The right to use weapons

[seafury]

I'm living in Mexico, the loony dictator in turn, has raised the taxes up to the 50%, terminated many jobs, and put the country in almost bankrupcy, the criminals runs the streets, even if a crime is goin on, the police never arrives, until the shoot is on, the smallest street gang has automatic pistols, but is a severe crime if a citizen had a weapon in their house, anyone bravest enought to protest is shoot to death in their home or dissapear misteriously in the night, the mass media obeys any order of the government.

Because this many mexicans flee the country, arriving as foreign aliens, to America, without papers, risking their life in the desert, working in any place, any hour, any time.

So, as a human beings we have the right to defend ourselves?, or die quietly, when the people need to take charge of their own destiny?, can the right to defend ourselves, start breaking the mexican law, or is a natural right?.

From the hell, greeting free world.

 

[priyaa161]

I'm living in Mexico, the loony dictator in turn, has raised the taxes up to the 50%, terminated many jobs, and put the country in almost bankrupcy, the criminals runs the streets, even if a crime is goin on, the police never arrives, until the shoot is on, the smallest street gang has automatic pistols, but is a severe crime if a citizen had a weapon in their house, anyone bravest enought to protest is shoot to death in their home or dissapear misteriously in the night, the mass media obeys any order of the government.

Because this many mexicans flee the country, arriving as foreign aliens, to America, without papers, risking their life in the desert, working in any place, any hour, any time.

So, as a human beings we have the right to defend ourselves?, or die quietly, when the people need to take charge of their own destiny?, can the right to defend ourselves, start breaking the mexican law, or is a natural right?.

From the hell, greeting free world.

OMG. Very pathetic condition there. Obviously I'd never encountered any such situation and never even heard in my country. Every thing I'll write is just from some knowledge I gained from movies.

So, as a human beings we have the right to defend ourselves?

Yes. You have the right but what you wanna do? Do You wanna kill them? Do you think you'll survive if do so. What You think is more important; money or life?

BTW, I think You can get license to keep weapons for personal safety. Don't know what exactly the rules to get it but I know that every country provides this license.

The only option I can see is to leave your country and settle down in any other country.

No offense but never heard of any such news on television or newspaper.

 

[carl6969]

A lot of the news in the United States is currently related to Mexico. Immigration, drugs, violence, gangs, border security. Texans, living in a state bordering Mexico, are particularly interested in the various problems currently happening in Mexico. I am quite sympathetic with the vast majority of Mexican citizens who simply want to live their lives in peace but are frequently unable to do that due to the widespread corruption and violence in that country. Only a few years ago I was making regular visits to various parts of Mexico and greatly enjoyed the people, culture, and food. I am very disappointed that Mexico is far too dangerous to visit at this time.

In the United States our Constitution gives us the right to keep in bear arms and many U.S. citizens, (including myself), do keep arms for hunting and / or self defense. We try to restrict who is able to legally own firearms and certain other weapons, prohibiting possession of weapons by convicted felons. drug addicts, mentally incompetent people, and people convicted of violent crimes. The system used to enforce these restrictions has only limited effectiveness, but it helps a little.

Even though I hope I never have to face such a situation, I am prepared to defend my life by whatever means necessary, including weapons if the situation deteriorates to the point where that is the only option left. Laws in my country and my state allow me to defend myself with weapons and deadly force when confronted and threatened by weapons. While I am unfamiliar with Mexican law, it appears, based on your statements, that Mexican citizens do not have a legal right to use weapons to defend themselves. That is very unfortunate considering the current state of affairs in Mexico. However, I do believe that human beings, wherever they live, do have a natural right to defend their own lives by whatever means necessary.

 

[truthguild]

and that's why i'm glad for the second ammendment to the U.S. Constitution.
"A well regulated militia, being necesary to a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
not a lot of words - just very specific ones. at the time of drafting, the word "regulate" meant "to make regular" rather than "to restrict" (thus noted that none of the bill of rights provides power to the government).
it should be also noted that it's the right of the people that shall not be infringed, not the right of he militia. why did the authors word it this way? because they just fought a bloody war to overthrow a tyranical government and they knew that someday in the future, they just might have to do it again - and the people need arms to do so.
to quote thomas jefferson "When the government fears the people, there is liberty.* When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure."
am i actually talking about the violent overthrow of a governemt? yes. and i thank the liberty of free speech that allows me to do so.

 

[carl6969]

Considering the current state of affairs in Mexico I cannot help but wonder if perhaps the people of Mexico should ponder the history of the United States shortly before the American Revolution and then consider an appropriate reaction to the problems they are facing at this time.

 

[fractalfeline]

Dang! Everyone just about said what I was going to say, and more eloquently than me to boot

I suppose I will add, for another dimension on the issue, that I bet that the new Arizona Law doesn't make matters any easier for Mexicans who might think about fleeing Mexico for the relative safety and prosperity of America. At least, not to Arizona. I'm wondering if Arizona is setting a prescedent that other southwestern states might adopt. Like, Texas, considering how Conservative it is.

Now, while I'm proud of my country and the freedoms it offers, and all that the Statue of Liberty stands for (give us your poor, weak, hungry, etc.), and while I think the situation in Mexico is terrible, we cannot be the safe haven for the entire country. At some point, Mexican citizens will have to figure out a way of solving their own problems. Unfortunately that's kinda difficult, if, as you say, laws forbid citizens from arming themselves against the criminals and corrupt officials alike. Though I'd imagine there's a black market there just as much as there is here... I'm sure there's plenty of arms dealers who would happily supply an armed insurrection if it ever got organized and got sufficient resources. Easier said than done I'd imagine.

Though I must say, I'm laughing my butt off about Arizona shooting itself in the foot economically. Illegals occupy the lowest end jobs that no one wants. Arizona will be hard pressed to find people willing to work so hard, so long, in such bad conditions, for so little. Apparently resident Mexican-Americans are boycotting businesses in Arizona. Bahahaha!

One more note: I have heard that much of the criminal element in Mexico has something to do with the drug trade. Without demand there'd be no market... if everyone would just stop using drugs in America then I'd imagine the situation in Mexico would improve. Yeah, that's gonna happen. On a related note: if America were to put trade restrictions on Mexico on the condition that normal trade will not resume until Mexico fixes its situation and guarantees some basic rights to its citizens... ok, that idea was so ridiculous I had trouble finishing it properly. Bahahaha!

We could always "liberate" and "bring democracy" to Mexico. Like Iraq! Yeah!!

 

[carl6969]

I'm wondering if Arizona is setting a prescedent that other southwestern states might adopt. Like, Texas, considering how Conservative it is.

In my opinion the controversial Arizona law you are referring to is little more than a "statement". Police currently have the right to stop and question people for probable cause. And they have the right to detain a person whom they suspect of violating Federal immigration laws.

 

[descalzo]

And they have the right to detain a person whom they suspect of violating Federal immigration laws.

And how do they "suspect" that?

And how does the person prove his "innocence" to the officer?

And Texas won't pass any similar law. The Republicans always kill them when they come up in the Texas Legislature. Too many influential companies rely on the cheap labor.

 

[carl6969]

And how do they "suspect" that?
And how does the person prove his "innocence" to the officer?
And Texas won't pass any similar law. The Republicans always kill them when they come up in the Texas Legislature. Too many influential companies rely on the cheap labor.

These are all very good points which I completely agree with. I was simply attempting to make the point that the Arizona law in question is meaningless because a very similar Federal law already exists. Arizona accomplished nothing by passing that law except to enrage a large number of people from many ethnic backgrounds.

 

[rlodge]

Of course you have the right to defend yourselves. Everyone on the planet should feel secure in their life and be able to pursue a life of liberty and happiness. I can't say that know what you're going through because I can't even find a point of reference to compare what you're going through. I'm not saying I don't care, I really do wish your situation were better, but I just can't grasp how terrible your situation must be. I've never been in a situation remotely like the one you describe.

Though I must say, I'm laughing my butt off about Arizona shooting itself in the foot economically. Illegals occupy the lowest end jobs that no one wants. Arizona will be hard pressed to find people willing to work so hard, so long, in such bad conditions, for so little. Apparently resident Mexican-Americans are boycotting businesses in Arizona. Bahahaha!

Is this really the case? Jobs that no one else will do? Or is it more of the case that these are jobs no one else will do for the wages offered? I believe that with 9.7% unemployment (the last time I heard a percentage) that there would be many people willing to do those jobs. It's just that employers want to pay nothing for services rendered and are ripping off the workers they have. I believe that if proper wages were offered for these positions, there would be more competition for these jobs between Americans and immigrants. (Note - I didn't say illegal immigrants or specify any nationality here.) When employers can use the INS as a tool to keep these people working for substandard wages, these jobs will not be taken by American citizens. For all I know, they may not even be offered to American citizens. Ever been told you're overqualified for a job?

One more note: I have heard that much of the criminal element in Mexico has something to do with the drug trade. Without demand there'd be no market... if everyone would just stop using drugs in America then I'd imagine the situation in Mexico would improve.

I fail to understand why everyone thinks that us evil Americans are the only ones in the entire world that use illicit drugs and are the only cause of the problems in Mexico. No one in Great Britain, Germany, the entire South American and African continent or anywhere else on the globe uses drugs that could be supplied from Mexico? Also, there are two parts to supply and demand. Remove the supply and demand will fall. I believe that the supply portion would fall back on the Mexican authorities, would it not?

 

[fractalfeline]

Is this really the case? Jobs that no one else will do? Or is it more of the case that these are jobs no one else will do for the wages offered? I believe that with 9.7% unemployment (the last time I heard a percentage) that there would be many people willing to do those jobs. It's just that employers want to pay nothing for services rendered and are ripping off the workers they have.

Precisely. Suddenly everyone would have to pay minimum wage for those positions when before they wouldn't have to. Can you imagine the costs of having to pay perhaps twice as much per person, and very likely having to hire more people since they are less experienced (and less willing to work)? Higher wages will translate to higher prices.

I believe that if proper wages were offered for these positions, there would be more competition for these jobs between Americans and immigrants. (Note - I didn't say illegal immigrants or specify any nationality here.) When employers can use the INS as a tool to keep these people working for substandard wages, these jobs will not be taken by American citizens. For all I know, they may not even be offered to American citizens.

It's fairly standard practice here for anyone looking for cheap labor to drive around the local parking lots and gas stations, they hang out in bunches in the mornings. I suppose if I were unemployed I could go hang out with them. You certainly won't find these jobs on Craig's List.

Ever been told you're overqualified for a job?

Yup. It was fun graduating from college, attempting to get a job with my degree for a few months, then eventually having to look in retail. That was FUN. Managed to find one, but I got rejected a few times on the grounds of "overqualified" quite a bit. No one wants to pay a college graduate more money than a high schooler or drop-out for the same work. They assumed I was gonna ask for it and be less appreciative, I'd imagine.

I fail to understand why everyone thinks that us evil Americans are the only ones in the entire world that use illicit drugs and are the only cause of the problems in Mexico.

lol please. It's the majority. For starters, exporting straight north over land is much easier than exporting overseas. Perhaps you disagree? Perhaps you doubt that Europe has its own suppliers as well? Secondly, the USA population is much higher than most other countries you've mentioned. Sure, combined they'll do a decent job, but if we'll assume a similar consumption rate amongst Western countries, then it seems fair to say that the USA does the most consumption by volume. That said, I have no idea what the consumption rates of India or Brazil are. I'd imagine Brazil eats up a lot of drugs too. But from Mexico? Or maybe more like Columbia, Ecuador, Peru? What about India? Well, there's Afganistan for that, and opium farms in SE Asia. China has a high population, but imported drugs from Mexico? Perhaps... well, that said, I'm not exactly fluent in the inner workings of the drug trade.

No one in Great Britain, Germany, the entire South American and African continent or anywhere else on the globe uses drugs that could be supplied from Mexico? Also, there are two parts to supply and demand. Remove the supply and demand will fall. I believe that the supply portion would fall back on the Mexican authorities, would it not?

lol the essence of the Black Market is that if there is a demand, there will be a supply, somewhere. Demand won't fall -because- supply falls. Demand will stay the same and prices will rise. An addict will pay whatever they can afford, might even sell everything they have, turn to crime, just for a fix. If one addict doesn't buy, there will be another with more money willing to pay that price. I mean, the Prohibition limited supply of alcohol, and what happened? Yeah, the era of underground speak-easys and mafia turf wars. Demand never waned. Thankfully that one was repealed.

And wherever there is lots of money, there's corruption. Gotta be silly if you think the Mexican authorities will cooperate with an effort to eradicate the drug trade. They got their hands firmly in the pie.

@carl6969 and descalzo
I think you guys are right. Texas would be stupid to pass such a law. Even if a lot of its citizens are staunch anti-immigration, there's a lot of money to be had in free trade with Mexico. Well, for the people with the power, that is. I think I get a little worried sometimes about how much influence things like Faux News has around these parts. *phew*

 

[rlodge]

I guess, through chance or not, you proved all my points. Sorry.

A) "They take the jobs we won't do" is invalid until you add "for the wages they offer". Why work 40 hours for a job that still won't pay the bills?
B) As for "us" being solely responsible for the use of drugs out of Mexico, please provide facts and not your conjecture. I believe that you'll have a hard time "proving" this.
C) Did Prohibition limit / destroy supply or just change the suppliers and the legality of the supply? All I was saying was that if there were no more drugs provided from Mexico, drugs couldn't be demanded from Mexico. I never entered into the fact that they (the addicts) would get them somewhere else. Somewhere else besides Mexico is my thought. Could supplying drugs become more violent than it is now? I guess it could but not much worse.
D) Mexico's corrupt government is a problem for the Mexican people to resolve, not ours. We resolved that once over two hundred years ago and are fighting with it now. (Please don't belittle yourself by attacking me over my views of our government. I did not state Republican / Democrat, Bush / Obama, etc...)
E) I didn't mention every continent / country in the world because we were talking about Mexico's problems, not the entire planet's problems.

As you said, I am not privy or knowledgeable of the inner workings of the drug trade but I would assume that the US gets drugs from every country that you mentioned so why wouldn't the Mexican cartels be supplying more than the evil US?

 

[fractalfeline]

I guess, through chance or not, you proved all my points. Sorry.

No problem, just asking you to back up your arguments. I'm happy that you're trying. Maybe we'll both learn something from each other?

A) "They take the jobs we won't do" is invalid until you add "for the wages they offer". Why work 40 hours for a job that still won't pay the bills?

So we're agreed and quibbling over semantics now? Ok, you said the same thing I did, only reworded in a slightly better way! Bahahaa

B) As for "us" being solely responsible for the use of drugs out of Mexico, please provide facts and not your conjecture. I believe that you'll have a hard time "proving" this.

Majority =/= solely responsible. Please read my arguments before countering them. Do you deny the US being the largest consumer of drugs specifically from Mexico? Yes or no?

C) Did Prohibition limit / destroy supply or just change the suppliers and the legality of the supply? All I was saying was that if there were no more drugs provided from Mexico, drugs couldn't be demanded from Mexico. I never entered into the fact that they (the addicts) would get them somewhere else. Somewhere else besides Mexico is my thought. Could supplying drugs become more violent than it is now? I guess it could but not much worse.

Supply and demand, from my understanding, are specific terms in economic theory. Funny how misunderstandings work. I suppose what I was trying to say is... more restrictions will only drive the cartel further underground, and force them into more criminal activity. The business, if anything, becomes more lucrative if they can justify higher prices with a falsely lowered supply. I'm saying corruption has a tendency to make things appear like they are trying to help the situation, but are really just mouthing the words and turning the other cheek. Drugs? What drugs? I didn't see any, did you? Wink wink... It's a matter of how dedicated the law enforcers are to helping the people, rather than turning a profit. A bribe here and there helps oil the machine, as long as no one goes Paladin. That... and does the Mexican government, even if it did suddenly go Paladin... does it even have the resources to enforce any of the restrictions it sets down? Compared to the drug lords?

D) Mexico's corrupt government is a problem for the Mexican people to resolve, not ours. We resolved that once over two hundred years ago and are fighting with it now. (Please don't belittle yourself by attacking me over my views of our government. I did not state Republican / Democrat, Bush / Obama, etc...)

So... you agree with me then? I sure hope you didn't take my joking remarks about liberating Mexico seriously? ... What I was saying was, that Mexico is a complicated problem, without easy solutions. I feel for the people, but I can't think of anything really good to do about it. And... it's not my problem. Except when it involves an influx of people into my country, then it's my problem. I'm saying it's a delicate balance, a complicated dance between Powers and Forces, and you'd be blind to say that the US government and our appetites don't play a significant role in that dance.

E) I didn't mention every continent / country in the world because we were talking about Mexico's problems, not the entire planet's problems.

As you said, I am not privy or knowledgeable of the inner workings of the drug trade but I would assume that the US gets drugs from every country that you mentioned so why wouldn't the Mexican cartels be supplying more than the evil US?

Pick a side and stick with it dude. Are we talking about the rest of the world or not? Are we limiting our discussion to US and Mexico or not? One moment you're quibbling about me claiming that the US is not the only customer of Mexico's drugs, and quoting all these countries that use drugs also, possibly supplied by Mexico in some part... and the next moment, you're saying we're talking about Mexico's problems and not the entire world's, thus these other countries are irrelevant? Geez, I'm whirling around here in a tornado if misconfusibulationarionisms, I don't know up from down, left from right, I must be drunk here, can't get my head around what the blazes you're trying to say here! Clarify your position, and preferably without inserting words into my mouth

 

[conzone]

Do not forget the Mexican cartels get drugs from other countries as well.

I'm from the UK living in the USA, after the government banned 99.9% of the few guns in the UK there were ; gun crime went up.
I remember at 14 starting to buy "Guns and ammo" in the UK & I still remember lots of information over 20 years later.
Maybe I'm a gun nut but one of two t-shirts I remember from that time was "Shot them all; let God sort them out"
HOWEVER I think some drugs need to be legalized a.k.a taxed

 

[descalzo]

"Shot them all; let God sort them out"

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

..."Kill them. For the Lord knows those who are His."

Goes back to the Albigensian Crusade (1209-29) (specifically the siege of Béziers) when the Catholics slaughtered 1-200,000 "heretics".

 

[fractalfeline]

Amazing how so many things can be justified with religion. I think the Crusades and the Inquisition were especially low points in the history of Christianity.

Anyhoo, thanks for the little bit of history

 

[conzone]

..."Kill them. For the Lord knows those who are His."

Goes back to the Albigensian Crusade (1209-29) (specifically the siege of Béziers) when the Catholics slaughtered 1-200,000 "heretics".

Arnau Amalric a.k.a. Arnaud Amaury the Abbot of Citeaux, 1209

But the mad thing is the Albigensian Crusade lasted thirty-years.

 

[sbonner]

On the issue of the Arizona law:

I agree with a recent poster that this move is more of a statement than anything else. As it stands, before the law, a cop could pull you over for anything that they suspected you of doing -- unless they were unscrupulous, in which case, they had to cover their own butts. After the law, nothing has changed. A cop is not going to pull you over for nothing. He has to have a reason for suspicion, and that reason has to be documented; racial profiling is illegal, so the reason in the report is never gonna be, "He was tan."

As far as corruption goes and racist/bad cops, they already existed. The law does nothing but shed light on the ones that are already rotten while simultaneously trying to give the state a thread of a chance of taking care of various issues that DO deal with illegal immigrants and crime.

Did you know that Phoenix, AZ is widely considered the "Kidnap Capital of the US" and I can't seem to flick the news on without hearing about some new Coyote den?

I live here. Not every illegal is some knife-toting creep out to jack your car. Most mind their own business and live good lives. However, I'm not going to stick my fingers in my ears and go "LALALALA" because the job issue is an extremely real concern for me. It's, yes, the wages, but it's also racial profiling by EMPLOYERS who are specifically looking for the Hose's of the world, and the fact that I can't speak Spanish (and so about every low-end desk job is automatically out the door for me). And yes, people do steal a LOT of cars here.

I'm not cold; I can sympathize with the situation in Mexico. But it IS their problem; our government's obligation is to protect -US-, and sometimes that requires taking unpopular action. Maybe if we spent more time focusing on our own problems and less on those of the rest of the world, we'd find ourselves in a much better position to eventually work at these kinds of problems that we have now.

 

[seafury]

Thanks to all, I'm now searching to study Jefferson's writings, In my country we love peace, but can't afford it, we had very few choices, abandon our family and go to USA for a job, or stay in the country and fight for our rights, or be killed for a gang member or for the dictator's police, in any case we risk our lives every day, we're reaching the breaking point, its moment to follow the American Independence teachings.

 

[wolf99]

A quick conjecture on one of the points raised in an early post, being "when the government is afraid of the people that is liberty"

A) I thought the whole idea of liberty, freedom, etc and all the other reasons american's keep invading other countries for was so that NOONE has to be afraid, because the system works....

and in application to Mexico:

B) I think (just conjecture based on the OP i dont know the situation in Mexico otherwise) that the government and its agencies being afraid of the people is a large part of the problem as to why said agencies are so ineffectual against criminal gangs and corruption. Large amounts of fear and easier wealth are very conducive to doing what a criminal tells you to do.

I think the quote was from a jefferson? or another revolutionary? anyhoo, at the time such statements with a view to how THEY imagined the future, with reference to their own recent past, would have been very "brave new world" and forward looking. But in the present day a LOT of things have changed (one eg for perspective: they still drove horses), as situations change people should not blindly repeat rhetoric from what is basically a bygone era to validate a view (whatever the view is). It would be like saying "one time there where a lot of dinosaurs. dinosaurs are dangerous. we need dinosaur traps". obviously the example pushes it a bit but it highlights how silly things can get by not understanding, and providing for, context.

just my hapenny-worth. peace