The only thing that surprised me was that the number of guns wasn't 2000 already smuggled/sold on to groups south of the border.
The police chief, the mayor and a local politician of a small town on the American side of the US-Mexico border have been charged with gun running.Prosecutors say the officials from Columbus, New Mexico, bought some 200 guns which they allegedly planned to sell to drug cartels in Mexico.
Americans have a long cultural history of gun ownership. The Constitution guarantees the right to own guns. I support that, generally.
I also support the rights of people living in individual states and cities to decide for themselves whether or not they want their police departments to have to deal with a bunch of gun ownership. If people in Texas want gun ownership to be easy and simple, I'm all for it. Background check and track the guns sold so we can know after the fact who sold the gun on to someone who shouldn't have been able to buy one. Straw purchases, criminals etc.
If people in Chicago vote not to allow people to own handguns, so be it. I see no problems with that. Except the whole constitutional thing. Changing the Constitution is a very big deal and a very slow, cumbersome, conflict-ridden process. Oops. For the time being I don't see states or cities gaining the right to decide this for themselves.
Either case we don't really have a need for militias anymore. We have a standing, professional military now. We have local, state and federal police that's generally not corrupt, though there are exceptions. Not half as corrupt as many pay-to-play politicians. If you really think that you need guns to protect yourself from the government, please kindly get the hell out of the country.
Track the guns so we can know what crimes they were used in, where they were sold and to whom. Criminal walks into a gun store, points at a gun and his girlfriend buys it for him. Not cool. Kinda hard to stop but tracking the guns would be a start.
Hunting rifles. All for it. Go forth and hunt as long as you're using what you kill. Kill pests as long as it's legal. Kill for sport someplace else. Kill with bow and arrow and handgun if you so please.
Kill with assault rifle? How the hell is there a legitimate personal protection or hunting need for assault rifles? Or extended handgun magazines? Do we really need people running around with handguns that don't have to be reloaded for 15+ shots against innocent people?
"GUNS MAKE PEOPLE SAFER."
Europeans and others don't think so. This isn't Europe. The gun lobby has a point in that one person buying a gun does make that person feel more safe. Tons of people buying guns make all of us less safe.
Kids' accidents. Untrained gun owners. Illegal gun owners. Add alcohol to the mix. Crimes of passion. People getting very angry when they're mistreated by their significant other. Or getting tossed out of a business, club or restaurant or party and coming back with a gun.
"ADD MORE GUNS THEN, TO QUICKER STOP THE NUTCASE/IDIOT/CRIMINAL."
There is a certain logic to that. Once the criminals and crazies have ready access, wouldn't you want to be able to protect your home, your family and your loved ones? I sure would. I don't currently own a gun but add a family and a house and a kid and I'd like a shotgun for home defense at least. With a trigger lock. With a key for me and my wife and a hidden key someplace where only me and her know or can reach it. With a license and a background check and training and yearly or semi-annual trips to the range to re-up the skillset needed.
Shotguns - fine.
Handguns - fine.
Hunting rifles - fine.
Assault rifles - not fine.
Selling kits to make silencers and fully automatic rifles - not fine.
Extended magazines - not fine.
No background check - not fine.
No tracking of who sold what to whom - not fine.