PDA

View Full Version : border heats up again


vantec08
03-29-2010, 4:02 PM
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_db544bc6-3b5b-11df-843b-001cc4c03286.html

A426RIDER
03-29-2010, 5:16 PM
How Tragic. If I lived down there, I would definitely try to utilize the "Buddy System".

advocatusdiaboli
03-29-2010, 5:24 PM
IT's far worse SOuth of our border and I've been expecting all out anarchy in Mexico within a few years. IT is also going to boil over more and more here it seems. What the answer is an arm chair viewer like me isn't qualified to say but I have the feeling it will have to involve violence since that is all the cartels and gangs respect. They murdered another ten kids today. This will eventually be seen for what it is--a bigger threat to our sovereignty than Al Qaeda ever was. Wait until the cartels and gangs start terrorism. And their agents will blend right in in the South West US where illegals are a huge part of the population.

paul0660
03-29-2010, 5:32 PM
A 35,000 acre ranch...........55 square miles..............WOW.

The article is full of supposition, and lots of it maybe true. I really hope I would be better prepared than this man was.

vantec08
03-29-2010, 6:17 PM
Right, advocat. It cant help but spill over onto us. Some people, mainly politically correct politician types, dont seem to understand that to survive (individually and societally), you must sometimes be willing to hurt others worse than they are willing to hurt you. It is ALL they understand.

Clinton
03-29-2010, 6:26 PM
"Regulators,.......mount up!"

Mstrty
03-29-2010, 7:08 PM
I was worried this would get lost in the media. I'm glad at least one nationwide source has picked this up.
Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/29/arizona-ranchers-killing-sparks-calls-beef-border-security/)
Arizona Rancher's Killing Sparks Calls to Beef Up Border Security

Three members of New Mexico's congressional delegation have asked for an increase in the Border Patrol's presence, and former Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo called on Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to dispatch the National Guard to the Arizona border

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is under pressure to beef up border security in the Southwest in the wake of Saturday's killing of a rancher in southeastern Arizona.

Three members of New Mexico's congressional delegation have asked for an increase in the Border Patrol's presence in the Boot Heel of New Mexico, about 10 miles from where the rancher was shot to death over the weekend. U.S. Sens. Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall, along with Rep. Harry Teague, say Napolitano's agency needs to take more security steps.

And former Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, an outspoken opponent of illegal immigration, called on Napolitano to "reject politics and do the right thing" by dispatching the National Guard to the Arizona border.

Cochise County Sheriff's Office deputies and detectives responded to an area northeast of Douglas on Saturday after searchers found the body of 58-year-old Robert Krentz inside his all terrain vehicle on his property. Detectives were able to determine that Krentz apparently came upon one person when he was fatally shot and his dog was wounded.

Cochise County investigators said Monday that Krentz likely was killed by an illegal immigrant, but there's no evidence to suggest there was any confrontation that led to the shooting.

Bingaman, Udall and Teague urged a forward operating station for the Border Patrol in the region. Such outposts put agents closer to the international border. Teague -- whose district includes the border area -- says a station in the Antelope Wells area would better protect people and property.

Tancredo, who attended a Tea Party event over the weekend in Arizona, blasted Napolitano for not doing more to secure the border.

“As governor of Arizona, Napolitano deployed the National Guard to help the Border Patrol do its job… Three days ago, Napolitano told an audience at Arizona State University that the border is more secure than ever," Tancredo said Sunday through his Rocky Mountain Foundation. "I challenge her -- no, I dare her -- to come to this community and try to sell that lie.”

U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., whose Congressional district covers the area, described the rancher as a pillar of the community who was recently inducted into the Arizona Farming and Ranching Hall of Fame.

"The cold-blooded killing of an Arizona rancher is a sad and sobering reminder of the threats to public safety that exist in our border communities," Giffords said. "It has not yet been determined who committed this atrocity or why, but I know that federal and local authorities are mobilizing every possible resource to locate and apprehend the assailant."

Giffords said if Krentz's killing is connected to drug cartels or smugglers, the federal government must respond appropriately.

"All options should be on the table, including sending more Border Patrol agents to the area and deploying the National Guard," Giffords said.

Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard said government has a clear responsibility to aid law enforcement resources at all levels along the border.

"I call on our federal and state governments to work together to bolster the law enforcement resources needed to better protect Arizonans living on the border," Goddard said

U.S. Border Patrol spokesman Omar Candelaria told the The Arizona Daily Star that if Krentz's killing was tied to such border crime, it would be a first for the area, to his recollection.

At a news conference Monday, Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever said Krentz was out checking water line and fencing on the land Krentz's family has ranched since 1907. Dever says Krentz had weapons with him in his all-terrain vehicle but didn't use them.

Investigators say Krentz apparently came upon one person when he was shot. While Krentz was still in his vehicle, mortally wounded, he managed to drive the ATV away from the scene at a high rate of speed before becoming unconscious.

Sheriff's deputies, U.S. Border Patrol trackers and Department of Corrections dog chase teams followed footsteps approximately 20 miles south to the Mexican border. No suspects have been apprehended.

Aegis
03-29-2010, 7:48 PM
It is unconscionable that politicians in Sacramento and LEO officials refuse to allow law abiding citizens the ability to protect themselves by issuing shall issue CCW permits. Mexico is a war zone and who knows how many illegal alien criminals are roaming the streets of California.

Hunt
03-29-2010, 7:54 PM
It is unconscionable that politicians in Sacramento and LEO officials refuse to allow law abiding citizens the ability to protect themselves by issuing shall issue CCW permits. Mexico is a war zone and who knows how many illegal alien criminals are roaming the streets of California.

you have no rights especially the right to self defense unless they chose to dispense them at their will, where ya been this is California.

Swatguy10_15
03-29-2010, 8:03 PM
you have no rights especially the right to self defense unless they chose to dispense them at their will, where ya been this is California.

Unforunately this seems to be correct in theory..Its interesting how its a challenge to obtain the necessary "permit: to carry a firearm to defend ones self with..Recently it was ruled Law Enforcement has no obligation to protect you (for lack of better terms) and these immigrants and cartels are becoming bolder by the day.
The funniest part is the "border mission" as the guard calls it has been ongoing..Theyre still theyre..And guardsman can volunteer to go..As long as you dont mind going unarmed...Face it ..our "representatives" ARE the biggest enemy to our safety..

cdtx2001
03-30-2010, 4:48 AM
It would be interesting to see what would happen if one of these big time cartels were to set up shop in CA, or anywhere else in the US for that matter. What would our politicians, police, or military do?

It seems that some of the warfare from south of the border is going to spread up here. Its not a matter of if but when.

RandyD
03-30-2010, 5:47 AM
The drug cartel's actions are becoming similar to Pancho Villa's actions in 1916, when he crossed the border and attacked Columbus, New Mexico which is only about 125 miles from where this rancher was killed. Villa's attack lead to the U.S. Army entering Mexico to punish Villa.

FastFinger
03-30-2010, 5:51 AM
The drug cartel's actions are becoming similar to Pancho Villa's actions in 1916, when he crossed the border and attacked Columbus, New Mexico which is only about 125 miles from where this rancher was killed. Villa's attack lead to the U.S. Army entering Mexico to punish Villa.

That was then, this is now. And now what's more likely is an invitation to a official apology for our transgressions which will be offered during a rose garden "cerveza summit"

yellowfin
03-30-2010, 5:52 AM
It really is befuddling that we're so willing to fight overseas against foreign threats but not at our own border. If the same people doing this were Russian, Afghan, Vietnamese, Libyan, or Iranian instead of Mexican we'd have F18's or even B2's over them rendering dozens of square miles into craters like acne within a couple of hours or less. Why the double standard? I suppose this is yet another reason we need an entirely different breed of people in our government.

franklinarmory
03-30-2010, 7:34 AM
It would be interesting to see what would happen if one of these big time cartels were to set up shop in CA, or anywhere else in the US for that matter. What would our politicians, police, or military do?

It seems that some of the warfare from south of the border is going to spread up here. Its not a matter of if but when.

I hate to break it to ya, but they're already here!!!:( Every day in our National Forests, BLM Lands, and State and Federal Parks we tacitly allow illegal immigrants to grow marijuana in California while poaching, destroying our creeks with pesticides & fertilizer, and creating a security risk with their armed presence. The damage they are doing now is unbelievable unless you have seen it! :eek:

The politicians do nothing. The California Democrats want more votes.

The police in the rural areas are often scared because their back up is an hour away.

And the military, they're not allowed to do anything unless directed by the Governor or President (e.g. martial law.)

The fellas working the grows are just "share croppers," but the bad actors driving them in, trucking in supplies, and loading out the dope are all gang affiliated. The sad thing is that there is often only one or two roads in many of these rural areas these guys plant in. If we really wanted to put a stop to mari jane, we could. Instead we've put it on the ballot to try to make it legal!

The next time someone says that pot isn't all that bad, just remind them of all the damage it does to our land and how it provides an incentive for gangs to profit from the addictions of our citizens!

bomb_on_bus
03-30-2010, 9:54 AM
wasn't ex president bush ridiculed and lamented for wanting to beef up border security a few years back. i remember droves of illegals protesting about it too bad that DIDNT capture the attention of the feds namely ICE

mstlaurent
03-30-2010, 9:59 AM
It really is befuddling that we're so willing to fight overseas against foreign threats but not at our own border. If the same people doing this were Russian, Afghan, Vietnamese, Libyan, or Iranian instead of Mexican we'd have F18's or even B2's over them rendering dozens of square miles into craters like acne within a couple of hours or less. Why the double standard? I suppose this is yet another reason we need an entirely different breed of people in our government.

Because politicians on both sides of the aisle are "courting the Hispanic vote". They are all trying to ride this thin line between appeasing the voters who want to secure the border and appeasing the Hispanic voters who want to open the border so they can bring their grandmas and grandpas and uncles and aunts and cousins over here. The Republicans pay lip service to securing the borders, and the Democrats lean more towards opening the borders, but in reality they're both guilty.

And, from a purely political standpoint, who can blame them. With the way the Hispanic population is growing in this country, they are the ones to pander to if either party wants to be in control twenty years from now. If we don't like it, we need to start having more babies. :)

bomb_on_bus
03-30-2010, 10:02 AM
Because politicians on both sides of the aisle are "courting the Hispanic vote". They are all trying to ride this thin line between appeasing the voters who want to secure the border and appeasing the Hispanic voters who want to open the border so they can bring their grandmas and grandpas and uncles and aunts and cousins over here. The Republicans pay lip service to securing the borders, and the Democrats lean more towards opening the borders, but in reality they're both guilty.

And, from a purely political standpoint, who can blame them. With the way the Hispanic population is growing in this country, they are the ones to pander to if either party wants to be in control twenty years from now. If we don't like it, we need to start having more babies. :)

+100%

its literally comming down to who can produce more votes.......

franklinarmory
03-30-2010, 10:39 AM
And, from a purely political standpoint, who can blame them. With the way the Hispanic population is growing in this country, they are the ones to pander to if either party wants to be in control twenty years from now. If we don't like it, we need to start having more babies. :)

That population would grow a lot less if the ones that got here illegally were sent back after 90 days of hard labor instead of allowing chain migration, residency status, health benefits and welfare. It ought to be a prosecutable crime to be an illegal alien (of any ethnic origin) in the US, but the way the 14th amendment has been contorted, cops aren't even allowed to ask if the Hispanics they have detained (for some other probable cause) are illegal or not.

I won't vote for any Republican or Democrat that wants to provide sanctuary.:mad:

vantec08
03-30-2010, 11:04 AM
There was nothing wrong with the old Bracero Policy -- - working immigrants were tracked, had to have a sponsor to apply for citizenship, and left upon expiration of visa. It worked.

johnthomas
03-30-2010, 11:08 AM
you have no rights especially the right to self defense unless they chose to dispense them at their will, where ya been this is California.

I don't know the law in AZ, the article said he had a weapon in his ATV, in California you can have a loaded weapon on your property. The problem as I see it is that many times, a person defends themselves, the Perp is the one that is portrayed as the victim. If this had gone the other way it would have read, "Rich rancher kills poor Mexican Immigrant in search of water."

garandguy10
03-30-2010, 11:35 AM
If we really wanted to put a stop to mari jane, we could. Instead we've put it on the ballot to try to make it legal!

The next time someone says that pot isn't all that bad, just remind them of all the damage it does to our land and how it provides an incentive for gangs to profit from the addictions of our citizens!


Making Marijauna completly legal to grow and sell to adults for use in their own homes would take the profit out of it for the gangsters and the politicians and Law Enforement. Natural selection will "weed" out those that can not handle drugs, it is natures way. Out of the gene pool for them.
Tobacco is legal for adults, I do not hear anything about widespead violence or border wars over the manufacture and distribution of Tobacco products. Alcohol is legal, no wide spread violence or border wars over it's sales and distribution [anymore]. The prohibition against Marijuana is as self destructive to this nation and our constitution as prohibition was against Alcohol. The facts are very clear on this. The only groups to benefit from Marijuana prohibition are the Politicians, Laws Enforcement, The prison Guard Unions and most of all Gangsters, none of these groups want to see Marijuana legalized. You many want to consider who supports your position on this issue and think again.

N6ATF
03-30-2010, 12:58 PM
wasn't ex president bush ridiculed and lamented for wanting to beef up border security a few years back. i remember droves of illegals protesting about it too bad that DIDNT capture the attention of the feds namely ICE

I thought he wanted to reward all the enemy invaders with another amnesty...

Texas Boy
03-30-2010, 2:51 PM
The latest in this saga - Senator John McCain is calling for use of the National Guard to seal the border - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001443-503544.html. Seems reasonable to me. Though it is a vast and rugged area - not exactly easy to patrol or put up a fence.

I'll agree with the above, that illegal drug trade is just too easy and profitable for anyone who wants to blatantly disregard the rules of a civil society (including murdering anyone who stands in your way). The lessons of prohibition are clear. But coca plants and poppy plants are easy to grow too - and probably easy to process as well, not to mention the product likely commands a much higher street price than MJ. So do we legalize cocaine and opium too? What about the drugs that people can easily manufacture? Meth? LSD? All those designer drugs? What about prescription drugs?

The violence from the drug trade has already spilled over to this country - just look at LA or Phoenix and the cartel on cartel /gang on gang violence in those cities. Clearly the current solutions are not working. Greater enforcement is expensive and might lead to more corruption as the stakes are raised. Taking the money out of the equation (some sort of legalization) would have a dramatic effect on the violence.

Obviously legalization could have other, non desirable effects. But I think it is worthy of discussion. While I don't like the idea of seeing "recreational" drugs on sale at my supper market, as a Libertarian I feel banning possession of an inanimate object is unjust. Controlling its use, however, is fair - just as discharging your firearm in the shopping mall (without a damn good reason) is a crime, so should being under the influence of any substance in public. It is the old "your rights end where my rights begin" philosophy. If you are waving your gun around or unable to control yourself in public (on drugs), it is a problem. If you are carrying peacefully or if you go home to get stoned, it is none of my business.

franklinarmory
03-30-2010, 3:15 PM
The problem with MJ is that there is not a specific test you can do in the field to see if someone is currently intoxicated. As every employer knows, the tests for MJ just tells if a person has used it in the last 30 days. It is not like alcohol or even meth, where you can determine if someone is currently under the influence. So until a test can become readily available, we won't be able to prove that a person using pot was intoxicated to a specific degree at the time they committed some heinous act. (e.g. vehicular manslaughter, etc.)

The fact is there is no reason for this state or nation to tolerate illegal cultivation by illegal aliens. If we close the border by way of the National Guard or some other means and if we actively expel all illegals living here, we'll have fewer illegals perpetrating crime on our citizens. If we find that we need some more laborers, then by all means, we should re-institute the Bracero program.

bulgron
03-30-2010, 4:20 PM
The fact is there is no reason for this state or nation to tolerate illegal cultivation by illegal aliens. If we close the border by way of the National Guard or some other means and if we actively expel all illegals living here, we'll have fewer illegals perpetrating crime on our citizens. If we find that we need some more laborers, then by all means, we should re-institute the Bracero program.

There are powerful business and government interest groups who will never allow this to happen until most of the southwest is just as corrupt and crumbling as is Mexico.

bulgron
03-30-2010, 4:23 PM
It really is befuddling that we're so willing to fight overseas against foreign threats but not at our own border. If the same people doing this were Russian, Afghan, Vietnamese, Libyan, or Iranian instead of Mexican we'd have F18's or even B2's over them rendering dozens of square miles into craters like acne within a couple of hours or less. Why the double standard? I suppose this is yet another reason we need an entirely different breed of people in our government.

1: Business interests looking for free labor willing to work below market rates.
2: A privatized prison system looking for more customers.
3: Wildly out of control police unions looking to improve police budgets.
4: Politicians pandering to groups 1, 2, and 3.

bulgron
03-30-2010, 4:25 PM
The latest in this saga - Senator John McCain is calling for use of the National Guard to seal the border - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001443-503544.html. Seems reasonable to me. Though it is a vast and rugged area - not exactly easy to patrol or put up a fence.

We have a lot of experience now with unmanned drones patrolling rugged, inhospitable terrain. I think we could patrol and police the Mexican border for a lot less money than people think, and it would give our armed forces some pretty good training to boot.

ShooterDK
03-30-2010, 4:34 PM
1: Business interests looking for free labor willing to work below market rates.
2: A privatized prison system looking for more customers.
3: Wildly out of control police unions looking to improve police budgets.
4: Politicians pandering to groups 1, 2, and 3.


Bingo! Money and votes...

Phil79
03-30-2010, 4:42 PM
If every honest and decent citizen carried concealed, can they arrest us all?

Maybe there should be some "carry a gun" day celebrations. I bet the rape, robbery, and murder numbers on those days would be just a tad less than on others. :-)

gotsig
03-30-2010, 4:48 PM
If we don't like it, we need to start having more babies. :)[/QUOTE]

OK, but I'm gonna need some help!;)

Phil79
03-30-2010, 5:01 PM
What number of soldiers from the National Guard there would be would pale in comparison to the number of American civilians if the call were to go out correctly and thusly:

President on Live National TV:

"My fellow Americans, we have a critical national security issue on our southern border. Drug and gang cartels from Mexico are illegally crossing the border and murdering our citizens, as well as committing other violent crimes. We need all able-bodied armed citizens to help patrol our border. In the event you wound or kill in self-defense you will have immunity against any and all criminal and civil prosecution. I will back up this pledge with a full presidential pardon if needed."

You think we'd get a little more this way? Unfortunately, I don't believe any president would have the guts to do this. I know I would if I were president, but since that won't ever happen either...

I believe it will really come down to the American spirit waking up, with the people doing what they need to do down there to stop the crime. At least I hope so.

The latest in this saga - Senator John McCain is calling for use of the National Guard to seal the border - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001443-503544.html

Stockton
03-30-2010, 5:30 PM
IMO...the loss of a single American citizen due to actions of boarding countries should invoke the most extreme action of violence we are capable of. The numbers beyond 1 loss would have to be of a staggering magnitude for that to happen. So we will continue to slap wrists politically and point fingers.

We do have the technology and professionals to close a boarder...COMPLETELY. We will never see that happen. Its too late anyway. Our society is already infested with gangs that number in the thousands and are controlled from within our own prisons. They just have not figured out a way to unite and fortify. We assume we have them under control but we're only babysitters.

Guardsmen will probably be show of force as before. Meaning LPOP positions without small arms. BP will ultimately handle ftf work. My opinion anyways.

Hunt
03-30-2010, 8:00 PM
It would be interesting to see what would happen if one of these big time cartels were to set up shop in CA,... Its not a matter of if but when. they are here- there are armed insurgents usurping, occupying, exploiting and controlling parts of ( sovereign American soil) our National Forest and other public and private lands for their grow operations.

gorblimey
03-31-2010, 12:27 AM
they are here- there are armed insurgents usurping, occupying, exploiting and controlling parts of ( sovereign American soil) our National Forest and other public and private lands for their grow operations.


This does not concern me as much as the fact that certain major US banks and corporations have been involved for decades in drug profit laundering and the sales of billions worth of products to the cartels. It's a significant component of the US economy, of corporate cash flow, and the parties involved want it protected at any cost.

The government is only too happy to oblige their corporate masters. Consider the War on Drugs. We've spent untold billions on law enforcement, prisons, and graft-ridden contractors supplying that whole ugly mess. It's an enormous bureaucracy and industry, sustained by taxpayers. For all this, the cartels are doing quite well -- taking over Mexico in fact -- and we're still doing more drugs than ever.

Cui bono is the eternal question -- into whose pockets has settled that which was extracted from tax payers and drug users?

What are we to think of the fact that, when Taliban was in control of Afghanistan, their opium output dropped severely due to the hard-line Islamic drug eradication / crop destruction dictates, and when the Northern Alliance got the upper hand, it's bumper crops in the poppy fields once more? It's worth a hefty chunk of change outbound from A-stan, and an astronomical sum when it gets to the US and Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan

I seem to recall an estimate that half of the world's drug profits is laundered or exchanged for goods in the US. Citibank, GE, and the like providing the necessary "private banking, offshore investment" services. No doubt some of that cash is used to grease politicos, who keep the whole disgusing charade going.

Mulay El Raisuli
03-31-2010, 5:31 AM
I'll agree with the above, that illegal drug trade is just too easy and profitable for anyone who wants to blatantly disregard the rules of a civil society (including murdering anyone who stands in your way). The lessons of prohibition are clear. But coca plants and poppy plants are easy to grow too - and probably easy to process as well, not to mention the product likely commands a much higher street price than MJ. So do we legalize cocaine and opium too? What about the drugs that people can easily manufacture? Meth? LSD? All those designer drugs? What about prescription drugs?


The lessons of Prohibition are indeed clear. Sadly, that hasn't mattered a whit to the politicians. Which addresses your concerns about drugs other than weed. We can't stop those either. ALL the ban on them has done is raise the price. The solution then is to at the very least de-criminalize them as well. Yes, there will be people using them. But, that's the case now. So we'll go from people are stoned & drug dealers make a lot of money, to people are stoned. Its an improvement.


If we don't like it, we need to start having more babies. :)

OK, but I'm gonna need some help!;)



Well, gotsig, if you look like your avatar, I'm willing to help. :)


The Raisuli

gotsig
03-31-2010, 7:34 AM
The lessons of Prohibition are indeed clear. Sadly, that hasn't mattered a whit to the politicians. Which addresses your concerns about drugs other than weed. We can't stop those either. ALL the ban on them has done is raise the price. The solution then is to at the very least de-criminalize them as well. Yes, there will be people using them. But, that's the case now. So we'll go from people are stoned & drug dealers make a lot of money, to people are stoned. Its an improvement.





Well, gotsig, if you look like your avatar, I'm willing to help. :)


The Raisuli

If I looked like my avatar, I would never leave my bedroom! Thats Misa Campo and if she would be willing to help me, I would never leave my bedroom!

franklinarmory
03-31-2010, 7:42 AM
The lessons of Prohibition are indeed clear. Sadly, that hasn't mattered a whit to the politicians. Which addresses your concerns about drugs other than weed. We can't stop those either. ALL the ban on them has done is raise the price. The solution then is to at the very least de-criminalize them as well. Yes, there will be people using them. But, that's the case now. So we'll go from people are stoned & drug dealers make a lot of money, to people are stoned. Its an improvement.

Never give up or compromise what you know is right. Economic factors shouldn't come to play in a moral argument. Thank God our founding fathers didn't just say, "The British are too big. They control everything, and they have a big navy. Let's just pay the tax and be friends."

If you happen to believe that MJ, illegal immigration, and gangs are cool, then I guess we disagree. But if you don't, I respectfully ask for you to stand for what you believe in without compromise.

dennab
04-01-2010, 12:40 AM
I just moved to AZ from Kali. I spoke to a gun shop owner in Phoenix who knew the rancher who was killed on his Douglas ranch. There was a vigil tonight in that area of the state with Border Patrol, Homeland Security (oxymoron?), ICE, FBI and other local/regional authorities and ranch owners.

What is interesting is that there are two highly controversial pieces of legislation on the AZ Governers desk ready to be signed into law - this unfortunate murder has been a lightening rod for both to pass:

> An unprecedented and very strict anti-immigration law that will finally clamp down on illegals living and working in AZ. Gives LEO more power and gives illegals the boot.

> A revised policy on current CCW laws - making it virtually permit-free to carry a concealed weapon in the state.

Wow, it would be like Christmas and Birthday all-in-one of these bills pass!!!

CalNRA
04-01-2010, 12:43 AM
The border violence has spilled to the South West states and Texas for a while now.

Everyone I know who lives in Texas, all very well educated and otherwise laid back people, are arming themselves on a daily basis.

vantec08
04-01-2010, 5:07 AM
As if an alchohol-fueled society isnt bad enough. We need more "legal" intoxicants like we need another obama. Old Ross Perot said it best -- "if we dont get a handle on drugs, we're doomed." There hasnt been a war on drugs, there has been a political show of a war on drugs. All the more reason to get serious about the southern border.

advocatusdiaboli
04-01-2010, 7:12 AM
We need more "legal" intoxicants like we need another obama. Old Ross Perot said it best -- "if we dont get a handle on drugs, we're doomed."

When people want to make our firearms illegal because of crimes, we reply "Guns don't kill people, people do". And rightly so. But when we decry drug crime and collateral damage, we don't respond with "Drugs don't hurt and kill people, people do." We instead make them illegal. We were taught a lesson nearly a century ago with Prohibition: making human vices illegal just drives them underground and empowers and enriches extra-legal organizations who fill the demand. Then it was the newly arrived Italian organized crime organizations we helped flourish and get a toe hold here--and they are still here today. This time around it is gangs and drug cartels. Let's scrutinize another of our hypocritical bromides:"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". True, well, how about "if drugs are outlawed, only cartels and gangs will have drugs." Yep, it fit perfectly and predictably. We still haven't learned a thing and we still blindly espouse this hypocrisy for drugs we clearly see is wrong for firearms. We need to legalize drugs and prostitution, tax them and control them--that will destroy the gangs and cartels business model at its core and help put them out of business. When will we learn?

bulgron
04-01-2010, 7:18 AM
When people want to make our firearms illegal because of crimes, we reply "Guns don't kill people, people do". And rightly so. But when we decry drug crime and accident, we don't respond with "Drugs don't hurt and kill people, people do." We instead make them illegal. We were taught a lesson nearly a century ago with Prohibition: making human vices illegal just drives them underground and empowers and enriches extra-legal organizations who fill the demand. Then it was the newly arrived Italian organized crime organizations we helped flourish and get a toe hold here--and they are still here today. This time around it is gangs and drug cartels. Yet we still haven't learned a thing and we still blindly espouse this hypocrisy for drugs we clearly see is wrong for firearms. When will we learn?

Indeed.

I saw a study somewhere that says a population's rate of addiction is constant regardless of whether recreational drugs (including alcohol) are legal. That is, the societal and human forces that drive addiction are far and away more significant than legality. Sound familiar? We've been saying that about gun control and violent crime rates for years, decades even.

People need to learn to be consistent in their philosophy and arguments, I guess.

advocatusdiaboli
04-01-2010, 8:28 AM
I saw a study somewhere that says a population's rate of addiction is constant regardless of whether recreational drugs (including alcohol) are legal. That is, the societal and human forces that drive addiction are far and away more significant than legality. Sound familiar? We've been saying that about gun control and violent crime rates for years, decades even.

Good information and great point. The Swiss keep their auto weapons and ammo at home after their two-year compulsive military service period. They should therefore, according to the gun control advocate line of reasoning, have an astoundingly high gun violence rate. But they don't. maybe because everyone is trained and armed. Hmmmm.

bulgron
04-01-2010, 9:35 AM
Good information and great point. The Swiss keep their auto weapons and ammo at home after their two-year compulsive military service period. They should therefore, according to the gun control advocate line of reasoning, have an astoundingly high gun violence rate. But they don't. maybe because everyone is trained and armed. Hmmmm.

More to the point, we know that violent crime rates are driven by a range of factors, including education, poverty levels, percentage of youth in the population, marital levels, strength of the family in general, and so forth. I've never seen a study that did a comparison, but I'll bet one would show that the same factors which influence violent crime rates also influence addiction. In fact, I suspect that if you were to graph addiction rates and violent crime rates, you'd see that they closely mirror one another.

It simply makes no logical sense that legalizing recreational drugs will have any real influence on rates of addiction. Those laws are largely ignored anyway, so legalizing that stuff matters not at all from a usage point of view. What legalizing WILL do is allow us to treat the worst of the damage done by addiction without people fearing prosecution. It would also take a huge chunk out of organized crime's bottom line.

advocatusdiaboli
04-01-2010, 10:30 AM
The drug cartel are behaving like hedge fund managers in a way--they recognized a dislocation in supply and demand created by the law perverting a free market and are profiting by arbitrage.

yellowfin
04-01-2010, 11:16 AM
Cutting out the profitability from drug sales would inevitably reduce their volume, cutting out the problem in a way that other methods can't.

Hoop
04-01-2010, 11:19 AM
Cutting out the profitability from drug sales would inevitably reduce their volume, cutting out the problem in a way that other methods can't.

Yeap. It's common sense, unfortunately some people don't have it.

bigstick61
04-01-2010, 11:54 AM
The last time we had this much violence on the border we had tons of armed men patrolling it. You had multiple U.S. army motorized and light infantry units, horse cavalry units, aviation units, artillery units (both motor and horse-driven), engineer units, and support personnel. The National Guard from mutliple States including all of the border States were there with similar units to what the Regulars had. You also had multiple State Militia units, mainly infantry and cavalry, on the border, including the militias from all four border States. There were also armed volunteers who if they ended up in a fight would just be lumped in with the organized militia in official reports, even though they were independent. Even the U.S. Customs officers and local law enforcement played a role. Back then, everyone was armed and units on the border were none too shy about using lethal force.

Personally, I think the time is long overdue for us to have armed combat troops at the border. The Army, and the National Guard, should have forces there that are armed and actively patrolling and willing and able to engage smugglers, cartels, incursions by the Mexican Army and police, etc. The Posse Comitatus Act should be amended to allow for units on border patrol to enforce laws against smuggling, illegal immigration, etc., at the very least so long as the unit has a Border Patrol Agent assigned to them (heck, why not convert the BP into a Border Guard like in other countries?). Arizona no longer has a State Militia to the best of my knowledge. Perhaps now is the time to rebuild the militias in border States or expand existing ones and utilize their manpower as well. It could also be a reason to restablish a unit or two of horse. It may sound archaic, but there is a reason why the BP still conducts horse mounted patrols, and they were the same reason why military and police units in Rhodesia and the Portuguese colonies included horse mounted units in the '60s and '70s. It would also be cheaper than using automobiles. There should be air patrols as well; Mexican aircraft to cross the border sometimes, and we should put an end to that.

Unfortunately, I don't see anything like this happening and the problem will just escalate.

bulgron
04-01-2010, 11:59 AM
Unfortunately, I don't see anything like this happening and the problem will just escalate.

It will escalate until the cartels finally slaughter some American police or military units in the same way that they have in Mexico. At that point, the gloves will come off.

N6ATF
04-01-2010, 2:22 PM
Cutting out the profitability from drug sales would inevitably reduce their volume, cutting out the problem in a way that other methods can't.

Yep, not profitable for either business or government, if legalized. Phillip Morris and associates will have no interest in cultivating anything other than tobacco if any, or all controlled substances (http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html) are no longer controlled.

:rolleyes:

socalblue
04-01-2010, 2:31 PM
It will escalate until the cartels finally slaughter some American police or military units in the same way that they have in Mexico. At that point, the gloves will come off.

It will happen & likely sooner rather than later. The violence against Americans has greatly escalated inside Mexico & is starting to spill across the border.

The same things is happening in Mexico as happened in Columbia: The drug $ has created a ruling class separate from the government & society as a whole (The traditional land owners & merchants). The drug lords have in effect become a quasi-government in certain areas & will stop at nothing to gain more power.

That being said, I would be very uncomfortable with a change to the Posse Comitatus Act. Given who is running the government right now it would be a bad thing to give them any openings. Using the NG & state militia - that I have no problem with at all. Let DC pay the bills but let the states manage the resources, under operational control of the Border Patrol or regional task force.

Hunt
04-01-2010, 3:55 PM
As if an alchohol-fueled society isnt bad enough. We need more "legal" intoxicants like we need another obama. Old Ross Perot said it best -- "if we dont get a handle on drugs, we're doomed." There hasnt been a war on drugs, there has been a political show of a war on drugs. All the more reason to get serious about the southern border.

enforcing ones personal morals by force upon another is a crime, especially victimless crimes. Where is the victim of the so called crime of ingesting a chemical? I think it is immoral and a crime to eat meat so me and my armed gang will bust your door down and steal your posessions kick your ***, destroy your family and career then throw you in a cage because we think eating meat is a crime. There needs to be a victim, some harm done for something to be a crime, the fact we have a bazillion laws creating victimless crimes and the associated clusterfu** this is why we have a police State.
Obey and slave for the State or get your *** kicked and put in cage, the State does not care if no one was harmed just Obey.

vantec08
04-01-2010, 7:09 PM
The Dutch and other societies had their experiment with it. If you want legal drugs, keep it in your town. The gubmint is hell bent on punishing smoking, but I have NEVER seen someone smoke a cigar then go home and beat hell out of defenseless kids. I see it all the time with booze and drugs. Good luck with your legal drugs.

Mulay El Raisuli
04-02-2010, 7:24 AM
If I looked like my avatar, I would never leave my bedroom! Thats Misa Campo and if she would be willing to help me, I would never leave my bedroom!


LOL! Sorry, I didn't recognize/have never heard of Miss Campo.


Yep, not profitable for either business or government, if legalized. Phillip Morris and associates will have no interest in cultivating anything other than tobacco if any, or all controlled substances (http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html) are no longer controlled.

:rolleyes:


That's right. Just as Coors & Budweiser don't do drive-bys on each other, legalization would stop that nonsense in re drugs.


Never give up or compromise what you know is right. Economic factors shouldn't come to play in a moral argument. Thank God our founding fathers didn't just say, "The British are too big. They control everything, and they have a big navy. Let's just pay the tax and be friends."

If you happen to believe that MJ, illegal immigration, and gangs are cool, then I guess we disagree. But if you don't, I respectfully ask for you to stand for what you believe in without compromise.


That's just what I'm trying to do. In any event, my desire to legalize weed/drugs is based on my dislike of gangs, etc. Taking their main source of money away from them can only do the rest of us good.


The Raisuli

Sam Won
04-03-2010, 6:39 AM
I hate to break it to ya, but they're already here!!!:( Every day in our National Forests, BLM Lands, and State and Federal Parks we tacitly allow illegal immigrants to grow marijuana in California while poaching, destroying our creeks with pesticides & fertilizer, and creating a security risk with their armed presence. The damage they are doing now is unbelievable unless you have seen it! :eek:

The politicians do nothing. The California Democrats want more votes.

The police in the rural areas are often scared because their back up is an hour away.

And the military, they're not allowed to do anything unless directed by the Governor or President (e.g. martial law.)

The fellas working the grows are just "share croppers," but the bad actors driving them in, trucking in supplies, and loading out the dope are all gang affiliated. The sad thing is that there is often only one or two roads in many of these rural areas these guys plant in. If we really wanted to put a stop to mari jane, we could. Instead we've put it on the ballot to try to make it legal!

The next time someone says that pot isn't all that bad, just remind them of all the damage it does to our land and how it provides an incentive for gangs to profit from the addictions of our citizens!

I am made to wonder how many of these illegal share croppers find their demise when they are found by groups of citizens that are trekking about in the woods? I presume the illegals would try to defend their crops with arms fire and booby traps. But I can see where it would be easy for them to unexpectedly confront the wrong group of people....... people that were prepared to defend themselves. But how many (if any) go unreported because they are simply never found?

JDoe
04-03-2010, 8:52 AM
Here's another story about the expected violence at the southern border. Seems like the local law enforcement are doing the only thing they can do and that is to advise the farmers and ranchers to arm themselves.

I wonder what the help wanted ads look like in these border areas? My guess is they look something like "Ranchhand wanted for medium size border ranch. Recent combat veteran preferred, no ranch or farming experience necessary."

Texas border towns fear violent spillover from Mexico (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/040210dnintmexicoattacks.1b8b36a.html)

12:22 PM CDT on Friday, April 2, 2010

By ALFREDO CORCHADO / The Dallas Morning News
acorchado@dallasnews.com

EL PASO – Texas law enforcement officials are bracing for a bloody weekend along the border, advising farmers to arm themselves as signs across northern Mexico point to a new escalation of violence after coordinated drug cartel attacks against the military this week.

In the northern Mexican states of Nuevo León and Tamaulipas, both bordering Texas, drug cartel gunmen used trucks and buses Tuesday to block approaches to military bases in Reynosa and Matamoros, apparently in an attempt to trap the troops inside. In all, gunmen attacked military targets in a half-dozen towns in the two states.

At least 18 suspected attackers were reported killed. One soldier was reported wounded.

The unease across Mexico has analysts and political leaders questioning the Mexican government's long-term strategy, with at least one leading expert saying the approach is flawed because some "government elements" unwittingly favor one cartel over the other.

The result has been a "feeding frenzy" of violence, said Phil Williams, an expert on global security who spoke this week at Tarleton State University in Stephenville, southwest of Fort Worth.

Across West Texas, worries abound of possible Easter weekend massacres in tiny Mexican communities butting up against Texas. In Hudspeth County, near El Paso, Chief Deputy Mike Doyal said Thursday that his "deputies are on high alert, 24-7," for any sign of "a spillover of violence."

The alerts were prompted by street banners and online messages from alleged members of the Sinaloa cartel warning residents of Mexican towns to leave by Easter Sunday or face death and burned homes.

The Sinaloa cartel is battling members of the Juárez cartel for control of distribution routes into Texas. Cartels are also known to use the banners and online messages to spread fear and intimidate residents without following through on threats.

In recent days, according to residents with relatives on the Mexican side of the border, at least six homes and businesses have been burned. Hundreds of residents reportedly have either fled to nearby Ciudad Juárez or sought refuge with relatives in Texas.

Doyal said tensions over the past few weeks have reached a "boiling point."

"The word on the street is, 'You have to leave or pay with your blood,' " Doyal said. "This is supposed to be the weekend of weekends. So, yeah, we're on high alert."

He said he has four of his 15 deputies on duty in Fort Hancock, up from the lone deputy who normally patrols the community.

Earlier in the week, the Sheriff's Department held a community meeting in which authorities advised residents, "If you're out on the fields, arm yourself," Doyal said.

Border Patrol spokesman Doug Mosier issued a statement Thursday evening urging calm "amid unsubstantiated reports of violence, threats and intimidation."

Mosier said the agency has increased the number of agents on duty and is "determined to prevent violence from spilling over into the U.S."

Worries about IEDs

In Tamaulipas and Nuevo León, across the border from South Texas, the Gulf cartel is battling its former enforcers, the paramilitary group known as the Zetas.

In an alarming new development, the criminal groups are experimenting with improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, said Alex Posey, a Mexico security analyst with Austin-based Stratfor.

"The most worrisome thing about an IED is that it's not as targeted as a rifle round," Posey said. "There is a greater risk of collateral damage when IEDs are involved."

At a news conference in Mexico City, Gen. Edgar Luís Villegas called the attacks in northern Mexico "desperate acts" in reaction to "the advances made by federal authorities." Some residents and experts scoffed at the statement, saying that the situation is spiraling out of control.

A businessman in Reynosa, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation by criminal groups, said by telephone that the military "reacts like spectators at a bullring."

"They sit around and watch while hit men kill each other, and then they come in and clean up the mess, even the blood of innocent people who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time," the businessman said.

The U.S. Consulate office in Monterrey issued a warning Thursday for Easter weekend: "Americans planning to travel by road from Monterrey to Texas should be especially vigilant and carefully monitor local news reports."

In Chihuahua state, across from El Paso, 4,500 federal agents were expected Thursday night to take over for the military, which will remain active but in a support role.

Favoritism allegations

Meanwhile, the accusation that the government was favoring some cartels – particularly the Sinaloa cartel and its leader, Joaquín "Chapo" Guzman – gained new credence from security experts.

"The best example of this favoritism is that Chapo Guzmán is the most wanted man in Mexico and yet he's still free," said drug trafficking expert Bruce Bagley of the University of Miami, also speaking Monday at Tarleton State. He said the leader of the Sinaloa cartel has better intelligence than the government. "There's no other rational explanation."

"There's tacit favoritism, it seems, for the Sinaloa cartel," added Williams, the expert on global security from the University of Pittsburgh.

The government counters that it has detained 72,000 criminals since President Felipe Calderón took office in December 2006 and that all the major groups were well represented according to their relative strength: 27 percent of detainees belong to the Gulf-Zetas organization, 24 percent to the Sinaloa cartel, 17 percent to the Juárez cartel, 14 percent to the Beltrán Leyva organization, 13 percent to the Arellano Félix cartel, and 5 percent to other groups, including La Familia and the Valencia-Milenio cartel.

"This government has attacked indiscriminately all the criminal groups in Mexico," Calderón said last month.

His strategy of sending the military after the cartels has led to steadily rising violence and almost 19,000 deaths in a little more than three years.

The biggest challenge with the Calderón strategy, said Jorge Chabat, a security expert in Mexico City, is "growing fatigue" among residents.

"I don't know that residents will tolerate this kind of violence much longer."

corrupt
04-07-2010, 12:08 AM
Very sad.

franklinarmory
04-07-2010, 8:18 AM
I am made to wonder how many of these illegal share croppers find their demise when they are found by groups of citizens that are trekking about in the woods? I presume the illegals would try to defend their crops with arms fire and booby traps. But I can see where it would be easy for them to unexpectedly confront the wrong group of people....... people that were prepared to defend themselves. But how many (if any) go unreported because they are simply never found?


From what I have seen, the growers do not generally fire upon the hunters or dirt bikers that run across their fields. In fact, there have been multiple times where I later found out that I could have been ambushed while hunting. I think they decided to hold their fire because they didn't want to cause the public outcry and publicity that a murder would create. This recent border incident is a prime example of the public backlash that can be created.

I doubt too many hunters kill growers and don't report it. What I wonder is how many competing illegal alien growers fire upon EACH OTHER and no one ever hears about it unless the body is found. And yes, if you check the obits, you will find plenty of unidentified John Doe's of Hispanic decent that were found on public lands.