“One of the autodefensa fell to his knees and was kneeling with hands folded at the nape of his neck; He told them that they had no weapons and pleaded with the Feds not to shoot, but loud shots rang out and he fell dead from three bullets.” – Michoacán: Contrary to Castillo’s claim, Federal Police gunned down 16 unarmed civilians [via borderlandbeat.com]
Coming to an American city near you.
This is what happens when crime is allowed to run wild, arms are strictly regulated, and the militias that try to regain civil order are seen as the enemy of both the criminals and the government.
They won’t be American cities for long with given the state of our border “defense.” But wait, there’s more! Jorge Bush won’t deport his extended cousins and Hillary Clinton can buy votes with amnesty!
Prohibition is always successful, and has no completely predictable consequences. It worked out so well for alcohol, right?
“That can’t happen here.”
Until it does.
Californians, this is what the future of this state is. Think about that when you vote in Kamala Harris, Kevin DeLeon or Antonio Villaretardo as your next Governor. We are not very many steps away from this being reality here, law enforcement, especially in LA County, is out of control, LA Gangs are out of control, the writing is one the wall.
until mexico gets a police force not bought and paid for by the cartels this will only get worse.
Actually, a non corrupt .gov from the top, down, is what they need first. Yeah, not gonna happen. It really is a shame, Mexico is a beautiful country.
It is a chicken or egg situation. If they got that non-corrupt government before the police were cleaned up, the police would murder the government. The police and the cartels are essentially indistinguishable at the moment.
Yeah, that was my first thought. Federales pulled the trigger, but I would be greatly surprised if it wasn’t one of the cartels that gave the order.
I can imagine the wet dreams in the White House, many state and local governments, and in the MDA/CSGV/Brady groups upon reading the passage.
This is every totalitarian’s dream and they are everywhere.
Drug dealers work in lock step with the governments. The CIA brings in cocaine. We’re using troops to protect poppy growers in Afganistan.
The sole purpose of prohibition is to create an illicit market from which to derive wealth and power.
This sort of thing has been going on in the US for decades. We’re just naive enough to believe our state agents are somehow better or more altruistic than Mexicos state agents.
The cartels and the governments are on the same side no matter the country.
Well said. In Mexico government authorities and criminals have become indistinguishable. This happens when democratic institutions become so corrupted that they cease to protect liberty and freedom. We’re seeing the same thing happen here. In Mexico this is caused by drug gangs. Here in the states, it’s being done in the name of progressivism: gun-control, environmentalism, net-neutrality, animal-rights, etc., etc. serve similar purposes.
I’m not disagreeing with you, but I wouldn’t quite compare the situation in Mexico with what is happening here. Though that being said, when the rubber-band snaps it will likely be just as bad or worse.
Those are just cover. The real takeover is being done by corporations, who buy our politicians before they get on the ballot. You can’t get to federal office unless you bow to giant corporations, to whom we’re not people, just “consumers”.
What’s with net-neutrality? It is an important free speech protection. Without net neutrality website owners are at the mercy of large telecom companies. Would you be okay with some executive deciding TTAG here isn’t in line with their thinking and either extorts large amounts of money to allow their pages to load at even decent speeds? Or how about not demanding payment but slowing down page loading to worse than dialup speeds? This is the reality of a non neutral Internet, or are you going to trust in the current scummy telecom monopoly to NOT abuse and extort the power they will be given?
I’m pretty libertarian but seeing as how the Internet is maintained by in effect everyone, telecom companies only provide access, why should they be the gatekeepers of what information is “allowed” which the power they wield without mandated net neutrality.
Net neutrality doesn’t mean the government will have that power, only that ISPs cannot charge website owners for preferred bandwidth, while slowing nonpaying or disagreeable websites. As a customer you are already paying for bandwidth and therefore have a choice to visit bandwidth heavy websites or not. Why should telecom companies be allowed to “double dip”?
I have long felt that the only reason the Drug War persists is that it allows governments to move money and guns around for nefarious purposes, at will and with no oversight.
I lived in Mexico for five years. At times it was like the movie Brazil. When the police or Marines showed up (usually) masked you had to wonder who they were working for that day. They’d do really bizarre things like send 26 agents and a platoon of marines to check your boat registration – as if somebody was going to shoot it out over an expired registration. All twenty six agents had to sign off that your papers were good. One poor fellow had a date error on his temporary import permit and it was clearly any error that a customs officer made. There was no process for fixing it so they impounded the boat and gave him a bill for $12,000US. He cut the chain and fled the country in the dark of night. Myself, I left shortly after the police participated in drugging and attempting to rob me. Unfortunately for them, the drug temporarily wiped out my memory of my pin numbers and they gave up and dropped me off.
And we allow these like minded “immigrants” to come here.
I’m not trying to pick nits or anything, but if the video PREVIEW is NSFW, then marking it NSFW doesn’t really help me, does it?
Just a point to pick over, their status as autodefensa doesn’t exactly make them civilians. Call them patriots, guerillas local, constables, peacekeepers or vigillantes, but they’re no longer civilians, unarmed or no. Was it right? Different story entirely.
http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/339630/file-420414516-jpg/Landscape_v_Portrait.jpg
Twice I’ve spent time in Mexico, and a lot of time talking to ordinary people. Almost without exception, they envied our Second Amendment, believing firmly that if they had one, they would have a clean country instead of a corrupt one.
And that is why almost all firearms were rounded up, and prohibited,
Compare and contrast Juarez with El Paso. The difference in the 2 cities is mind boggling.