[HTML1]
“In Bamoa station, Guasave, where the Army gunned down 10 suspected criminals, [federal troops] seized 25 firearms, including two 50-caliber Barrett, 1,600 rounds of ammunition, 95 magazines, a grenade launcher and eight grenades of various types,” elimparcial.com reports (Google translation). Here’s an idea: how about the ATF trace the serial numbers on those fiddys to see how they made their way to Mexican narcoterrorists and then tell us? What are the odds that the drug thugs were using Barretts sold to the Mexican military or some other Latin American ally like, say, the grenade launchers? While we wait for that, here’s a link that proves the truth of Wayne LaPierre’s adage “He who has the guns makes the rules.” Keeping in mind that the people of Mexico are disarmed despite their constitutional right to keep and bear arms . . .
Mexico’s top drug kingpin represents a formidable political force that could influence the outcome of the July 1 presidential election, says a UTEP professor and author of a new book on election fraud.
Author Jorge Lopez Gallardo, a physics professor at the University of Texas at El Paso, said that Joaquin “Chapo” Guzman has developed a powerful network of politicians, industrialists, business leaders, bankers and security officials that may exert influence on the presidential and other, lower-level elections . . .
Phil Jordan, former director of the El Paso Intelligence Center and now a law enforcement consultant on the Mexican drug cartels, said he can’t talk about the fraud aspects of Mexican elections but agrees with Lopez that Guzman has amassed considerable power.
“Chapo is the most powerful drug lord in the world, and he has the money, guns and power to influence anything he wants to influence,” Jordan said. “If Chapo is allowed to run the Mexican government, it will be back to business as usual.”
NOTE: The answer is NOT trying to disarm the drug thugs. It’s arming the average voter. As much as we’d like to think we can “fight crime,” when it comes to democracy it’s purely a matter of mutually assured destruction. Yes, even in the U.S., as we pointed out in this post about the Battle of Athens.