Can we learn anything from this story?

darthtang aw

Active Member
Taking Up Arms: Women in Mexico Have Had Enough
Katie Pavlich | Aug 21, 2013
Women in Mexico have had enough and are doing something about their communities being overrun with cartels, criminals and drug lords.
More than 100 women in the southern Mexican town of Xaltianguis have taken up arms to protect their community from organized crime groups, a local self-defense force official said Monday.
The women signed up over the past four days with the Union of Peoples and Organizations of Guerrero State, or UPOEG, Xaltianguis community self-defense force commander Miguel Angel Jimenez told reporters.
"We have an average of nine groups" of community police, with each one made up of 12 women who will work in the daytime in the neighborhoods of Xaltianguis, located about 50 kilometers (31 miles) from the resort city of Acapulco, Jimenez said.
The women will be trained in the use of firearms and carry the same weapons as men, Jimenez said.
The vigilante group has only about 80 firearms and the weapons are rotated among members, Jimenez said.
"I trust that the people, once they know that the women are participating," will provide more weapons, Jimenez said.
South of the border it is illegal for civilians to own firearms, despite having a version of the Second Amendment. The only people who have firearms are the police and dangerous criminals. More from cartel expert Sylvia Longmire:
Contrary to popular belief, Mexico’s constitution has its own version of our Second Amendment. However, few private citizens own firearms. Federal laws have severely restricted the ability to own and carry weapons to soldiers, police, trained bodyguards, and a few others who can make it through the miles-long gauntlet of the application process. If a Mexican citizen can survive the background checks, the mountains of paperwork, the half-dozen required personal recommendations, and the expense, they are limited to buying guns with low stopping power.
People are sick of it.
In Michoacan, dozens of people have formed self-defense groups to fight back against cartels where the government has failed.
Farmers wearing bulletproof vests and toting assault rifles ride in pick-up trucks emblazoned with the word "self-defense" to protect this rural Mexican town from a drug cartel.
The government deployed thousands of troops to the western state of Michoacan this week, but in some towns like Coalcoman, population 10,000, vigilantes are wary of putting down their weapons until they feel safe again.
"We won't drop our guard until we see results," Antonio Rodriguez, a 37-year-old avocado grower and member of the community force, told AFP.
AFP journalists saw civilians Wednesday carrying handguns, hunting rifles and even AR-15 semi-automatic rifles in the town, which lies in Tierra Caliente, a region known as a hotbed of cartel activity.
"We got tired of paying the quota," said Adriana, a 32-year-old woman working in a pharmacy.
The "cuota" is extortion money the Knights Templar cartel charges business owners, farmers, taxi drivers and even mayors.
"Anyone who didn't pay would be kidnapped and 'bang, bang,' they'd kill him," said Adriana, squeezing her finger as if pulling a trigger.
Naturally, the Mexican government isn't too happy about what they call "vigilantes" taking things into their own hands, but at this point, it's the only option.
 

2quills

Well-Known Member
Yes, yes we can! :)
We can't rely on governments to be able to protect us when we need it the most. Especially if they've stripped you clean of your ability to defend yourself with something that isn't considered a joke to those in the criminal realm.
It's no joke for folks down there in Mexico. It's no joke on some of our streets either. Although there are many in this country who would wish our rights away.
In our own native land, in defense of the freedom that is our birthright, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it -- for the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of our fore-fathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/arms.asp
 

beth

Administrator
Staff member
I believe the 2nd Am provides for citizens to be armed in an extreme situation such as what was faced resulting in the revolutionary war. Yes. In Mex. the situation is such that some citizens live vicariously in communities of lawlessness where there is no or little official help to protect them. More power to the women of this community. And no I don't think the government should have been breaking down doors in New Orleans to confiscate weapons. Those people had a right to protect themselves in what amounted to a lawless state during a natural catastrophe.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
As a mexican citizen it is possible to own a gun. I would list all involved to legally own a gun but i dont feel like typing that much. It is illegal to carry a gun in public, in your vehicle, or in your own business without some serious hoops and approvals to go through. Needless to say a slim few are able to pass this.
Citizens are limited to on handgun per household. Semi atluto handguns can only be 22 caliber or smaller. Revolvers are limited to .38 special. Rifles are limited to .22 caliber as well. To own a shotgun you MUST be a member of a hunting club.
Mexico has greatly reduced the rights of the citizens in an effort to reduce violence and limit the chance of another civil war. Well there hasnt been a civil war since so kudos on that. Not so much on the violence however.
In a lot of these small towns the local authorities turn a blind eye as they dont have the firepower or ability to handle the cartels. So this leaves citizens at the mercy of criminals.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/396198/can-we-learn-anything-from-this-story#post_3529537
So, you agree that the second amendment calls for an armed militia, such as was formed by the women in Mexico. That is the SCOTUS interpretation, as well.
The constitution called for an armed militia. SCOTUS ruled the 2nd gave us the individual right to arms. Many who wrote and signed the constitution and bill of rights feared a strong central government would become tyrannical like Mexico's has become and wanted the people to be armed as a check on government power. For that same reason we had no standing army in the beginning.
It is good to see the Mexicans starting to fight for their country.
 

phixer

Active Member
Mexico is a clear example of what happens when you disarm law abiding citizens as they have essentially turned them all into victims.

Throughout history the first step taken by any tyrannical government has been the disarming of the people.

Mexico is a good example of how gun laws have strengthened the criminal element and weakened the people.
 

oscardeuce

Active Member
SCOTUS has upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd does not require a militia, but uses the militia as a reason for the people to bear arms. I believe the legal term is "preamble "
 

phixer

Active Member
Pretty much the same in the US Quills. The cops only show up after a crime has been committed and do very little to prevent it. Local PD always complains about not having enough money, but when was the last time you saw a cop walking the beat like they used to when the budgets were much smaller? An armed citizen does more to prevent crime that the cops ever will.
 

phixer

Active Member
Great news! Good riddance to these two.

http://news.yahoo.com/colo-lawmakers-lose-recalls-over-gun-laws-support-044432096.html
 

phixer

Active Member
More good news. Facing recall CO Sen Hudak has resigned.

Hopefully CO Gov Hickenlooper will be voted out soon.
 

aggiealum

Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phixer http:///t/396198/can-we-learn-anything-from-this-story#post_3533382
Pretty much the same in the US Quills. The cops only show up after a crime has been committed and do very little to prevent it. Local PD always complains about not having enough money, but when was the last time you saw a cop walking the beat like they used to when the budgets were much smaller? An armed citizen does more to prevent crime that the cops ever will.
Those same "armed citizens" are the one's committing the crimes. At what point does a "responsible gun owner" become a criminal? You're one interesting individual. You don't want any type of government involvement or protection in your life, and you live with this false sense of security that just because you arm yourself to the hilt you're impervious from getting assaulted or have some crime committed against you or your property. Would you like me to provide you with a multitude of examples where the "armed citizen" actually caused more injuries and deaths than allowing the legal authorities to handle the situation? Don't get me wrong. I own several guns that I use for hunting and home protection. But I don't feel I need to be "packing" everywhere I go simply because there's some remote chance someone will walk up and try to attack me with some firearm or knife in their hand. That's called paranoia. If you honestly feel your local police are incapable of protecting you and your property, I might suggest you find more respectable place to live.
 

aggiealum

Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396198/can-we-learn-anything-from-this-story#post_3529440
Taking Up Arms: Women in Mexico Have Had Enough
Katie Pavlich | Aug 21, 2013
Women in Mexico have had enough and are doing something about their communities being overrun with cartels, criminals and drug lords.
South of the border it is illegal for civilians to own firearms, despite having a version of the Second Amendment. The only people who have firearms are the police and dangerous criminals. More from cartel expert Sylvia Longmire:
Contrary to popular belief, Mexico’s constitution has its own version of our Second Amendment. However, few private citizens own firearms. Federal laws have severely restricted the ability to own and carry weapons to soldiers, police, trained bodyguards, and a few others who can make it through the miles-long gauntlet of the application process. If a Mexican citizen can survive the background checks, the mountains of paperwork, the half-dozen required personal recommendations, and the expense, they are limited to buying guns with low stopping power.
People are sick of it.
Naturally, the Mexican government isn't too happy about what they call "vigilantes" taking things into their own hands, but at this point, it's the only option.
The areas of Mexico that have the most crime and issues with the drug cartel are ironically the same areas that border our country. You list all these major restrictions of what it takes for a Mexican citizen to obtain a firearm, yet all these "criminals" like the drug runners have this huge armament of guns. Why is that? Maybe because they walk over the US border to our local gun shops and do these major straw purchases of heavy fire power, then simply walk them over the border as if nothing is going on? So as ironically as it seems, our lax guns laws due to OUR 2nd Amendment is one of the major factors for the crime rate to be so high in Mexico.
 

reefraff

Active Member
All things being equal I'd much rather have the right to pack everywhere I go (I don't) than not being allowed to because just the knowledge that honest citizens might be packing it deterrent to many criminals.
 

phixer

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/396198/can-we-learn-anything-from-this-story#post_3535422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phixer
http:///t/396198/can-we-learn-anything-from-this-story#post_3533382
Pretty much the same in the US Quills. The cops only show up after a crime has been committed and do very little to prevent it. Local PD always complains about not having enough money, but when was the last time you saw a cop walking the beat like they used to when the budgets were much smaller? An armed citizen does more to prevent crime that the cops ever will.
Those same "armed citizens" are the one's committing the crimes. At what point does a "responsible gun owner" become a criminal? You're one interesting individual. You don't want any type of government involvement or protection in your life, and you live with this false sense of security that just because you arm yourself to the hilt you're impervious from getting assaulted or have some crime committed against you or your property. Would you like me to provide you with a multitude of examples where the "armed citizen" actually caused more injuries and deaths than allowing the legal authorities to handle the situation? Don't get me wrong. I own several guns that I use for hunting and home protection. But I don't feel I need to be "packing" everywhere I go simply because there's some remote chance someone will walk up and try to attack me with some firearm or knife in their hand. That's called paranoia. If you honestly feel your local police are incapable of protecting you and your property, I might suggest you find more respectable place to live.
Aggie, Why own any guns if you trust big brother to protect you? Somewhat hypocritical... Do you really believe the police are there to serve or protect the people? Police are there to enforce the will of politicians which is not the will of most people as indicated by approval ratings. Do you actually think they are capable of PREVENTING crime? PD gets the call afterwards and they respond unless you live in an "unrespectable" area, then it takes awhile.

And why are crime rates going up everywhere except where people are armed?

When was the last time a gun store was robbed?

and...

Why do the cops show up after a crime has been committed instead of patrolling pro-actively to prevent crime?...Oh yeah not enough money...LOL
It's only called paranoia by potential victims ... those who choose not to become victims call it preparedness.

When was the last time a pawn shop was robbed?

It may sound corny...and I respect your viewpoint... but the difference between you and I is that you trust the system... I dont.
 

phixer

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/396198/can-we-learn-anything-from-this-story#post_3535424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///t/396198/can-we-learn-anything-from-this-story#post_3529440
Taking Up Arms: Women in Mexico Have Had Enough
Katie Pavlich | Aug 21, 2013
Women in Mexico have had enough and are doing something about their communities being overrun with cartels, criminals and drug lords.
South of the border it is illegal for civilians to own firearms, despite having a version of the Second Amendment. The only people who have firearms are the police and dangerous criminals. More from cartel expert Sylvia Longmire:
Contrary to popular belief, Mexico’s constitution has its own version of our Second Amendment. However, few private citizens own firearms. Federal laws have severely restricted the ability to own and carry weapons to soldiers, police, trained bodyguards, and a few others who can make it through the miles-long gauntlet of the application process. If a Mexican citizen can survive the background checks, the mountains of paperwork, the half-dozen required personal recommendations, and the expense, they are limited to buying guns with low stopping power.
People are sick of it.
Naturally, the Mexican government isn't too happy about what they call "vigilantes" taking things into their own hands, but at this point, it's the only option.
The areas of Mexico that have the most crime and issues with the drug cartel are ironically the same areas that border our country. You list all these major restrictions of what it takes for a Mexican citizen to obtain a firearm, yet all these "criminals" like the drug runners have this huge armament of guns. Why is that? Maybe because they walk over the US border to our local gun shops and do these major straw purchases of heavy fire power, then simply walk them over the border as if nothing is going on? So as ironically as it seems, our lax guns laws due to OUR 2nd Amendment is one of the major factors for the crime rate to be so high in Mexico.

Why? it's the old adage manifested.

When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. That genie escaped the bottle over 100 years ago. You will never get the guns out out of criminals hands unless you use guns to do so. Mexico has a weak and corrupt Govt run by the criminals thats why they keep their victims (citizens) unarmed.

To disarm the people as Mexico has done has proven to perpetuate them as helpless victims. If Mexican people were allowed to be armed that would not be the case as they would have the capability to defend themselves. Like I said earlier, criminals dont rob gun stores or pawn shops.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
The areas of Mexico that have the most crime and issues with the drug cartel are ironically the same areas that border our country.  You list all these major restrictions of what it takes for a Mexican citizen to obtain a firearm, yet all these "criminals" like the drug runners have this huge armament of guns.  Why is that?  Maybe because they walk over the US border to our local gun shops and do these major straw purchases of heavy fire power, then simply walk them over the border as if nothing is going on?  So as ironically as it seems, our lax guns laws due to OUR 2nd Amendment is one of the major factors for the crime rate to be so high in Mexico.
Seems to me the issue is border security then......not the second amendment. If the cartel wasn't able to "walk across the border" in the first place the gun purchase would be a non factor.
 

aggiealum

Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phixer http:///t/396198/can-we-learn-anything-from-this-story#post_3535442
Aggie, Why own any guns if you trust big brother to protect you? Somewhat hypocritical... Do you really believe the police are there to serve or protect the people? Police are there to enforce the will of politicians which is not the will of most people as indicated by approval ratings. Do you actually think they are capable of PREVENTING crime? PD gets the call afterwards and they respond unless you live in an "unrespectable" area, then it takes awhile.

And why are crime rates going up everywhere except where people are armed?

When was the last time a gun store was robbed?

and...

Why do the cops show up after a crime has been committed instead of patrolling pro-actively to prevent crime?...Oh yeah not enough money...LOL
It's only called paranoia by potential victims ... those who choose not to become victims call it preparedness.

When was the last time a pawn shop was robbed?

It may sound corny...and I respect your viewpoint... but the difference between you and I is that you trust the system... I dont.
I primarily use my guns for sport. They also provide an added bonus of being able to protect my home in case of some intrusion. Of course the cops can't be everywhere at all times, but in most cities they do patrol in the higher crime areas to deter the criminals from even attempting to do something illegal. I've lived in the same home for over 20 years, and have never had one break-in attempt. I've a couple of slashed tires from some smart alec kids in the neighborhood, but I've never felt like I had to continually look over my shoulder fearing someone would try and rob me. Again, that's called paranoia.

Your crime statistics are quite flawed. Texas has some of the highest ratios of gun to individuals that own them, and there are multiple crimes with guns on a daily basis. Funny you should say pawn shops, because one here in Houston was just robbed not too long ago. Same with gun shops. They simply wait until the middle of the night to break into those. Cities like Detroit and Chicago have had higher crimes rates mainly due to the high unemployment numbers in those cities. When your economic structure collapses, crime rates climb.

I trust the system to a degree. I don't believe in taking the law into my own hands unless absolutely necessary, and within the confines of my personal property. I've read about too many incidents where two individuals have a disagreement about whatever, and the next thing you know there's a fire fight. I had a friend get into a road rage incident the other day, and his car got hit with 4 bullets simply because he accidentally cutoff someone as he was changing lanes.
 
Top