" expanded the list from typical "right-wing" causes to include left-wing extremism, animal rights activists, black separatists, anarchists, Cuban independence advocates, environmental extremists, the anti-war movement and more. It even insisted some of these groups were prone to violence.

For example, the lexicon defined the "tax resistance movement" – also referred to in the report as the tax protest movement or the tax freedom movement – as "groups or individuals who vehemently believe taxes violate their constitutional rights. Among their beliefs are that wages are not income, that paying income taxes is voluntary, and that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which allowed Congress to levy taxes on income, was not properly ratified."

It further states that tax protesters "have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism in an attempt to advance their extremist goals."

The DHS memos were meant for distribution to law enforcement officials around the country, prompting some to worry the definitions might be used to classify Americans who simply disagree with government policies as being dangerous.

As WND reported, the relative of a Louisiana driver claims her brother-in-law has already been unfairly targeted by police simply for having a supposedly subversive, "Don't Tread on Me" bumper sticker on his car.

According to the relative, it happened this way: Her brother-in-law was driving home from work through Ball, La., which has a local reputation for enhancing its budget by ticketing speeders. He was pulled over by police officers who told him "he had a subversive survivalist bumper sticker on his car."

"They proceeded to keep him there on the side of the road while they ran whatever they do to see if you have a record, keeping him standing by the side of the road for 30 minutes," she told WND.

Finding no record and no reason to keep him, they warned him and eventually let him go, she said.

WND has withheld the driver's name and the relative's name at their request.

H.R. 2159 has six co-sponsors, from both parties, and has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

WND contacted Rep. King's office for comment on the bill, but received no response.



Libertarian views on gay marriage

E-mail Print PDF

Put simply: Government legislation of marriage is NOT separation of church and state.




Freedomain Radio on Naughty Libertarianism

E-mail Print PDF
Last Updated on Wednesday, 22 April 2009 18:47

A Jewish perspective on the Virginia Tech massacre and guns

E-mail Print PDF

Reposted from:

Of Weapons and Wickedness

Examining the gun control debate from the perspective of classic Judaic sources

The terrible events of last week at Virginia Tech invite profound soul-searching as to what went wrong and how to prevent similar events from happening again.

We are all devastated by the horror and senselessness of it all. As a rabbi who engages in pastoral work, I--like most of my colleagues--know that the wounds will persist in families and friends and teachers for many years to come; in fact, for lifetimes.

One of the things we have seen is an intensifying of the gun control debate by well-meaning citizens on both sides of the issue. Frankly this creates a debate within ourselves as well. Many of us appreciate and are torn between both approaches to this vexing issue.

As Jews, our teachings tell us that preserving human life is the greatest human calling, and murder the most depraved attack on man and G‑d there can be.

The question is: What does Jewish tradition and law tell us about the best way to preserve human life?

I think if we honestly look at matters we can see that, on one hand,

  1. The murderer could not have killed anywhere near the number killed had he had a weapon other than a firearm. He was outnumbered by his victims 20, 30 and 40 to 1. Only a semiautomatic weapon gave him the ability to kill so many without hindrance.

  2. If there were stricter background checks and other encumbrances in place, he may have been prevented from acquiring a handgun legally.

  3. If no one but the police and military had weapons, it would be very difficult to acquire a gun, even illegally (as is the case in Japan and the UK).

On the other hand,

  1. If weapons had been permitted on the VT campus, a student or professor may have stopped the killer before so many were killed. As it was, only a person breaking the law had a weapon available to him--the murderer.

  2. The murderer "flew beneath the radar." It is possible that no system of flagging suspicious individuals could have helped in this case, or would help in similar cases in the future.

  3. It is rarer by far, but determined criminals even in Japan and the UK can get illegal guns. Just the other day the mayor of Nagasaki in Japan was killed by a firearm wielded by a gang member. And with 200 million guns in this country, it may not be possible to remove every one from circulation--even if as society we wanted to. Hence maybe law-abiding citizens should have the ability to defend themselves.

  4. Even if only the police and military have weapons –what if a policeman goes on a rampage against unarmed and defenseless citizens? Indeed, in 1982 South Korean policeman Woo Bum-Kon killed 57 people, then himself, in rural South Korea using a high-powered rifle and grenades.

These are all arguments wielded by reasonable, good and caring people –who exist in large numbers on both sides of the societal divide this issue creates in our nation.

So where does Judaism stand on the issue?

I believe the issue can be argued on both sides from a Judaic point of view.

I. On one hand:

1) Talmud, Shabbat 63a:

One must not go out [on Shabbat] with a sword, nor with a bow, nor with a triangular shield, nor with a round one, nor with a spear; if he does so he is liable for a sin-offering. R. Eliezer says they are ornaments to him [and thus permitted to be worn on Shabbat], but the sages say they are nothing but a stigma, for it is written [Isaiah 2:4]: "They shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning-knives; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."

Weapons and their possession are a reproach to mankind –and not anything desirable.

2) Talmud, Bava Kama 46a:

R. Nathan says: From where is it derived that one should not breed a bad dog in his house, or keep an impaired ladder in his house? From the text [Deuteronomy 24:8], "You shall bring not blood upon your house."

I.e., it is forbidden to have anything likely to cause damage about one's domicile.

Rabbi Shlomo Luria ("Maharshal") points out that many authorities forbid raising a dangerous dog even if it is kept chained. This would indicate that a dangerous object--such as a gun--is forbidden, even if it is supposedly safeguarded. However he points out elsewhere in the tractate (fol 83) that in a "dangerous area" one may keep a bad tempered dog that one chains by day and allows to patrol one's property by night.

In conclusion, we are commanded to avoid all danger to our lives. There is no question that a gun is fundamentally a dangerous object, designed to kill.

II. On the other hand...

In Exodus 22:1 we read:

If, while breaking in, the thief is discovered, and he is struck and dies, [it is as if] he has no blood.

Rashi, the greatest commentator on the Tanach (the original, Jewish name for the 24 books of the Bible) who gathers together millennia of interpretation, comments:

"He has no blood. [This signifies that] this is not [considered] murder. It is as though he [the thief] is [considered] dead from the start. Here the Torah teaches you: If someone comes to kill you, kill him first. And this one [the thief] has come to kill you, because he knows that a person will not hold himself back and remain silent when he sees people taking his money. Therefore, he [the thief] has come with the acknowledgement that if the owner of the property were to stand up against him, he [thief] would kill him [the owner]. - [From Talmud Sanhedrin. 72a]".

Here we clearly see the rule, "If someone comes to kill you, kill him first." If we are told by the Almighty to defend ourselves, clearly we may possess the wherewithal to do so. In today's world there is no better tool--if G‑d forbid it comes to this--than a firearm. Only with a firearm is the proverbial little old lady living alone a match for the hulking thug. A baseball bat won't give her much of a chance. And law enforcement officials rarely have a chance to intervene to save a victim at the moment of the crime.

We indeed yearn for the time of the Final Redemption when "They shall beat their swords into plowshares" but it is a very poor idea to do this unilaterally before that point in history!

We believe the teachings of the Torah--including the obligation we have to ourselves to guard our own lives--to be eternal; but the technology to carry them out should be the best available in our era.

This obligation is codified in Jewish law as part of a range of obligations centered on preserving our health and well being, as well as the obligation to defend ourselves or a third party against aggression.

Under Jewish Law there is an obligation for a private citizen to assist another in trouble: "You shall not stand by [the shedding of] your fellow's blood. I am the Lord (Leviticus 19:16)" and as Rashi comments, quoting the legal texts of the Talmud:

"You shall not stand by [the shedding of] your fellow's blood. [I.e., do not stand by,] watching your fellow's death, when you are able to save him; for example, if he is drowning in the river or if a wild beast or robbers come upon him. — [Torath Kohanim 19:41; Talmud, Sanhedrin 73a]"

We cannot exempt ourselves of this obligation – even though in this country we have a wonderful and dedicated corps of law enforcement officers and other emergency personnel. We should respect them and support them in every way possible, as they have devoted their lives to the rescue of their fellows –but our obligation to our fellow remains: if we see someone in trouble we cannot absolve ourselves of our obligation by the fact that "professionals" exist somewhere.

One can therefore make the argument that it would be wrong to deprive citizens of the "tools" most suited to this task, e.g. firearms. Our Sages have a saying "A broken wall calls out to the thief [to come in]." If the law dictates that a citizen may not be armed –the criminals will arm themselves and be unafraid of opposition –as those who abide by the law will be defenseless.

Jewish law forbids the sale of arms to people who are suspect of criminal intentions by personal history or otherwise. From this it is understood that the sale of arms to the law abiding is something entirely acceptable.

What of the dangers inherent in improperly stored and handled firearms? We are taught,

"When you build a new house, you shall make a guard rail for your roof, so that you shall not cause blood [to be spilled] in your house, that the one who falls should fall from it [the roof]" (Deuteronomy 22:8)

The Rabbis derive from this that we must create "fences" in all dangerous situations to prevent "blood spilled" in your house. However the Torah did not forbid flat roofs –it mandates fences. We need to be responsible with things that may be dangerous, not prevented from having them.

In conclusion I leave to you, my dear reader, to judge, based on these sources, where Judaism stands on gun control.

One more quote: There is a fascinating commentary by Nachmanides (13th Century) on Genesis 4:20-24. The verses read:

Now Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have cattle.
And his brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all who grasp a lyre and a flute.
And Zillah she too bore Tubal Cain, who sharpened all tools that cut copper and iron, and Tubal Cain's sister was Na'amah.
Now Lemech said to his wives, "Adah and Zillah, hearken to my voice; wives of Lemech, incline your ears to my words; for have I slain a man by wounding (him)? A child by bruising (him)?
If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, then for Lemech it shall be seventy-seven fold."

What is going on over here? What is this marital spat between Lemech and his two wives all about?

Nachmanides explains: Lemech was very wise and taught one son herding, the other music, and the third metallurgy. His wives remonstrated with him that the introduction of ironworking would enable the production of weapons and bring murder to the world. Lemech responds to them: "Have I killed a man, as great-grandpa Cain has done seven generations ago? It is not the sword that kills, but the bad choice by a man. Without a sword, too, a man could kill another by wounding and battering as did Cain..."

Swords do kill – but only if they have evil intent behind them

So who was right in this debate – Lemech or his wives?

It is my prayer, which I am certain all our readers share, that we shall very soon enter that era in which we shall no longer need to think of defense as it is written: "And a wolf shall live with a lamb….They shall neither harm nor destroy on all My holy mount, for the land shall be full of knowledge of the Lord as water covers the sea" (Isaiah 11:6-9).

Share thisPost a CommentPrintSend this page to a friendSubscribe
55 Comments Posted

By Shlomo Yaffe   More articles...  |   RSS Listing of Newest Articles by this Author

Rabbi Shlomo Yaffe, spiritual leader of Congregation Agudas Achim of West Hartford, Connecticut, is on the editorial staff of Chabad.o



Page 83 of 85