In this MSNBC article, the writer discusses the escalating drug violence in the border regions between Mexico and the United States. An overwhelming number of these crimes involve weapons seized by drug cartels that can be traced to the U.S. This facet of the ongoing war between Mexican police and the outlaws has resulted in reconsideration to once more banning assault weapons in the U.S. President Obama has already made numerous provisions to curtail violence in the region, "including providing more federal agents to try to stop gun smuggling."
Though the growing violence across the border has become a major problem over the last several months, I don't think that further U.S. gun restrictions is in any way an appropriate response. It would merely follow suit with so much legislation of the last half decade, during which congress placed more and more constraints on the American people using the excuse of "international unrest." They would only be replacing one problem for another.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30179854/
In my opinion, reinstating the ban on assault rifles is an issue worth checking out. However, I don’t support anti-gun legislation past that. The article does say “cartels’ use of assault weapons rose dramatically after the U.S. ended its ban on the firearms in 2004,” and I’ve read both Mexican and U.S. officials believe 90% of the cartels’ weapons came from the United States.
ReplyDeleteI do know people who own assault rifles, but I don’t think taking those rifles away would be “replacing one problem for another.” As long as the 2nd Amendment is protected and gun-owners make a small concession to give up assault rifles, I think everything will be okay.