Posted by
Average Voter on Friday, March 27, 2009 10:58:10 AM
Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post has an article out today that clearly misses the point. The real problem is, the american public hasn't missed the point. Most of us understand that the best way to defend against drugs violence and gun trafficing is to build the darn fence. Common sense dictates that some sort of wall/fence to control the movement of people, although not perfect, would be of great advantage to controling trafficking of all illegal kinds.
Domestically, we've locked up hundreds of thousands of street-level dealers, some of whom genuinely deserve to be in prison and some of whom don't. It made no difference. According to a 2007 University of Michigan study, 84 percent of high school seniors nationwide said they could obtain marijuana "fairly easily" or "very easily." The figure for amphetamines was 50 percent; for cocaine, 47 percent; for heroin, 30 percent.
Of course, he is correct in pointing out our countries insatuable appetite for drugs. And we have found that attacking the source doesn't work very well, especially in countries that are infiltrated with payed-off politicians and police officials. Some policemen look the other way because the money they recieve for doing can be equal to a month's worth of pay. Some have even quite the police or the military to join the drug runners because the pay is so good. Is America to blame for that? I think not. Mexico and other Latin American countries have poor economies and crooked politicians who lack the ability, or simply refuse to create a stable and vibrant economy.
In the case of Mexico, there's a complicating factor: This is a two-way problem. While drugs are being moved north across the border, powerful assault weapons -- purchased in the United States -- are being moved south to arm the cartels' foot soldiers. Clinton's statement about "shared responsibility" recognizes that if we expect Mexico to do something about the flow of drugs, we're obliged to do something about the counterflow of guns.
Here is where the responsible gun owning public also understand the need for a fence. Unless you control the people at the border, how can you control gun traffic? But lets remember, "assault weapons" is a leftist buzz word. Besides regular handguns and rifles that can be purchased here, some of these drug cartel members have been fighting with things you can't buy in the states. Rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns and grenades are not things you can buy at your local gun shop, or anywhere legally in the U.S. Blaming the U.S. for these guys having "assault weapons" is a blanket statement used by those that don't like guns. Being it is the border, it is convient to use this as a way to move their anti-gun agenda forward.
So what does Mr. Robinson Suggest?
First, though, let's be honest with ourselves. This whole disruptive, destabilizing enterprise has one purpose, which is to supply the U.S. market with illegal drugs. As long as the demand exists, entrepreneurs will find a way to meet it. The obvious demand-side solution -- legalization -- would do more harm than good with some drugs, but maybe not with others. We need to examine all options. It's time to put everything on the table, because all we've accomplished so far is to bring the terrible violence of the drug trade ever closer to home.
He really has none except to legalize some of them, and talk some more about it.
How about this solution; build the fence and start taking all our borders serious. Control the flow of people, and you will start to control the flow of drugs, and all the other things that are brought to and from the border illegally.
And by the way, stop blaming the U.S. for the wrong things. What wee are to blame for is not controlling our borders, the rest is the consequence of that.