Rep. King (R-NY) to Introduce Bill Banning Guns Within 1,000 Feet of Government Officials

Representative Peter King (R-NY) is considering introducing a bill that will ban guns within 1,000 feet of any government official. That will include any federal members of Congress, governors, or any federal judge:

Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, is planning to introduce legislation that would make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official, according to a person familiar with the congressman's intentions.

King is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. The proposed law follows the Saturday shooting of Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and a federal judge that left six dead, including the judge, and 14 wounded...

It is already illegal in the U.S. to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. King's legislation to make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within 1,000 feet of the president, vice president, members of Congress or judges of the Federal Judiciary, would offer government officials the same protection.

This law could be very problematic for various reasons. Ed Morrissey of HotAir broke it down perfectly on why this could cause more problems than it would solve:

There are two questions involved in any gun-control legislation, the first of which is whether it will be constitutional, and the second of which is whether it will do any good. Let’s take those in order. Courts have thus far upheld reasonable restrictions on where guns may and may not be carried, such as courthouses and in the vicinity of schools. However, those are fixed locations, not mobile personnel, locations for which a court could reasonably expect most people to know.  If one carries a gun legally to a public place without knowledge of the presence of a judge or member of Congress, then an arrest would pobably be unreasonable (although courts might end up ruling otherwise). And if an arrest without any kind of attempt to initiate an assault is considered unreasonable, then the law is superfluous, since the attempt itself would be illegal already.

Some may also argue that an attempt to create a special class of protected people in this law might also fail to pass constitutional muster  I’d say a court would take a long look at whether Congress has a compelling state interest in passing such legislation, at least on that point, and wouldn’t bet that they’d rule no. A better question might be jurisdiction, where the law would create a mandate on state and local police to enforce federal law. The Obama administration just got done arguing in federal court that Arizona should be constrained from enforcing federal immigration law, to which the district court agreed. Would states not have an argument in the other direction in the case of this law?

Next, let’s look at its effectiveness  Would such a law work in the sense that it would make these protected classes more safe?  Such a law would not have stopped the shooting in Tucson. Had anyone in law enforcement seen the pistol in Jared Lee Loughner’s hands, they almost certainly would have reacted to it immediately by detaining him even without the federal law  Depending on the circumstances, they may not have been able to prosecute him under existing state law, but perhaps they could have confiscated his gun and revoked his permit after discovering just how insane he was and the evidence of his grudge against Giffords. Of course, the sheriff’s department in Tucson already knew of Loughner and hadn’t done much about it, but that won’t change under King’s proposed law, either.

King’s effort is of questionable constitutional and operational merit at best. It seems like another example of my axiom, Legislate in haste, repent at leisure.  Rather than issue knee-jerk proposals to change the law, let’s see where the evidence leads us in this case to determine how best to protect everyone from lunatics like Loughner.

Given that the Republicans control the House and could easily block it in the Senate, I doubt that this will go anywhere. This is just a knee-jerk reaction to the shooting out of fear or grief. In the end, cooler heads will prevail, and this bill should die a quick and quiet death.

Security around government should probably be strengthened, but this law wouldn't stop another attack from happening.

Justice Breyer: You Know Who Would Vote For Restricting Guns...The Founding Fathers

Supreme Court Justice made some startling assumptions regarding the origination and modern-day implementation of the second amendment in an interview on Fox News Sunday

If you look at the values and the historical record, you will see that the Founding Fathers never intended guns to go unregulated, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer contended Sunday.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Breyer said history stands with the dissenters in the court's decision to overturn a Washington, D.C., handgun ban in the 2008 case "D.C. v. Heller." 

Breyer wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He said historians would side with him in the case because they have concluded that Founding Father James Madison was more worried that the Constitution may not be ratified than he was about granting individuals the right to bear arms. 

Madison "was worried about opponents who would think Congress would call up state militias and nationalize them. 'That can't happen,' said Madison," said Breyer, adding that historians characterize Madison's priority as, "I've got to get this document ratified."

Therefore, Madison included the Second Amendment to appease the states, Breyer said.

That's a mighty big assumption. However, it seems that Justice Breyer only did a half-ass job at doing his homework, when he did his seance and found out what James Madison was thinking over 200 years ago. Ed Morrissey of HotAir found something that was, actually, written by Madison in the Federalist Papers, Federalist 46:

Madison also considered the right to bear arms an important check on federal power, too, and didn’t reluctantly come to that position to appease the states into signing the Constitution.  All Breyer needed to do to discover this was actually read Madison on the subject in Federalist 46, where Madison makes clear the role of states and men at arms in keeping the central government from overwhelming their sovereignty, emphases mine:

This is an excerpt from Federalist 46:

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people.

On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them.

I will say that Breyer does have a point that the founders couldn't have envisioned some of the weapons that we have today. Would they have been ok with everyday citizens having machine guns, rocket launchers, or a nuke?

However, in Reality, there is no way that we can tell that for sure. He may have an argument, if he was talking about restricting guns, but I believe that they sure wouldn't be ok with the outright gun ban like DC had and what was the issue that they were deciding in "D.C. v. Heller" case.

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case Concerning Constitutionality of Local Handgun Bans Next Year

One of the first cases that the new Supreme Court, with the addition of Justice Sotomayor, will be a case involving an issue of apprehension for conservatives, the local application of the Second Amendment:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether strict local and state gun control laws violate the Second Amendment, ensuring another high-profile battle over the rights of gun owners. The court said it will review a lower court ruling that upheld a handgun ban in Chicago. Gun rights supporters challenged gun laws in Chicago and some suburbs immediately following the high court's decision in June 2008 that struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia, a federal enclave.

The last court, with Souter, decided against a similar ban in DC, earlier this year. However, since DC is a federal district and not an independent city or state, it doesn't automatically {pertain} to the rest of America on a local government level. So, the court took this opportunity to clarify their position on the issue.

As an appellate judge, Sotomayor decided in a case similar to this one in New York. That particular case was, also, appealed, but the Chicago case was taken instead. So, Sotomayor wouldn't have to recuse herself.

In the New York case, she voted to uphold the ban just as Souter voted to uphold the DC ban. So, the court didn't tilt anymore to the left with the addition of Justice Sotomayor. The dynamic of the is the same as before. As a result, there is a very good chance that the court will rule the same way and overturn all total handgun bans across the country. That would be a major victory for the Second Amendment.

The case will be heard sometime next year.

Exit Thought:

I find it extra delicious that they are using a case from Obama's home district. Was it intentional?

Pew Poll First: Support For Gun Control Falls Even With Gun Rights

In the same poll that showed support for abortion slipping, it, also, shows support for gun control slipping as well:

For the first time in a Pew Research survey, nearly as many people believe it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns (45%) than to control gun ownership (49%). As recently as a year ago, 58% said it was more important to control gun ownership while 37% said it was more important to protect the right to own guns.

This is encouraging that people are realizing Obama's true agenda on both issues and are wanting to stand up for our rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution.

Let's hope that this change to more conservative values continues.

If People Don't First Believe, Lie, Lie Again: Obama Purports Debunked 90% Mexican Gun Claim

"This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border."-Obama

Obama seems to be determined to continue misleading the American people. FNC's Major Garrett has figured out how the Democrat's have pretzeled the facts to be able to make the claim that 90% of the Mexican drug cartel's guns come from the US with a straight face:

To some, it might sound as if Obama is saying 90 percent of all guns captured from the cartels originated in America. But that's not what the president means, senior National Security Council Spokesman Denis McDonough told FOX News on Saturday.

Of course, that's was people would think because that's the obvious meaning of what he said.

Is anyone else having Bill Clinton flashbacks? I'm remembering people having to ask him to define "sexual relations". Do we have to ask Obama to define "recovered"?

Never mind McDonough did that already:

"By recovered he means traceable, guns traced back to the United States," McDonough said. "These are ATF (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms) numbers. These are the guns submitted to the ATF for tracing. That's what we mean by recovered."

So, he does not mean 90% of all recovered guns just the recovered guns that could actually traced back anywhere.

That's like saying that 90% of the peanuts in my apartment are Planters because of the ones that are still in its original container that percentage are Planters peanuts. I failed to recognize the peanuts that I might have already put in storage containers and are "untraceable". (Ya, I know stupid analogy, but that was the best I could do off the cuff.)

As FOX News has previously reported, a large percentage of firearms recovered in Mexico from the drug cartels are not submitted to U.S. officials for tracing because they lack the necessary markings.

In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Those 11,000 firearms were part of the 29,000 firearms Mexican officials recovered at crime scenes. According to the ATF, of the 11,000 submitted to U.S. officials for tracing, 6,000 could be traced somewhere because of the serial numbers or other distinctive markings. Of those 6,000 firearms, 5,114 or 90 percent, were found to have been smuggled from the U.S.

Oh, so I see how the math works now. Democrats sure had to twist the facts into a tangled web in order to get that 90% stat.

They wanted something to give their agenda of gun control and pipe dream of outlawing guns altogether some credibility. They can't get it from clear and concise stats. So, they had to gerrymander the numbers to get their desired outcome like they do most of the time. Why is it that they can rarely be straight with the facts in order to defend their ideas and beliefs?

Garrett sums it all up:

Just to repeat: recovered doesn't mean the percentage of all firearms confiscated at Mexican crime scenes. It doesn't mean the subset of these firearms traceable to any source. It does mean the percentage of traceable weapons linked to a U.S. source. And, again, that total is 5,114 out of 29,000 -- or 17.6 percent -- in the years 2007 and 2008.

Once again, Obama and the Democrats have been caught misrepresenting the truth...No, wait outright lying about where the Mexican drug cartels are getting their guns. Look at the old links below to see where they're really coming from, and it isn't the US.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/19/obama-repeats-percent-stat-guns-recovered-mexico/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://weeklypoliticalreview.blogspot.com/2009/04/democrats-pitch-fabrication-say-90-of.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Democrats Pitch Fabrication: Say 90% of Guns in Mexico From US, Actually It's Only 17%

The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.
While 90 percent of the guns traced to the U.S. actually originated in the United States, the percent traced to the U.S. is only about 17 percent of the total number of guns reaching Mexico.

By William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott
FOXNews.com
Thursday, April 02, 2009

EXCLUSIVE: You've heard this shocking "fact" before

-- on TV and radio, in newspapers, on the Internet and from the highest politicians in the land: 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States.

-- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it to reporters on a flight to Mexico City.

-- CBS newsman Bob Schieffer referred to it while interviewing President Obama.

-- California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said at a Senate hearing: "It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico and used to shoot judges, police officers and mayors ... come from the United States."

-- William Hoover, assistant director for field operations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, testified in the House of Representatives that "there is more than enough evidence to indicate that over 90 percent of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States."

There's just one problem with the 90 percent "statistic" and it's a big one:

It's just not true.

In fact, it's not even close. The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.

What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, "is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S.

"But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.

"Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market," Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News.

A Look at the Numbers

In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced -- and of those, 90 percent -- 5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover -- were found to have come from the U.S.

But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.

In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.

So, if not from the U.S., where do they come from? There are a variety of sources:

-- The Black Market. Mexico is a virtual arms bazaar, with fragmentation grenades from South Korea, AK-47s from China, and shoulder-fired rocket launchers from Spain, Israel and former Soviet bloc manufacturers.

-- Russian crime organizations. Interpol says Russian Mafia groups such as Poldolskaya and Moscow-based Solntsevskaya are actively trafficking drugs and arms in Mexico.
-- South America. During the late 1990s, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) established a clandestine arms smuggling and drug trafficking partnership with the Tijuana cartel, according to the Federal Research Division report from the Library of Congress.

-- Asia. According to a 2006 Amnesty International Report, China has provided arms to countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Chinese assault weapons and Korean explosives have been recovered in Mexico.

-- The Mexican Army. More than 150,000 soldiers deserted in the last six years, according to Mexican Congressman Robert Badillo. Many took their weapons with them, including the standard issue M-16 assault rifle made in Belgium.

-- Guatemala. U.S. intelligence agencies say traffickers move immigrants, stolen cars, guns and drugs, including most of America's cocaine, along the porous Mexican-Guatemalan border. On March 27, La Hora, a Guatemalan newspaper, reported that police seized 500 grenades and a load of AK-47s on the border. Police say the cache was transported by a Mexican drug cartel operating out of Ixcan, a border town.

'These Don't Come From El Paso'

Ed Head, a firearms instructor in Arizona who spent 24 years with the U.S. Border Patrol, recently displayed an array of weapons considered "assault rifles" that are similar to those recovered in Mexico, but are unavailable for sale in the U.S."

These kinds of guns -- the auto versions of these guns -- they are not coming from El Paso," he said. "They are coming from other sources. They are brought in from Guatemala. They are brought in from places like China. They are being diverted from the military. But you don't get these guns from the U.S."

Some guns, he said, "are legitimately shipped to the government of Mexico, by Colt, for example, in the United States. They are approved by the U.S. government for use by the Mexican military service. The guns end up in Mexico that way -- the fully auto versions -- they are not smuggled in across the river."

Many of the fully automatic weapons that have been seized in Mexico cannot be found in the U.S., but they are not uncommon in the Third World.

The Mexican government said it has seized 2,239 grenades in the last two years -- but those grenades and the rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) are unavailable in U.S. gun shops. The ones used in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Monterrey in October and a TV station in January were made in South Korea. Almost 70 similar grenades were seized in February in the bottom of a truck entering Mexico from Guatemala.

"Most of these weapons are being smuggled from Central American countries or by sea, eluding U.S. and Mexican monitors who are focused on the smuggling of semi-automatic and conventional weapons purchased from dealers in the U.S. border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California," according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.

Boatloads of Weapons

So why would the Mexican drug cartels, which last year grossed between $17 billion and $38 billion, bother buying single-shot rifles, and force thousands of unknown "straw" buyers in the U.S. through a government background check, when they can buy boatloads of fully automatic M-16s and assault rifles from China, Israel or South Africa?

Alberto Islas, a security consultant who advises the Mexican government, says the drug cartels are using the Guatemalan border to move black market weapons. Some are left over from the Central American wars the United States helped fight; others, like the grenades and launchers, are South Korean, Israeli and Spanish. Some were legally supplied to the Mexican government; others were sold by corrupt military officers or officials.

The exaggeration of United States "responsibility" for the lawlessness in Mexico extends even beyond the "90-percent" falsehood -- and some Second Amendment activists believe it's designed to promote more restrictive gun-control laws in the U.S.

In a remarkable claim, Auturo Sarukhan, the Mexican ambassador to the U.S., said Mexico seizes 2,000 guns a day from the United States -- 730,000 a year. That's a far cry from the official statistic from the Mexican attorney general's office, which says Mexico seized 29,000 weapons in all of 2007 and 2008.

Chris Cox, spokesman for the National Rifle Association, blames the media and anti-gun politicians in the U.S. for misrepresenting where Mexican weapons come from.

"Reporter after politician after news anchor just disregards the truth on this," Cox said. "The numbers are intentionally used to weaken the Second Amendment."

"The predominant source of guns in Mexico is Central and South America. You also have Russian, Chinese and Israeli guns. It's estimated that over 100,000 soldiers deserted the army to work for the drug cartels, and that ignores all the police. How many of them took their weapons with them?"

But Tom Diaz, senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center, called the "90 percent" issue a red herring and said that it should not detract from the effort to stop gun trafficking into Mexico.


-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

Can politicians in general and Democrats specifically ever tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I'm beginning to lose faith in them.

However, this isn't just a slight embellishment or exaggeration. It's an outright figment of the Democrats' imagination. This an outrageous example of anti-gun propaganda to "cue the outrage" among the public to make it easier for them to take away our 2nd amendment rights.

Clinton: Mexican Drug Wars Are America's Fault

Hillary Clinton: Sorry Mexico, Your Violence is All Our Fault
On her "Gosh We're Sorry" tour, Clinton assures Mexico it's all our fault...
Posted by Warner Todd Huston
Friday, March 27th at 10:56AM EDT

Mexican government officials are in the pocket of Mexican drug lords. Members of the Mexican military lend their support to Mexican drug lords. Mexican police double deal by being footsoldiers for Mexican drug lords at the same time they work for the various states. It’s all a great, corrupt mess down there.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s message to Mexico? It’s America’s fault.

And as the violence in Mexico begins to leak across the border into our southwestern states, what is Barack Obama’s idea to help? He wants to disarm our own people by raising the specter of “assault rifles,” a term that has no real meaning, and by re-instituting the “assault weapons” ban in the U.S.

So, another country’s internal corruption and internecine violence is our fault according to Obama and Clinton. And we are going to disarm ourselves in the face of foreign violence to “solve” the problem? Apparently, we are the ones the Mexicans have been waiting for, too. At least we are the ones that Mexican drug lords have been waiting for, anyway.

Naturally, the Old Media have painted this “new attitude” of American foreign policy as a relative good. McClatchy, for instance, praises Clinton’s capitulation to Mexico as a “humble” new policy, her “humility” being “served up” at every stop as she tours our southern neighbor. This new tone is an effort to reverse the problem of a “world opinion of the U.S. which sank deeply” during the Bush years, according to McClatchy.

For its part AFP says that America no longer views Mexico’s violence as the Mexican problem the Bush administration assumed it to be. We are taking “co-responsibility” for the violence as AFP quotes Mexican officials as saying.

It’s all of a piece with Obama’s “Gosh We’re Sorry” tour of the world. And what is the main offering on this tour besides a debasing of the U.S.A.? Money. And big money, too. To start with, Clinton’s “Gosh We’re Sorry” offering to Mexico is 80 million dollars in new spending as a sop to the corrupt nation. This new foreign aid is supposed to go to help Mexico buy new Blackhawk helicopters to assist the Mexican military to interdict drug cartels. But will it go to that end or will some of it end up in the hands of the very drug lords it is supposed to combat? Your guess is as good as mine.

Our government in Washington is almost bankrupt, we supposed to be in an “emergency” situation with our economy and what is Obama planning? 80 million dollars in new spending to Mexico.

Where that 80 mil would better be spent is in shoring up our border with Mexico and making sure their violence doesn’t come across the border in the first place. Let the money be spent on Americans instead of Mexicans if it must be wasted by government.

And lastly, when did Hillary Clinton realize that the role of Secretary of State included making American laws?

“I think these assault weapons, these military style weapons, don’t belong on anyone’s street,” said Clinton who pushed for the ban as a New York senator.

“During the time period from 1994 to 2004, when the ban was in effect, our police in America were able to drive crime down because they didn’t have to worry about these assault weapons getting into the hands of criminals and gang members,” the chief US diplomat said.

“So we will make the case that we need to put more teeth in the law, try to prohibit the sale outside of our borders of these guns,” Clinton said.

Someone needs to remind Her Thighness that she has NO ROLE in “making the case” that a new so-called assault weapons ban needs to be instituted. That is Congress’ and the president’s role, not hers. Her role as Secretary of State does NOT include lawmaking. She is Obama’s mouth on foreign policy, not America’s advocate for new laws, acts, or internal policy ideas.

This is what you signed on for, honey. You are not a Senator anymore. Keep out of matters in which you do not belong.

Meantime, Obama’s new policy of “we are the fault you’ve been waiting for” rolls on. Reaching out to enemies and slighting friends is a wonderful way to… I not sure what it is, actually. Besides stupid, that is.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/2009/03/27/hillary-clinton-sorry-mexico-your-violence-is-all-our-fault/
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

How on earth is the fact that Mexico cannot control their own crime and government our fault? We aren't in control of Mexican police, military, or government. So, how is could be the US's fault?

I am in total agreement with Huston. I wonder why while we have the biggest amount of deficit spending ever, we are throwing $80 mil down the Mexican rat hole? It could be much better spent as he pointed out.

Mexico is in total shambles. Something must be done as it is bleeding into this country through illegal immigration. This isn't just a Mexican problem anymore. The war is taking American casualties on our soil as well. However, Clinton's approach of apologizing and taking guns out of the hands of those that need to defend themselves looks like weakness to the drug lords. Banning assault weapons isn't going to keep them out of the criminals just the law abiding victims. Liberals need to wake up and realize these facts.