Mexican president and Congress display ignorance on assault weapon ban

Ignorance. Putting their heads in the sand. Feel good legislation. I’m sick of politicians who cry for more restrictions on firearm ownership by law abiding citizens in the United States. Mexican President Felipe Calderon urged the return of the AWB today, and many in Congress cheered.

Unfortunately I don’t have video, but here is a summary from The Hill, including reference to Calderon’s position on the assault weapons ban (AWB).

Calderon said that while he respected the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees on gunowners’ rights, the legal flow of assault weapons has resulted in the weapons falling into the hands of drug gangs who are locked in a violent war with the Mexican government.

“I will ask Congress to help us, with respect, and understand how important it is for us to enforce current laws to stem the flow of guns and enforce existing laws as well as consider reinstating the assault weapons ban,” the Mexican president told lawmakers in both parties assembled Thursday morning in the House chamber.

Calderon’s plea won strong applause from Democrats, and some support from Republicans.

The assault weapons ban expired in 2004 without having been renewed by Congress.

Calderon said that the spike in gang violence in Mexico, which has reached a fever pitch as of late, coincided with the expiration of the ban, which was first authorized in 1994.

Crap. Total crap I tell you.

Let’s put this into perspective shall we? Connecticut still has an assault weapons ban in place as do other states including New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York and California (I think). The state legislation mirrors what was the federal assault weapons ban that expired in 1994.

Here are two pictures of what I refer to as defensive rifles. Both deliver one round each time you pull the trigger (semiautomatic), and both shoot 5.56 NATO and .223 Remington rounds. They both have the same barrel length. You tell me, which one is banned in Connecticut and the other AWB states?

So, what say you? This is not a trick question, one of these rifles is banned because of one specific feature the firearm has. Believe it or not, the rifle on the right, hanging on the peg-board wall is banned in Connecticut simply because the stock of the rifle can be adjusted into multiple positions. That’s it.

The rifle in the left, with the red dot sight, 30 round magazine, two-point sling, forgrip, quad rail and remote light is perfectly legal in the state of Connecticut. It may look like the rifle on the left has a stock that can be adjusted, but it can not.

So now, would you say the AWB is feel good legislation or does it display the pure ignorance of politicians? It really could be both. Tell me those of you in the Connecticut State Legislature, do you feel like you’ve been had by the anti-gun lobby? In this situation, you have.

In Connecticut a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following [evil features] is considered banned. In other words, you can have a detachable magazine and only one of these evil features, which for obvious reasons would be the pistol grip.

  • a folding or telescopic stock;
  • a pistol grip;
  • a bayonet mount;
  • a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
  • a grenade launcher (the launcher mind you, not the grenades themselves).

So, President Calderon and many in Congress think banning adjustable stocks, bayonet mounts, flash suppressors and grenade launcher accessories on a semiautomatic rifle will help solve the problem.

Good luck with that.

For your homework, go find out what AR stands for when referring to these rifles. As a hint, it’s not assault rifle.

And finally, I’d like to take the opportunity to challenge the Connecticut State Legislature to step up and ditch this law which is simply feel-good legislation. I know they read this blog. Care to chime in or will we hear crickets?

Posted in

Steve McGough

Steve's a part-time conservative blogger. Steve grew up in Connecticut and has lived in Washington, D.C. and the Bahamas. He resides in Connecticut, where he’s comfortable six months of the year.


  1. Law-AbidingCitizen on May 21, 2010 at 3:25 am

    The pure IGNORANCE displayed by the Mexican president was at least consistent.  Even he thinks that Mexicans are a race!

    As for the AWB, he again aired his IGNORANCE as the last numbers of ILLEGAL firearms that the Mexican police  (who WILL ask you for your papers) confiscated from anti-drug operations was around 98% of them being unobtainable from the United States (fully automatic firearms are highly regulated in the U.S. and, at best, extraordinarily difficult and very expensive to obtain; mucho paperwork and many, many dollars along with a very long wait) with the other two percent being obtained by theft or straw purchasers. The Narcos are getting their automatic firearms from some place OTHER than the United States. Read that as they are probably getting them from the people that they get their drugs! Logical to me.

    It was PURE GRANDSTANDING by the Mexican president. His country no more tolerates illegal immigrants than the U.S. does and we ARE NOT THE SOURCE OF THE FIREARMS being used by the criminals in his country.

    Rhetoric is one thing; anyone can say anything. Facts, no matter how inconvenient, are irrefutable. Check-em and see. Do NOT take the word of either the Mexican or the U.;S. presidents without checking the facts first!!!!!


  2. DanWH on May 21, 2010 at 4:28 am

    Look on the bright side, ever since the AWB in 1994 we have not had a single drive by bayoneting in the great state of CT!

  3. Dimsdale on May 21, 2010 at 6:36 am

    "Display ignorance"?  The real problem seems to be trying to hide their ignorance!


    It has been demonstrated that less than 20% of guns seized from Mexican drug cartels are from the U.S. and about 8% from actual dealers.


    The funny thing is, about 80% of illegals are from Mexico, but Øbama, the Democrats and Calderon claim it is racism to ask anyone that "looks Mexican" for proper identification!


    Ya want stats?  I got stats!

    • Murphy on May 21, 2010 at 7:05 am

      Amazing just over a year later and they bring up the same lies again do they think we forget that fast? Remember Hillary tried the same blame game last year.

    • Dimsdale on May 21, 2010 at 1:47 pm

      The obviously think that everyone is as dumb as a Democrat!  😉

  4. Uconnjim on May 21, 2010 at 7:57 am

    From Reuters 5/21:

    Washington is also aiding Mexico's battle against drug gangs with a 2007 pledge of $1.4 billion for equipment and police training to help fight the cartels that ship some $40 billion worth of illegal drugs north each year.

    Hey, Congress, how about a border fence?

    "There is one issue where Mexico needs your cooperation. And that is stopping the flow of assault weapons and other deadly arms across the border," Calderon said to a standing ovation from U.S. lawmakers.

    Hey, Congress, how about a border fence?

    Millions of people are still crossing the U.S. border illegally to seek work. An estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants live in the United States, most of them from Mexico and Central America.

    Hey, Congress, how about a border fence?

    "We must find together a better way to face and fix this common problem," Calderon said.

    Hey, Congress,  I have a great idea: how about a border fence?

  5. Delta on May 21, 2010 at 7:36 pm

    I can't wait for the future when we invent force-fields and motion-detected laser guns, border control should be so much fun!

  6. Law-AbidingCitizen on May 23, 2010 at 12:15 pm

    The ultimate border fence was between East and West Germany; currently it is between North and South Korea. Ugly, but it works.

    • Dimsdale on May 25, 2010 at 3:23 am

      The difference being that those were built to keep people in, not out.

  7. Steve McGough on July 15, 2010 at 9:17 am

    Just to update … crickets from the Connecticut state legislators and their staffs.


The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.

You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.

The site is not broken.