You might be wondering why this information isn't public already. Republicans passed a law to keep this information private. Yes, they're protecting the identity of criminals selling guns to cartels.
Fucking vote
But I was told to be angry at the brown people
I'm sure they'll find the darkest person in the c-suite to use as a scapegoat.
I'm voting to stop elites from disarming the proletariat
You mean against the "take the guns first" and "blue lives matter" party, right? You're against authoritarians being able to take guns and being able to freely murder citizens who did nothing other than possess a firearm, right?
so Republican, got it.
I suggest helping implement Approval Voting and then Sequential Proportional Approval Voting so we can ditch the two party system and have more than one party that supports citizens protecting themselves without having to paradoxically supporting a bunch of policies that target citizens for harmless behavior.
Why would they bother to disarm you? They make billions of dollars a year selling you guns and you're no threat to them at all, physically or politically.
Ok but what if the proletariat are stupid and have bad taste?
Then they shouldn't get to vote either.
Edit: Hmm seems like people only like gatekeeping some rights. Interesting. Personally I think if stupid people deserve one right, they deserve the rest of them too, unless they prove themselves to be a danger to society of course which also applies to "the intelligent."
And while we're at it, what is your metric for stupid, not college graduates? Only engineers? "Only people who can spell, (in english)" and so fuck ESL people? Stupid is ~~as stupid does~~ frankly rather subjective, someone who you consider "stupid" for having bad grammar may be a math wizard, better than you, and you never knew, who then is stupid? Both? Neither? "Stupidity" is not a good enough metric to deny anyone any rights. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
Last time I made a comment about US guns being sold to cartels I got down voted hard. A bunch of people telling me they would never buy a semi automatic when they have machine guns.
Some stuff just seems like it's designed for cartels. Like their favorite handgun: El Presidente in 38 super
"Texan Craig Adlong. He pleaded guilty in 2020 for lying on firearm transaction forms, saying the guns were for his personal use. He purchased 95 semi-automatic rifles at Guns Unlimited in Katy, Texas, making seven visits over two months.
Sixty-six of those firearms were recovered in Mexico, according to the leak."
How many is too many "for personal use"?
95 guns of the same type is CLEARLY not for personal use. 13 guns per visit x 7 visits? No questions?
I can see buying multiple guns in different form factors, because they're a tool like anything else, and you need the right size tool for the job.
But if you're out buying 95 #0 Phillips screwdrivers, that's not "for personal use".
ATF says multiple sales of rifles must be reported. A "multiple sale" is defined as "when a licensed dealer or pawnbroker sells or otherwise disposes of, at one time or during any five consecutive business days, more than one semiautomatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine and with a caliber greater than .22 (including .223/5.56 caliber) to an unlicensed person."
95 rifles in seven visits obviously qualifies. These absolutely should have been reported.
Hey, TIL! But I've never bought more than one semi-automatic rifle at a time so that tracks!
Have you seen the way gun makers are getting around that restriction now?
The new hotness is LEVER ACTION AR-15s:
https://www.offgridweb.com/gear/new-bond-arms-lever-action-ar-15/
Those have detachable magazines. They fall under this category.
Lever action is not semi automatic though. Needs both characteristics.
Excuse me, but do not crush my dream of diving into a pit filled with #0 Phillips screwdrivers.
Best use case I can tgink of for multiple copies of the same gun is torture tests? Or something similar where the gun is not expected to be functional afterwards. And even then >~5 is kind of excessive.
capitalism enabling the cartels causing the drug war to happen?
Who would've guessed.
Drug cartels are black market capitalists.
From 2006-2011 agents in Arizona stood down as straw purchasers illegally bought 2,000 guns at shops, intending to use the information to track trafficking patterns and arrest the kingpins. However, agents didn’t deliver the high-level arrests – and in the process, they lost track of hundreds of guns.
This is the shit I think of when I'm paying my taxes.
This shit is why 2A Advocates were so pissed off about Operation Fast & Furious and wouldn't shut up about it for years. The BATFE forced the gun shops involved to sell the weapons even when they didn't want to!
Seriously, the whole thing was a shitshow from start to finish and when the manure caught fire everyone involved from the Field Agents through AG Eric Holder lied their assess off about it.
Most Texans are not cool with other Texans destroying Mexico for 30 pieces of silver.
Ok Texas. Do something.
“People are saying”™ that Liberals are behind it.
“I respect that the U.S. government wants this shielded, but it’s frustrating that the information isn’t public,” said Celorio, who is leading his country’s lawsuit against American gun manufacturers and five Arizona gun shops. “I think the average American would be surprised that the fentanyl crisis is nurtured because of the number of firearms going to Mexico to empower the cartels.”
Jfc. :(
Shipping powders back and forth
Black goes south and white comes north
This illustrates perfectly the need to be able to sue gun manufacturers & retailers. Until they’re hit in the pocketbook, this shit’ll never stop.
Seeing which Gun Sellers are behind Mexican Cartel Violence is AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION!
There’s two sides to every tortilla and as a gun runner, I’m very upset my personal information might be involved in this hack. We need comprehensive privacy laws and real consequences for data breaches. Otherwise, these tech companies will treat this like a cost of doing business.
Didn't we know this for years?
We're a net-exporter of firearms to south of the border.
In effect, we've created a key component of the problem that inevitably feeds mass migration north to flee said crime and poverty.
Which US weed smokers are behind cartel violence?
Violence? Shouldn't this be labeled as terrorism?
Drug Cartel violence can sometimes cross the line to terrorism, but usually isn't classified that way. Terrorism is generally defined by targeted attacks against civilians in order to achieve political goals. Most drug cartel violence does not meet that definition.
Drug cartel violence is basically just gang violence. Violence for the sake of maintaining power.
I suppose "terrorism" is a more powerful word that evokes greater emotion from people, but we shouldn't use it inappropriately or we risk separating the word from its own meaning.
I'd say their routine targeting of journalists, celebrities, kidnapping of school children fits that definition of terrorism.
Those aren't mutually exclusive terms.
Surprised pikachu face
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/