TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/o ... -1.1461419

Now armed civilian militias have stepped into the fray, saying they’ll protect themselves, thank you very much, from organized crime thugs who've robbed, raped and terrorized villagers who had the temerity to try to go about daily life in a rural state that appears to have disintegrated into wanton anarchy.

The number of civilian fighting groups has grown to about 30 units that have secured about a dozen towns in the past seven months including La Ruana and the lowland enclave of Tepalcatepec.

Good for them. There was no way the overpowered corrupt cops were going to do anything.

Disarmed Societies have never fared very well throughout history. I'm glad some of these people are finally standing shoulder to shoulder. Nothing like a good Revolution to make ones "chained existence" bearable...

Good for the citizens. I hope word of their exploits continues to spread as well as their actions and emboldens others who have had enough of what is close to anarchy in some places...

Glad to see they're standing up for themselves.

yeah we need to start paying attention to their plan and tactics because we may be facing the same thing soon....

gthaustex wrote:Good for the citizens. I hope word of their exploits continues to spread as well as their actions and emboldens others who have had enough of what is close to anarchy in some places...

Citizen criminals... At least technically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Mexico" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:
Under this clause, only citizens who have been granted a license to carry can lawfully carry a firearm outside their homes. Beyond military and law enforcement members, these permits are only issued to persons who qualify such as those employed in private security firms, those who live in rural areas, or those who may be targets of crime (politicians, public officials, wealthy citizens).

In other words, like the cartels, they're bearing firearms illegally...
Mexico... A shining example of how tougher gun laws don't equal less gun violence.

cb1000rider wrote:

gthaustex wrote:Good for the citizens. I hope word of their exploits continues to spread as well as their actions and emboldens others who have had enough of what is close to anarchy in some places...

Citizen criminals... At least technically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Mexico" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:
Under this clause, only citizens who have been granted a license to carry can lawfully carry a firearm outside their homes. Beyond military and law enforcement members, these permits are only issued to persons who qualify such as those employed in private security firms, those who live in rural areas, or those who may be targets of crime (politicians, public officials, wealthy citizens).

In other words, like the cartels, they're bearing firearms illegally...
Mexico... A shining example of how tougher gun laws don't equal less gun violence.

Illegal has a different meaning in Mexico than it does here. In Mexico the law is often just a "suggestion" that can be negotiated.

Unless you or I break it.

cb1000rider wrote:Unless you or I break it.

Well, that would depend heavily on local knowledge and how much money you have.

VMI77 wrote: Well, that would depend heavily on local knowledge and how much money you have.

Yea, probably... I can't get my mind around what it would be like to live there. It's basically illegal to own guns, but threats to your life and property are very real - and even perhaps common. The police may be police or they may be worse than the bad guys.

Mexico is a mess. My father-in-law works at their version of DPS and some psychos threw grenades in the building.... I feel bad for them, the common people are terrified of weapons because the don't understand them. However, Michoacán raises some tough SOBs, especially when compared to their Capital.

Cool fact most people don't know:
*Mexico enacted Articulo 10 in 1917 allowing citizens to Posses (poseer) and Bear (portar) arms in accordance with certain regulations, mainly the still present military caliber restriction.
*Less than 10 years later, Mexico decided to subjugate it people, and stripped them of the right to practice any religion. The people using now illegal weapons were able to defend their rights.
*In 1971, 3 years after the "Tlatelolco Massacre" (our version of Kent state) the goverment stripped the right to bear arms (except for the extremely well connected of course) fearing its people would reform the world infamous corrupt government. In addition the made private sales illegal, only one gun store in the entire country (debatable), and tighten their grip on the people; I do not believe there was and "grandfathering" for newly prohibited calibers/guns/ectw

Since I am relatively young and I wasn't even around for any of this, but from what I have heard, Mexico has gotten worse just about every year since then.

cb1000rider wrote:

VMI77 wrote: Well, that would depend heavily on local knowledge and how much money you have.

Yea, probably... I can't get my mind around what it would be like to live there. It's basically illegal to own guns, but threats to your life and property are very real - and even perhaps common. The police may be police or they may be worse than the bad guys.

Rich people in Mexico have all the guns they want, regardless of whatever the law says on paper.

As a follow up to this conversation, I just saw this today. They have apparently essentially legalized the armed citizen militias into a rural defense corps...

http://news.yahoo.com/mexico-legalizes- ... 39749.html

I found this interesting though:

Police and soldiers already largely tolerate, and in some cases even work with, the vigilantes, many of whom are armed with assault rifles that civilians are not allowed to carry.

Vigilante leaders will have to submit a list of their members to the Defense Department, and the army will apparently oversee the groups, which the government said "will be temporary." They will be allowed to keep their weapons as long as they register them with the army.

Unregistered rifles that now have to be registered and the groups are only temporary. So, after all is said and done, the government that doesn't allow the civilians to have these rifles now will know exactly who has them??? Seems awkward to me for the citizens involved.

Sounds like "well regulated militias" to me...taking care of business.