Posted on 01/27/2013 6:15:29 AM PST by AtlasStalled
As President Barack Obama leads the charge against American gun ownership Mexican citizens increasingly are embracing firepower for self-defense.
The inability of the Mexican government to protect its good citizens from the drug cartels and their associated violence has resulted in rural areas "to take up arms and police their own communities" as reported by Karla Zabludovsky for The New York Times: "the spread of drug and organized crime gangs into remote regions in recent years has worsened the sense of lawlessness there."
The inability of police to protect the people against the drug cartels extends over the border into the United States, and establishes why meddling politicians should not take away the right to own semi-automatic so-called assault rifles and high capacity magazines which are needed for protection.
The unfortunate fact is that law enforcement in the United States has been powerless against the drug cartels. The Mexican drug cartels move $50 billion in bulk product and bundled cash across the border each year, and have established supply lines, distribution networks and operational cells in hundreds of communties throughout the United States. Although the Obama Administration insists that there is no spillover violence from rival drug cartels for control over smuggling routes the dead bodies on the north side of the border -- including rancher Rob Krentz and border patrol agent Brian Terry -- stubbornly belie the President's absurd claim.
It's ironic that the politicians who claim Americans have no need for self-protection live in protected bubbles with armed guards. However, the rest of us in the country are left to fend for ourselves. Once the federal government stops the drug cartels -- and further eliminates all those other garden variety murders, burglaries, rapes, assaults, etc. which plague society -- maybe then it can credibly claim there is no need for ordinary citizens to hold semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines. In the meantime, the people must insist that the politicians stop their revisionist narrative that the Second Amendment was only about duck hunters. Indeed, hundreds of county sheriffs across the country who recognize that law enforcement is only a reactive force which cannot prevent violent crime against innocent victims are opposing the federal government's attempt to rescind the Second Amendment through legislative fiat and executive orders. The first responder to an ongoing crime should be the intended victim carrying the weapon of his or her choice.
I thought it was against the law for Mexican citizens to own guns.
Almost a death sentence.
No... only the "ordinary citizen" should decide if he himself has a "need" to hold a semi auto rifle with a standard capacity magazine. Im tired of other people saying they will decide if you have such a "need".
CC
If our borders had been controlled in any meaningful way, the numbers fighting on the side of these guys would be much greater because escape wouldn’t have been an option.
Out in the old west criminals were running rampant and the law either did not exist or was incapable of controlling it.
Vigilance Committees were formed and after a few hangings things got back to where decent people could live in peace.
Nothing frightens todays Law Enforcement Community like the threat of a Vigilante committee being formed. They will come down on the Vigilante Committee faster than they will the criminal, because in many cases the Criminals and the Police are working together. If they are not working together the Police still have a fear of losing their powers or their jobs.
In Mexico the Police there are no better than the criminals. They are either frightened or paid off. Armed citizens can straighten out this mess fast if they organise.
Of course trials become pretty much a joke as hanging by Vigilantes don’t usually have trials, and lawyesr don’t get the guilty off with technicalities or plea bargains, and prisoners are never taken because Vigilantes do not have jails.
In the United States today we don’t have much Vigilante action, it isn’t needed-—Yet.
But an armed citizenry always has that option.
That option is one thing the Government wants to take away from us. Once that option is gone, many other options leave with it.. Citizens are no longer in charge. The Government is in charge.
only the “ordinary citizen” should decide if he himself has a “need” to hold a semi auto rifle with a standard capacity magazine. Im tired of other people saying they will decide if you have such a “need”.
^^^^^^
I agree with you GregoTX; however, when the Courts analyze a Congressional statute against the Constitution they often look at the context in which the legislation was passed in weighing the competing needs and interests. Although I agree with you that as a principled matter the Second Amendment is not subject to legislative negotiation, as a practical matter the courts will look at whether citizens have a need for semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines in deciding whether to strike or uphold the legislation. Even Scalia said that the Second Amendment — like most constitutional rights — is subject to limitations, and we have to be prepared to establish the legitimate need for those arms which may be targeted.
I didn’t own a gun until Fast&Furious. I was so ticked we decided living in Az with the cartel running around our streets, it was time..Now what makes us think that this administration isn’t doing the same for American gun purchasers? Seems it would be easy for them to set up shop and run guns...I mean isnt that what Holder does?
Paging Diane F**kstein.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.