BajaNomad - How Mexico's drug war affects tourism L.A. Times article

How Mexico's drug war affects tourism L.A. Times article

Tommy A - 12-26-2010 at 11:39 AM

What can travelers expect from Mexico in 2011? That's at least a $64-million question, given the many Americans who visit the country every year. And the answers seem to point every which way.

Across Mexico, international visitors and drug-war casualties rose in 2010. As the country moves into its third century — and President Felipe Calderon's drug war moves into its fifth year — experts say both trends could well continue.

Airlines are adding Mexican destinations. Several notable new lodgings are opening, including a pair in southern Baja California and two more in artsy, historic San Miguel de Allende.

Gloria Guevara Manzo, Mexico's tourism secretary, has set a 2011 goal of boosting total tourist numbers by 15%.

And yet, "we're probably going to see similar or higher levels of violence next year," said Charles Pope, assistant director of the Trans-Border Institute at the University of San Diego.

The Mexican government counted 12,456 drug-war deaths in the first 11 months of 2010, nearly twice as many such deaths as it counted in all of 2009. Although the violence has been spreading, about 45% of those deaths occurred in two states: Chihuahua (which includes Juárez, the murder capital) and Sinaloa.

Meanwhile, several other states remain relatively calm, including Baja California Sur, which includes Los Cabos and La Paz. (That state reported six drug-war deaths in the year that ended June 30.) In much-visited Quintana Roo (which includes Cancún and Playa del Carmen), 42 drug-war deaths were counted during that time.

In the state of Baja California, which includes Tijuana and the northern half of the Baja peninsula, the drug-war death tally was 352 for the 12 months that ended June 30. That might seem an alarming number, but it marked a decrease from 589 killings a year earlier.

"It's quite remarkable" to see tourism and violence tallies rising together at the national level, Pope said.

In its most recent Mexico warning, on Sept. 10, the U.S. State Department (www.travel.state.gov) outlined how the drug-war trouble varies by region and recapped its longstanding advice about concealing your jewelry, traveling mostly by daylight, staying in well-trodden tourist areas, avoiding gypsy cabs and other measures.

For more advice and regional specifics, look at the guidance the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (www.fco.gov.uk/) gives to Brits bound for Mexico.

And while you're looking, remember that overall travel to Mexico has been rising. In the first 10 months of 2010, Mexican officials say, the country received 8.2 million international visitors by air, business and leisure combined. That's 17.8% more than during the same period in 2009 and 6.4% more than in 2008. The number of Americans in that group — 4.9 million — was up 13.5% over 2009.

Those numbers don't mean the tourist trade is thriving; the continuing deep discounts on Mexican cruises in 2011 are a clear sign that it takes price-slashing to fill beds. But for many businesses, 2010 marked the beginning of the long crawl back after a disastrous 2009, when the drug wars and a spate of fatal flu cases scared away million of travelers.

Though the weak recovery has kept many Americans and Canadians from traveling abroad, Mexico tourism spokeswoman Elizabeth Tjaden said, many see Mexico as a more affordable option.

In Los Cabos, hotel occupancy in 2010 ran about 5% ahead of that in 2009. As the tentative recovery continues, Gonzalo Franyutti, president of Los Cabos Convention & Visitors Bureau, said in an e-mail that he expected many lodgings to offer "added value" deals in the months ahead, while airlines increase Mexico flights.

Earlier this month, Alaska Airlines launched thrice-weekly flights between San Jose and Los Cabos, four flights weekly between San Jose and Guadalajara and three flights weekly between Sacramento and Guadalajara.

Meanwhile, Virgin America on Dec. 16 started flying between San Francisco and Los Cabos five times a week. On Jan. 19, the carrier will start flying between LAX and Cancún (five times weekly), and on Jan. 20, it will start flying between San Francisco and Cancún (three times weekly).

Though recession has delayed or killed many hotel projects across the country, others have been completed.

In the historic expat refuge of San Miguel de Allende, about 180 miles northwest of Mexico City, an upscale 67-room Rosewood San Miguel de Allende hotel is scheduled to open in early February. Opening rates begin at $295 a night (http://www.rosewoodsanmiguel.com).

Also in San Miguel, the boldly contemporary boutique Hotel Matilda, with 32 rooms, opened in September. Mid-January rates begin at $266 weekdays, $295 weekends (http://www.hotelmatilda.com).

In La Paz, the CostaBaja hotel complex open in November on the site of the old Fiesta Inn, with a spa, 250-slip marina and golf course designed by Gary Player. It has been offering its 115 hotel rooms for $139 to $329 (http://www.costabajaresort.com).

In Cabo San Lucas, Grand Solmar Land's End Resort & Spa (the fifth Solmar property in Los Cabos) is scheduled to open in February with 119 suites (solmar2-px.trvlclick.com/solmar.html).

In Mazatlán, the beachfront, 71-room Las Villas Hotel & Spa opened in June within the Estrella del Mar resort area. Pre-tax rates begin at $120 a night for a standard room

woody with a view - 12-26-2010 at 11:41 AM

lack of surf this winter has hampered my tourism.....

DENNIS - 12-26-2010 at 11:57 AM

It seems to me that people who travel to these resorts have, in their minds, isolated their destinations from the rest of the country. They turn deaf ears to the horrendous activities taking place in other parts of the country and refuse to acknowledge their existance.
The resorts are seen as autonomous and crime doesn't exist.
And, when they return home, they carry the message that Mexico is the perfectly peaceful paradise.
Sounds like a step in the dirrection of tolerance to crime as long as the Samba lessons arn't disturbed.
Very disturbing.

bajalera - 12-26-2010 at 01:07 PM

That was thoughtful, Dennis. So do you have any practical suggestions as to what people who are concerned about the horrendous activities can do about them? (I can't think of any.)

Bajahowodd - 12-26-2010 at 01:17 PM

Almost sounds to me that Dennis is proposing a tourism boycott. Thing is that it would be tantamount to boycotting New York because of gang violence in Detroit.

And since the cartels don't really rely on tourism for their revenue, if tourists stop going to Mexico, it won't matter to the cartels, but will certainly harm the vast numbers of hard working Mexicans employed in the tourist sector.

bajatravelergeorge - 12-26-2010 at 01:27 PM

Drug dollars are being used to buy or build hotels, restaurants, clubs in the turist zones. The cartels don't want violence there.

DENNIS - 12-26-2010 at 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bajalera
That was thoughtful, Dennis. So do you have any practical suggestions as to what people who are concerned about the horrendous activities can do about them? (I can't think of any.)

No...I don't know. It just seems self-consumed for individuals and hospitality businesses to ignore the fact that just up the road someone may be having his head cut off.
I mean...look at Acapulco. Cliff divers basking in celebrity splendor as streets around the town are running red with blood.

"Yes folks, our beaches are beautiful. When you're not floundering in the sand to improve your tan, stick your head in the stuff."

wessongroup - 12-26-2010 at 01:43 PM

Quote:

Can't speak for Dennis... but, for me... legalize it all... ya know, take the money out of it..... won't touch all the poverty.. and such.. but, would certainly slow down this grinding conflict which does not seem to have any light at the end of the tunnel...

The war on drugs has been going on since the 60's... sure has been some real progress made.. how many tunnels they get this year... how many boat loads, how many mules.. et al...

Not getting the bang for the buck... with this approach... plus folks are going to use it legally or illegally .... and it doesn't come from Mexico, it will get here from Africa, Europe (remember the French Connection) well it's still working... aaaaahhhhhh how ya think they are getting all that "smack" out of Afaganistan .... to the United States... the route has been used since it was called the "Silk Road" for the past thousand of years or so....

And let's not forget "Smugglers Gulch" on the fence road going to Plays Tijuana...

DENNIS - 12-26-2010 at 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
Almost sounds to me that Dennis is proposing a tourism boycott.

Nope. Not me. That's already been done. It's the efforts to undo the damage that have my attention.

Quote:

And since the cartels don't really rely on tourism for their revenue, if tourists stop going to Mexico, it won't matter to the cartels, but will certainly harm the vast numbers of hard working Mexicans employed in the tourist sector.

Sounds like justification for a state sponsered Whitewash. Turn off the news. Allow no reports to leak out.

Sounds Orwellian to me. New-Speak revisited. If there is no news, nothing happened. hmmmmm....

DavidE - 12-26-2010 at 03:09 PM

Being that I live in Mexico my comment is that out of all the deaths being tallied only a minority have anything to do with law enforcement efforts.

Wars between gang elements is inevitable and that inevitability extends to involving the general public and involving tourists. If law enforcement ceases, then downtown Cancun, Tecate, Tijuana and San Lucas are destined to become battlefields.

When alcohol was legalized the mafia members didn't go back to spinning pizzas, and collecting trash. You can make all drugs SUBSIDIZED in both Mexico and the USA, PAY PEOPLE to use free drugs and the sicarios are not going to go away in Mexico. Get used to it. They are into the rackets heavy duty, kidnapping, extortion, protection, and even influencing government contracts, they are into unions, just about everywhere.

In addition to paying people to use drugs, the US government could also throw in thousand dollar incentives to not visit Mexico, and close the borders. It would not close down los carteles.

Read US history and find out what hammer was used to control organized crime. Mexico must do the same or be forever enmeshed in violence.

wessongroup - 12-26-2010 at 03:59 PM

Didn't suggest make them free... just legal.. and remove that aspect of the problem...

Organized crime has always existed.. just has.. some folks can't or do not want to follow the path used by many to make their way in life.. I can deal with that...

As for kidnapping, extortion, protection... perhaps Mexico should adopt sentencing which includes the DEATH PENALTIY... some don't think of it as a deterrent... well, that's what some think...

I grew up with the death penalty firmly in place in the Untied States ... and for me it was certainly a deterrent... however, not some that I grew up with... but.. then who really thinks there are absolutes ... about the only ones I know is death and taxes .. it's pretty much absolute.. either you are dead or you're not... and we ALL pay taxes...

As for "hammers used" for organized crime in the states... ya got to be kidding.. the organized crime now exists in the White House in Washington DC and it's not party dependent.... by a long shot...

DENNIS - 12-26-2010 at 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lencho
What hammer was used? :?:

--Larry

Was this it??

http://www.pandius.com/ThompsonM1A1VWM.jpg

http://tf.org/images/covers/TheUntouchables-tf.org-freee-200...

.

[Edited on 12-26-2010 by DENNIS]

Bajahowodd - 12-26-2010 at 04:45 PM

I just don't get the idea that the death penalty is a deterrent. First of all, many murders are crimes of passion, and I highly doubt whether the perp spent any time pondering this issue. Second, most truly hardened criminals, if they even think about it, might consider it to be a form of martyrdom. I absolutely beg someone to show me any relevant information to support the idea that execution has deterred crime.

We can go back and forth on the death penalty. Lord knows that it's been going on and on. But, there is absolutely no statistical evidence that it is a deterrent to crime. So, at the end of the day, it is state sponsored murder. Perhaps, those who have been victimized, may feel better for it. But should the state be acting to make its citizens feel better?

Just don't think that enough folks can get past the idea of state sponsored retribution and understand that life in prison without the possibility of parole is a much greater punishment to these folks. And, while I suspect that I'll hear from people telling me that being in prison comes with benefits of laundry service and cable TV, I don't buy it. Sow me the proof.

DENNIS - 12-26-2010 at 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
I just don't get the idea that the death penalty is a deterrent.

Neither are garbage trucks, but they get rid of the garbage.

.

[Edited on 12-27-2010 by DENNIS]

Bajahowodd - 12-26-2010 at 05:14 PM

The simple fact is that under the current legal system, the tax payers spend millions of dollars to run these cases through the system for decades. Given that, and the fact that we have executed innocent people, it just seems to me that a victory would be gained if we just eliminated the death penalty and had these bastards incarcerated in the conditions they deserved. There are studies that show this actually saves money. And, it certainly wouldn't involve the execution of those who are not guilty.

tripledigitken - 12-26-2010 at 05:38 PM

Howard,

They don't STAY in jail.

Ken

:rolleyes:

Woooosh - 12-26-2010 at 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bajatravelergeorge
Drug dollars are being used to buy or build hotels, restaurants, clubs in the turist zones. The cartels don't want violence there.

"It's quite remarkable" to see tourism and violence tallies rising together at the national level, Pope said."

see- not really that remarkable.

DENNIS - 12-26-2010 at 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
and had these bastards incarcerated in the conditions they deserved.

Your ACLU won't allow that. They must be pampered and nurtured toward rehabilitation.
I say kill them. Our society isn't supposed to be a half-way house.
Kill them dead. One shot to the back of the head. Burn them to ash and use what's left of them to soak up spilled oil in the motor pool.

Why are we not allowed to rid our society of scourge and pestilence? Why do we constantly have to come to terms with germs?

woody with a view - 12-26-2010 at 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
and had these bastards incarcerated in the conditions they deserved.

took the words outta my mouth... i was gonna quote:

"Given that, and the fact that we have executed innocent people, it just seems to me that a victory would be gained if we just eliminated the death penalty and had these bastards incarcerated in the conditions they deserved."

howzabout the innocent that were "executed" by 99% of the guilty turds? and, just what "conditions" would you propose that would serve these POS in their just conditions? no tv?

i'm with Dennis. one review of your case, and a bullet to your skull. seems like it would deter, i mean, save a lot of lives....

DavidE - 12-27-2010 at 01:10 AM

The "hammer" was FBI accountants helping the IRS. This all ties into a tidy package with the R.I.C.O. act.

But we've a long wait for Mexico to try and catch up I fear.

DENNIS - 12-27-2010 at 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lencho
what is the basic difference between the two that permits such wide-spread overt corruption here in Mexico, and tends to suppress it in the U.S.?

Mexico still has an imbedded sense of impunity and accepts power corruption as a way of life. That's the way I see it.

Hammer? Tonka Toy hammer perhaps. No offense.

mcfez - 12-27-2010 at 09:21 AM

All around us there is violence. Has been since the days I was growing up in L.A. Just using the best travel cautions can make your stay in Mexico a good experience. We never stay in cities that have mega issues. We dont cruise out late at night. Never wear Rolex's (we have JCP's! watches) and Fancie attire. Just blending in with the crowd will do wonders.

I refused NOT to go to Mexico. I love that place.

Look in our own back yard...

Approximately 1 million gang members belonging to more than 20,000 gangs.

Hammer after hammer....these folks are still here. The murder rates with them are nothing to compare with the Mexican state...we are not waging a war with our gang members.

Just a point that no matter what happens to the cartels in Mexico....the bad guys will remain always (?).

I am not making a statement here BTW...just supplying some facts to this post.

Info from:
http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs32/32146/index.htm

[Edited on 12-27-2010 by mcfez]

bigzaggin - 12-27-2010 at 09:39 AM

I'll stay clear of the political back-and-forth here, but I do agree heartily with Woody's initial assessment:

Quote:

Originally posted by woody with a view
lack of surf this winter has hampered my tourism.....

Until these drug lords can find a way to consistently funnel large NW groundswells into the Baja Peninsula, tourism will continue to falter. Though, I am fairly certain the drug wars have had little to no notable effect on the catching and eating of fish.

Gaucho - 12-27-2010 at 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
The simple fact is that under the current legal system, the tax payers spend millions of dollars to run these cases through the system for decades. Given that, and the fact that we have executed innocent people, it just seems to me that a victory would be gained if we just eliminated the death penalty and had these bastards incarcerated in the conditions they deserved. There are studies that show this actually saves money. And, it certainly wouldn't involve the execution of those who are not guilty.

The problem with this is they can run their businessess quite successfully from prison.

I'm with Dennis.

DavidE - 12-27-2010 at 03:35 PM

For decades drivers loathed the idea of having to reach into their billfold and extract a wad of pesos to placade an irate transito for doing 100 in a 60 kph zone.

Now that the PFP is "honest" and drivers must go through the system and be processed for the same violation, Mexican drivers curse the new system and bemoan the fact that they miss "the good old days".

Education starts in kindergarten. And I am not going to finger Mexicans as being the ones that need education in ethics. We can start here on this side of the border by teaching children that their knothead parents who use drugs from Mexico fund the death of men women and children, and that US society as a whole ignores this brutal fact. We can teach our children that morals dictate you do not brutalize a company or financial institution to milk it of every last cent, at the expensive of hundreds of millions of fellow citizens. We can expose the imbecilic laxness of firearms laws that allows criminal elements to purchase many assault rifles in a single purchase with no paper trail at all. It's a huge difference to have the ability to purchase a single assault rifle freely, as compared to a freaking arsenal. Assault rifles fall into a special category as far as I am concerned, and purchasers should not be hesitant to have a requirement put upon them to supply picture I.D. and a full set of fingerprints, that goes into a national database. I wouldn't flinch one bit to have to do this.

People that rail against the above are screwing up MY Mexico, and they could care less.

DENNIS - 12-27-2010 at 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidE

People that rail against the above are screwing up MY Mexico, and they could care less.

Another atrocity I recently saw on TV. It was the Nat Geo Channel in a Border Wars episode that showed a shop on the US side in Nuevo Laredo that sold to anybody Mexico Police Agency uniforms....or reasonable facsimilies. They're bought by Mexico's scum class to be used to impersonate police in Mexico.
We've heard so often of kidnapping and murder done by men in police uniform.

I don't get it. I know...rights are rights, but there has to be new interpretation for these new atrocities. Stores like this are just aiding and abetting murderers and know full well their crime, but protected by our archaic Bill Of Rights.

Say what you want about the wonderful American way, but that thing has to be rewritten for a lot of reasons....

[Edited on 12-27-2010 by DENNIS]

A moral conundrum

Dave - 12-27-2010 at 04:52 PM

Mexicans not caring that Americans are killed by drugs they supply.

VS

Americans not caring that Mexicans are killed by guns from the U.S.

I'd vote for a tie.

Bajahowodd - 12-27-2010 at 05:09 PM

Exactly the reason something must be done. It's just plain nuts!

mcfez - 12-27-2010 at 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidE

People that rail against the above are screwing up MY Mexico, and they could care less.

There's a uniform shop here in Sacramento (off Arden way) that used to sell any sort of uniform and gear to anyone. I had actually gone in there back in the late eighties to buy a County Sheriffs uniform. I walked out with everything but a hand revolver.

The uniform was for me....as my Halloween costume. I walked into my bar (Deno's Bar and No Grill) ....the place went silent. For months...it was rumored that I was a cop :-)

Point of this....city has put a ban on the general public to able to purchase uniforms as such. I agree..it's insane to allow any Joe off the street to buy deception.

Epiphany

Dave - 12-27-2010 at 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave
Mexicans not caring that Americans are killed by drugs they supply.

VS

Americans not caring that Mexicans are killed by guns from the U.S.

I'd vote for a tie.

Having rethought my position:

Mexicans are importing and exporting illegal products. American gun dealers are, for the most part, selling legal products legally.

Tie does not go to the runner.

Bajahowodd - 12-27-2010 at 06:14 PM

But, just a thought. Can anyone 'splain to me why automatic assault weapons are legal? Anyone go hunting with them? perhaps if you really don't care about bringing your catch home. Are they the ideal weapon of choice to protect your home and family? Are they the ice breaker for conversations at parties and picnics? Guess I'm just too stupid to understand this.

DENNIS - 12-27-2010 at 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
Can anyone 'splain to me why automatic assault weapons are legal?

I don't believe they are. Semi-automatic, yes. It's illegal to change a semi-auto to full, but I think you can buy directions on Amazon or Barnes and Noble.
Kinda screwy, isn't it.

Bajahowodd - 12-27-2010 at 06:25 PM

The NRA loophole?

Just really have a hard time with the idea that in a civilized society, there are folks who actively engage in the movement to allow such weapons to proliferate.

God knows, everyone should have the means to protect their family and property. But at some point a line ought to be drawn.

DENNIS - 12-27-2010 at 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
in a civilized society,

Where's that??

wessongroup - 12-27-2010 at 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
But, just a thought. Can anyone 'splain to me why automatic assault weapons are legal? Anyone go hunting with them? perhaps if you really don't care about bringing your catch home. Are they the ideal weapon of choice to protect your home and family? Are they the ice breaker for conversations at parties and picnics? Guess I'm just too stupid to understand this.

I recall some folks who were found of hunting with them... in back in the late 70's... in California..

There had been a sizable population of Hmongs, placed in the Central Valley .... and they had never had hunting so good...

Caught them using nets on fish.. and we once found them hunting with AK-47 ... they were after deer...

They did really good.. a pile of over 75 animals.. all ages and male and female.. seems they didn't think it was a problem to go and get food.. any place, including the City Parks ducks too... plus cats' and dog's.... just about anything that wasn't indoors...

A friend with Fish and Game.. used to let me go and see what the happening... he had done a tour in Nam.. and had a special place in his heart for these folks.. along with some shrapnel on his left upper body ... from a hand grenade.. some folks shared with him...

They were a "special" type of "hunter".. They killed anything... using anything... automatic, shotguns.. was always waiting for claymores ..... :lol:

They consider automatic's.. just another weapon... as that is just what they are... just another weapon.. as it only takes one shot, but sometimes more than one is nice to have...

tripledigitken - 12-27-2010 at 06:41 PM

The Constitution is fine as it is!

sanquintinsince73 - 12-28-2010 at 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mcfez

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidE

People that rail against the above are screwing up MY Mexico, and they could care less.

I bet if you go back to the old bar and dig around, you'll find where everyone hid their stash that night.

DavidE - 12-28-2010 at 01:33 AM

Some of us gun aficionados need to have a little chat with the heirarchy of the National Rifle Association. I'm afraid their little choo choo of common sense has jumped the rails and whackos are running the zoo.

I am a staunch believer and supporter of the Second Amendment, but not for weapons that are flat-out USELESS for sport hunting. I can outshoot* any man with any Russian made AK-47 at 300 meters using a standard target ring. A Barrett .50 caliber rifle would pulverize a lot of good meat in an elk. If someone wants to play with weapons of this class, if they meet the I.D. and background check criteria they should be able to purchase the weapons in single lot form from reputable gun dealers.

*With my Winchester Model 70 .270 (excellent for deer, a bit light for elk).

Framers' Intent

Dave - 12-28-2010 at 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidE
I am a staunch believer and supporter of the Second Amendment, but not for weapons that are flat-out USELESS for sport hunting.

Odd that a 2nd amendment supporter would associate gun ownership with the practice of hunting.

Somehow, I doubt that the method of putting food on the table would warrant constitutional protection.

Bajahowodd - 12-28-2010 at 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tripledigitken
The Constitution is fine as it is!

I really do not think that a debate about access to assault weapons is a constitutional issue. While the fact is that historically, court decisions basically considered the "regulated militia" language to deal with the need to have people armed to protect this country. The Roberts Court has put an end to that issue.

Yet, there really needs to be a sane middle ground where there can be balance between law-abiding citizen's right to own and bear arms, and the almost uncontrolled proliferation of the type of weapon that ought to be limited to battlefield use.

Woooosh - 12-28-2010 at 12:57 PM

I think the debate it too late and the genie is out of the bottle. Even if you put it back in, there are certainly enough manufactured assault rifles to go around.

DENNIS - 12-28-2010 at 12:58 PM

Too many protections for egregious offenders. I firmly believe that, at some point in time, a murderer gives up his right of Constitutional protection and should be treated accordingly.
I dislike hearing that a person can't be questioned for reasons as idiotic that his dialect is a bit foreign to a native speaker of his tongue, etc etc etc.

Times have changed since the Constitution was written. Changed a lot. The Constitution has to be brought into the 21st century. It was written before anybody knew what a car was. How could anybody think the ideas of that day are timeless?

Proliferation?

Dave - 12-28-2010 at 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
Yet, there really needs to be a sane middle ground where there can be balance between law-abiding citizen's right to own and bear arms, and the almost uncontrolled proliferation of the type of weapon that ought to be limited to battlefield use.

Where...And with what outcome?

In Texas, which arguably has the most lax gun laws in the country, El Paso has been voted one of America's safest cities. It's citizens can legally own all manner of assault weapons.

Steps away, Mexico's citizens who are highly restricted with respect to gun ownership are experiencing a bloodbath.

Can we assume these weapons undergo some magical, evil transformation when crossing the Rio Grande?

Bajahowodd - 12-28-2010 at 02:54 PM

Of course. They get into the hands of criminals. But I have to ask, just what is it you do with assault weapons?

That said, I agree with Dennis about the folly of literal reading of the constitution as written and trying to apply it to present times. Groups such as the tea party today, and so-called strict constructionists rail against judges who attempt to apply the spirit of the constitution to present day situations that could never have been considered when the document was written.

The problem occurs repeatedly that using the epithet of judicial activism conveniently overlooks the fact that judges from all parts of the philosophical debate like to cry foul only when they disagree. I don't think anyone would have considered the SCOTUS to be anything but strict constructionist back in 2000. Yet fact is that Bush v. Gore was a glaring example of activism when it suit the constructionists. Political expediancy.

A fair fight

Dave - 12-28-2010 at 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
Of course. They get into the hands of criminals.

And with respect to Mexico...ONLY criminals.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
But I have to ask, just what is it you do with assault weapons?

I'd expect that a law abiding citizen would use an assault weapon to repel an assault.

A 'new age' constitution

Dave - 12-28-2010 at 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS
The Constitution has to be brought into the 21st century. It was written before anybody knew what a car was. How could anybody think the ideas of that day are timeless?

Cars can kill.

While there are laws on the books requiring operator training, testing and licensing there are no laws outlawing their purchase...by anyone...

Yet. :rolleyes:

Bajahowodd - 12-28-2010 at 04:49 PM

Dave. You seriously gotta work on that paranoia problem. It's interesting that there are folks on both the right and the left that find real problems with the tilting of this country towards a nanny state where there are laws and enforcement to attempt to protect everyone from themselves. Truth is that while I consider myself to be a social liberal, I also have significant libertarian beliefs. And recent history shows that neither the right nor the left have exclusivity when it comes to trying to control people's behavior.

[Edited on 12-29-2010 by Bajahowodd]

BillP - 12-28-2010 at 05:01 PM

What's an "assault weapon"?

DENNIS - 12-28-2010 at 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave
Cars can kill.

That's funny. :lol:

Those nasty cars just jump up and kill. :lol:

,

[Edited on 12-29-2010 by DENNIS]

Bajahowodd - 12-28-2010 at 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BillP
What's an "assault weapon"?

Even this article tends to confuse some of the characteristics. But it give a decent outline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

BillP - 12-28-2010 at 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidE
Some of us gun aficionados need to have a little chat with the heirarchy of the National Rifle Association. I'm afraid their little choo choo of common sense has jumped the rails and whackos are running the zoo.

I am a staunch believer and supporter of the Second Amendment, but not for weapons that are flat-out USELESS for sport hunting. I can outshoot* any man with any Russian made AK-47 at 300 meters using a standard target ring. A Barrett .50 caliber rifle would pulverize a lot of good meat in an elk. If someone wants to play with weapons of this class, if they meet the I.D. and background check criteria they should be able to purchase the weapons in single lot form from reputable gun dealers.

*With my Winchester Model 70 .270 (excellent for deer, a bit light for elk).

It ain't about hunting. Far more gun owners go plinking than go hunting. The AK's are just plain fun to shoot. Ever shoot a .50BMG? They're flat assed fun to shoot!

I get sick and tired of the liberal brady types inventing nomenclature.

My Springfield Armory M1-A match target .308 is an assault weapon

My Savage 111 synthetic stock '.06 with scope is a sniper rifle

My Ruger Redhawk .44 mag is a hand cannon

etc

The NRA is doing a great job. They know if they give an inch, the gubment will take a mile.

AK 47

mcfez - 12-29-2010 at 12:44 PM

The Cleveland School massacre occurred on January 17, 1989, at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California, United States. The gunman, Patrick Purdy, who had a long criminal history, shot and killed five schoolchildren, and wounded 29 other schoolchildren and one teacher, before committing suicide.

These types of weapons were soon outlawed in Ca.

I've had all three Macs + other stuff. had to rid them thanks to this crazy punk that killed.

It aint the weapon that kills.

And no....I dont have a solution to this either , so dont troll me :-)

[Edited on 12-29-2010 by mcfez]

BajaGringo - 12-29-2010 at 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS
Times have changed since the Constitution was written. Changed a lot. The Constitution has to be brought into the 21st century. It was written before anybody knew what a car was. How could anybody think the ideas of that day are timeless?

Best post of this thread...

toneart - 12-29-2010 at 12:50 PM

Line up all them gun nuts and shoot 'em raght between they eyes! :smug: