I still can’t decide if it’s funnier if it was intentional or unintentional. Either way, it ended up brilliant.
In my experience (here we go again…) there is a problem with this among motorcycle enthusiasts as well. Back when there were nightly cries on the news for bans on “bullet bikes” I saw plenty of interviews with Harley owners (as well as knew a couple) who would make statements to the effect of “what do I care? The faster they ban the Jap pieces of shit the better.” Then of course when folks start talking about legislation for mandatory muffling of the bikes - like Harleys - well, it’s now their ox which is being gored, is it not? And then you get the nude biker protests (which are akin to the nude Abdallah Shrine protests, but less wrinkly. Much, much, much less wrinkly.)
I freely admit to being anti-hunting to some extent, but not because of the personalities of the hunters who I have known but because I’m a wildlife conservationist who just has an irrational soft spot for animals. At times I feel like I should be speaking up more to restrict or ban hunting, but then I try very hard to see the other side of the position. I still want to restrict hunting, but only in certain ways. I understand a pro-hunting person would see my desire to restrict their hobby, sport, or lawful use of firearms in the same manner in which I view anyone who happens to be a hunter and who wants to restrict my hobby, sport, or lawful use of firearms.
BTW, thank you very much for the spirited defense, Shot From Guns, but please don’t dispute with the gentleman (or lady) on my behalf. I’m sure they’ve had their final words/say to me, and the conversation is over as far as I am concerned. It’s Friday and pretty much everything’s turning up Una today, so I can’t possibly hold anything against them.
But Una, hunting *does *have restrictions: bag limits, hunting seasons, etc. And while I’ve met my share of dickhead hunters, the overwhelming majority I have met are in fact conservationists in the sense that they use most or all the parts of the animals they harvest, they respect the wilderness/nature and perform their kills skillfully and quickly to limit suffering. Keeping herd animals at reasonable levels also prevents suffering on the part of the animal from overpopulation/starvation.
WRT deer hunters…they need to increase the length of the season to keep the herds from getting as large as they are. There’s just too many deer rampaging all over the place, causing huge car accidents, etc. You’d love my subdivision. We have our own herd of deer (its illegal to hunt them) that are pretty docile…a few will let you get within a couple feet of them. We also have wild turkeys up the wazoo. But there’s generally just too many deer in and around populated areas in North America.
I concur. However, I would apply more strict limits. For one, to throw out an example, I would ban hunting of predators, like mountain lions or bobcats.
I concur as well. However, you are not understanding what I’m saying - I’m saying that I understand the bias one can have against a subset of a greater set of a hobby or sport, because I have a bias myself.
But but but I *disagree *with someone on the internet!
Pretty sure it’s already well petered out.
And now that the real data about the numbers of guns seized that can be traced back to the US is coming out the gun control advocates are handwaving it away.
Pay no attention to the man behind the smokescreen.
Where did you say they would go shopping?
Good grief! This thread is still alive?
:::Whips out a perfectly legal assault rifle bought at a Texas gun show and massacres all the posters:::
Point made.
Nobody has addressed the most important question:
Are the firearms purchased in the U.S. by the cartels American made? Because, honestly, the economy needs all the help it can get.
That’s the American spirit!
There’s no such thing as a perfectly legal assault rifle bought in the US, ignatz, unless you are one of the few people willing to pay $10,000-$15,000 for one of the limited number manufactured before the ban in 1986. Interestingly, there have been only two gun crimes committed by registered owners of legal assault rifles or machine guns since 1934, and none of said weapons have been involved in a crime ever to my knowledge.
Y’know, in case you wanted your ignorance fought.
I wanted it fought at first, but geeze, it’s taking so long!
I would like a news report as to whether those were actual AK-47 assault rifles or mere AK-pattern semi-automatic rifles. As the latter are not any more dangerous and provide no more firepower than my .308 hunting rifle, I would…actually be more concerned, since it would potentially represent a transfer of US-legal weapons to Mexico (although I’d wonder what the hell the cartels were doing, aside from making expensive and poor-reliability automatic weapons out of them). If they’re full-on military AK-47s, the US needs to figure out where they came from and why the hell people are smuggling to Mexico using us as an intermediary.
I appreciate your concern(?) but I happen to be Mexican and we see the harm 147 rifles of this type and 10,000 rounds of ammunition can do. Dead people don’t care if the weapon had “poor reliability”.
And for those like yourself that want to assume the weapons cannot be made fully automatic you are greatly underestimating the capabilities of the cartels and their expertise. These are not stupid men.
You are right - they aren’t stupid. So why bother? It costs more to make a semi-auto into an auto than it does to purchase a full auto version in the first place. It’s not like the cartels are limited to shopping at Wal-mart. They have access to the world’s weaponry, and AKs are very cheap and very easy to come by.
They are pretty stupid if they are buying American made AK-47’s (which are quite expensive) and THEN going to the trouble of converting them to full auto (which costs even more). Especially when they could simply go south and buy fully auto AK-47’s by the boat load for a couple of bucks.
And I appreciate your appreciation, but I’m from Mexico as well. It’s stupid to blame the American’s for the gun problem there. If you want to blame the Yankees, blame them for their stupid drug addictions. But don’t pretend that the US is the root of all of Mexico’s problems.
-XT
Actually you had stated in the post I quoted that the cartels did not purchase their AK-47s in the US. Forgive if I think you are full of shit. And several people claim how easy and cheap it is to acquire fully automatic AK-47s from other sources. I would love to see a cite that shows the origen and price of these weapons. Especially from someone who denied the cartels buy AK-47s in the USA.
[tongue in cheek]But if you’re supposed to blame the source of illicit items for your country’s social problems, then America’s drug problem is the fault of those evil drug growers and trafficers.[/tongue in cheek]
You should go back and re-read what I was saying there, since you didn’t seem to be grasping it. Here, let me quote it for you:
Which is pretty much me saying the same thing twice. It doesn’t make much sense for the cartels to purchase AK-47’s manufactured in the US since they cost more here and would need a conversion to make them fully auto (and to use the larger clips too, IIRC). If they ARE buying them here then they are fucking idiots. A quick Google search has the price of an American made AK-47 at between $500-$1000. At the cheaper price your 147 AK’s from your cite would be over $70k…and then they’d have to pay for the conversions.
According to Wiki (re:costs of illegal AK’s):
I don’t have the exact figures for what one would cost in Central or South America, but as in many places, the Soviets literally flooded the area with the things. There are millions of them (hell, 10’s of millions).
Well, pendejo, that’s certainly your prerogative. Since it comes from ignorance, however, I’m not exactly going to take your assertion to heart.
Maybe because the Soviets made literally hundreds of millions of them, and practically gave them away…think that might have something to do with it?
-XT