Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Mexico legalizes vigilantes

  1. #1
    Regular Member Batousaii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,234

    Mexico legalizes vigilantes

    MEXICO CITY — Mexico essentially legalized the country's growing "self-defense" groups Monday, while also announcing that security forces had captured one of the four top leaders of the Knights Templar drug cartel, which the vigilante groups have been fighting for the last year.
    The government said it had reached an agreement with vigilante leaders to incorporate the armed civilian groups into old and largely forgotten quasi-military units called the Rural Defense Corps. Vigilante groups estimate their numbers at 20,000 men under arms.

    * And yet the Mexican government DARES condem the USA for it's desire to retain an armed citizenship, hypocrisy at it's best.




    http://news.msn.com/world/mexico-leg...-cartel-leader

    http://www.insightcrime.org/news-bri...in-west-mexico
    ~ ENCLAVE vmc ~
    The Enclave is looking for patriotic motorcycle riders in Washington State who support liberty and freedom for all. ~ Check us out!
    ~
    * " To be swayed neither by the opponent nor by his sword is the essence of swordsmanship." - Miyamoto Musashi.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    792
    and this affects Washington state how?
    Armed and annoyingly well informed!

    There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
    1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
    2) Liberals are never satisfied.

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,606
    Quote Originally Posted by Grim_Night View Post
    and this affects Washington state how?
    It doesn't - moved it to General Discussion.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Batousaii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,234
    Grim? Really?… yer a thread Nazi?... Good job … I wouldn’t have guessed.

    • My point of the thread, is how we as Americans, dealing with our own types of cartels; Bloods, Crips, MS13, Folks, even Arian Nation etc. etc. Where certain parts of our own state (yes that’s WA State) have allot of death and destruction at the hands of criminal elements, and how we ourselves may have to resort to similar in the future if our own state of affairs doesn’t change… I personally think this article gives allot of food for thought, a forewarning of sorts. It’s happening to our neighbors, and our economy isn’t getting better… This could be us we we dont get our sh!t straight.
    • So in that sense – YES, it has to do with us here in WA, or any state for that matter.
    • Last, if you don’t like my thread… doors over there... I dont go in to your thread and flip you crap.

    Grapeshot, Thank you for moving the thread. Politely done I can handle...rudeness or snide comments however is uncalled for.I didnt appreciate the snark... To be honest, thats exactly why my activity/involvement here has slowed down. I still come read, but my posts are sparse, and likely sparser yet since not much has changed it seems.
    Last edited by Batousaii; 01-28-2014 at 02:29 AM.
    ~ ENCLAVE vmc ~
    The Enclave is looking for patriotic motorcycle riders in Washington State who support liberty and freedom for all. ~ Check us out!
    ~
    * " To be swayed neither by the opponent nor by his sword is the essence of swordsmanship." - Miyamoto Musashi.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Batousaii View Post
    Grim? Really?… yer a thread Nazi?... Good job … I wouldn’t have guessed.

    • My point of the thread, is how we as Americans, dealing with our own types of cartels; Bloods, Crips, MS13, Folks, even Arian Nation etc. etc. Where certain parts of our own state (yes that’s WA State) have allot of death and destruction at the hands of criminal elements, and how we ourselves may have to resort to similar in the future if our own state of affairs doesn’t change… I personally think this article gives allot of food for thought, a forewarning of sorts. It’s happening to our neighbors, and our economy isn’t getting better… This could be us we we dont get our sh!t straight.
    • So in that sense – YES, it has to do with us here in WA, or any state for that matter.
    • Last, if you don’t like my thread… doors over there... I dont go in to your thread and flip you crap.

    Grapeshot, Thank you for moving the thread. Politely done I can handle...rudeness or snide comments however is uncalled for.I didnt appreciate the snark... To be honest, thats exactly why my activity/involvement here has slowed down. I still come read, but my posts are sparse, and likely sparser yet since not much has changed it seems.
    +1 It gives a great example of how people can cooperate under arms. I don't think anybody said so, but those are basically the Mexican militia preserving their security and freedom (from the drug criminals).

    I can see your point about the snarky comment. If it were allowed, I'd point out the moderator's jumping on the same bandwagon. If I were allowed to say so, I'd highlight his failure to see the obvious point. About the only thanks to be offered is for moving the thread to General Discussion where it will get more exposure, which of course wasn't his motive for moving it as evidenced by the remark he quoted and his own comment.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,151
    I would note also that Washington state contains a disproportionately large segment of the ACLU's putative 100-mile Constitution-free zone - being the NW corner of the US.

    https://www.aclu.org/national-securi...tion-free-zone
    http://news.yahoo.com/does-constitut...195813138.html
    http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/287-1-definitions-19608292
    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31826.pdf
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,606
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    +1 It gives a great example of how people can cooperate under arms. I don't think anybody said so, but those are basically the Mexican militia preserving their security and freedom (from the drug criminals).

    I can see your point about the snarky comment. If it were allowed, I'd point out the moderator's jumping on the same bandwagon. If I were allowed to say so, I'd highlight his failure to see the obvious point. About the only thanks to be offered is for moving the thread to General Discussion where it will get more exposure, which of course wasn't his motive for moving it as evidenced by the remark he quoted and his own comment.
    Should have said, "It effects Washington no more or no less than any other state." The application to all states is equal and was the sole reason for moving it.

    The question was legitimate and the OPs intent and reference to gangs etc. was not clearly made initially, but changes nothing insofar as where the thread should reside.

    No jumping on any band wagon unless you are riding one. Suggest you not go there.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Well.....does not WA have some provision in the law that do not hinder too greatly "vigilante" groups for common self defense? I thought that the subject was broached some time ago in the WA sub-forum, could be wrong, or wrong state. Anyway, so, if it is true that WA does have some provision in the law for a "Rural Defense Corps", then this is specific to the WA sub-forum. I would be surprised if all of the other 57 states have such a provision in their statutes.....which they do not!!

    Move this thread back to the WA sub-forum where it belongs, a "Rural Defense Corps", as identified in the op, is not permitted under Missouri law.

    But, I could be wrong, except the MO law part, that is.

  9. #9
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,606
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Well.....does not WA have some provision in the law that do not hinder too greatly "vigilante" groups for common self defense? I thought that the subject was broached some time ago in the WA sub-forum, could be wrong, or wrong state. Anyway, so, if it is true that WA does have some provision in the law for a "Rural Defense Corps", then this is specific to the WA sub-forum. I would be surprised if all of the other 57 states have such a provision in their statutes.....which they do not!!

    Move this thread back to the WA sub-forum where it belongs, a "Rural Defense Corps", as identified in the op, is not permitted under Missouri law.

    But, I could be wrong, except the MO law part, that is.
    Some do have such provisions - Virginia is one:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Defense_Force

    Also Georgia and Colorado references were easily found.

    "Nearly every state has laws authorizing state defense forces, and 22 states, plus Puerto Rico, have active SDFs with different levels of activity, support, and strength."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,151

    Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 321 DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS

    321.51 State defense force authorized. (1) AUTHORITY
    The adjutant general may establish a plan for organizing a military force to be known as the “state defense force.” The governor, or adjutant general if designated by the governor, may organize the state defense force, which may include an aviation unit, if all or part of the national guard is called into federal active duty. The state defense force shall be a uniformed force distinct from the national guard, composed of commissioned or assigned officers and enlisted personnel who volunteer for service. A person who is on active duty in the U.S. armed forces, including the active reserve components, may not serve in the state defense force. A person in the retired or inactive reserve may serve in the state defense force.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiscon..._Defense_Force
    Last edited by Nightmare; 01-28-2014 at 10:35 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Good find Shannon! Been following what has happened there isn't it funny how government always acts after the citizens do, in manners like these.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,151
    The problem with authorized state defense forces is that they will be authorized to defend the state and not to defend the people. The people must form their own peoples liberation forces - heh heh heh - not army.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Some do have such provisions - Virginia is one:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Defense_Force

    Also Georgia and Colorado references were easily found.

    "Nearly every state has laws authorizing state defense forces, and 22 states, plus Puerto Rico, have active SDFs with different levels of activity, support, and strength."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force
    I do not dispute that this is a interesting discussion. I dispute that citing "defense forces" of the several states is the equivalent of sanctioning vigilantism, retroactively giving them legitimacy, which is what the op is regarding.

    The government said it had reached an agreement with vigilante leaders to incorporate the armed civilian groups into old and largely forgotten quasi-military units called the Rural Defense Corps.
    Do you contend that the VDF is the equivalent of the now legitimized RDC in Mexico?

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

    I contend that no American militia was ever intended to be a Ruales equivalent.

    But, since you make such a contention , I retract my call to move this thread back to the WA sub-forum.

  14. #14
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,606
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I do not dispute that this is a interesting discussion. I dispute that citing "defense forces" of the several states is the equivalent of sanctioning vigilantism, retroactively giving them legitimacy, which is what the op is regarding.

    Do you contend that the VDF is the equivalent of the now legitimized RDC in Mexico?

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

    I contend that no American militia was ever intended to be a Ruales equivalent.

    But, since you make such a contention , I retract my call to move this thread back to the WA sub-forum.
    No they are not mirror images - no vigilantism here, but it is people preparing to defend their own turf.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    No they are not mirror images - no vigilantism here, but it is people preparing to defend their own turf.
    You are correct. But, your examples are state action in response to a threat, calling upon the people to come to the aid of the state. MO does have such a provision.

    In Mexico, the state did nothing to "protect" the people because of the symbiotic relationship between drug cartels and the state, at least as far as the vigilantes were concerned. The only reason the Mexican government came to an agreement is because there are/were ~20,000 "former" vigilantes, well armed vigilantes by the way, doing what the state did not do, fight crime.

    How would your state government deal with that large a segment of the population fed up with their government? It seems that the Mexican government chose to embrace their fellow citizens and provide them legitimacy. I suspect that our government(s) would choose a "slightly different course" here in de Estados Unidos.

    There is only one thing that can even be remotely comparable in my view, armed citizens will only take so much from their government, or tolerate inaction by their government only for so long.

    How about this, ~20,000 armed citizen, well armed citizens by the way, fed up with their governments inaction regarding the war on drugs, band together and start dealing with the crime and criminals. What do you think the state will be tasking the militia to do, assist the ~20,000 fed up citizens, or smash the lawless violent vigilantes? I'll wager that a call into the federales for assistance is not far removed from the order to mobilize the militia.

    Night and day my friend, night and day.

  16. #16
    Regular Member acmariner99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Renton, Wa
    Posts
    662
    My only problem with this is now the vigilante groups are under the authority of the elements they are trying to operate independently of. They also have to register their weapons with the army in order to keep them. Sounds like Mexico is slightly embarrassed about the effectiveness of a citizenry under arms - not to mention the actions of the Mexican gov't may curtail their effectiveness, worst case scenario, even stop it altogether. The Federal police and the Army are the least corrupted agencies in Mexico IMO, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were still prevalent.

  17. #17
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    321.51 State defense force authorized. (1) AUTHORITY
    The adjutant general may establish a plan for organizing a military force to be known as the “state defense force.” The governor, or adjutant general if designated by the governor, may organize the state defense force, which may include an aviation unit, if all or part of the national guard is called into federal active duty. The state defense force shall be a uniformed force distinct from the national guard, composed of commissioned or assigned officers and enlisted personnel who volunteer for service. A person who is on active duty in the U.S. armed forces, including the active reserve components, may not serve in the state defense force. A person in the retired or inactive reserve may serve in the state defense force.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiscon..._Defense_Force
    Didn't Obama threaten to try to charge with treason a bunch of Governors for setting up their State Defense Forces? I remember seeing something about it but didn't bother to find out the details. Edit: Apparently not - http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/governors.asp
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 01-28-2014 at 09:19 PM.
    Advocate freedom please

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,151

    SNOPES.com says FALSE

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    Didn't Obama threaten to try to charge with treason a bunch of Governors for setting up their State Defense Forces? I remember seeing something about it but didn't bother to find out the details.
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/governors.asp
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  19. #19
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Hm thanks. I updated my post to include the link you provided as to hopefully prevent the rumor from spreading as a result of my post.
    Advocate freedom please

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •