Article 10 of the Mexican constitution guarantees citizens the right to bear arms. The average Mexican does not, however, have the right to bear arms. Back in the 60’s, when social unrest threatened to disturb the social order, the Mexican government made the Mexican Army the sole distributor of firearms to civilians. The feds shuttered all of the country’s independent gun dealers. For some reason, today’s Mexican military doesn’t like to sell guns to the general public. Ammo is strictly limited. The result: the death of democracy. The people of northern Mexico are caught in a war between drug lords, corrupt police and an imperious federal army. Unarmed. Even so, do they want to surrender to the narco-terrorists? Here’s the results of a poll in Mexico’s milenio.com . . .

Ante una disyuntiva ante el crimen organizado, ¿qué elegirías?
(Faced with a dilemma organized crime, what would you choose?)

Pactar con el narco  22 % (make a deal with narcos)
Combatir el narco   78 %  (fight the narcos )

5 Responses to Ante una disyuntiva ante el crimen organizado, ¿qué elegirías?

  1. This proves that bans don’t work. The military controls all gun and ammo sales, and they still can’t stop criminals from obtaining or using any gun to do with as they please. I hope our resident gun haters read this story, because they are wasting everyone’s time attempting to deprive us of our right to bear arms.

  2. “when social unrest threatened to disturb the social order”

    I love this blog; I do. But this is the sort of thing, stated uncritically, that always sounds a bit undemocratic. Didn’t “social unrest” constitute the democratic social order in 1776?

  3. I’ve read that there are American ranchers rotting in Mexican prisons, right now, because they had a hunting rifle in the back of their pickup truck or even a few loose rounds of ammo, and accidentally crossed over poorly marked stretches of the border.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *