The Obama Gun Effect

[wmbwinn]

I never said at any time that the only reason Hitler avoided Switzerland was due to the militia/military of Switzerland.

I never said that the loss of German life calculations were the primary reason that Germany did not sack Switzerland.

I did say that the calculated loss of Germian life was a consideration for Hitler. The Swiss govt article lists 4 things that dissuaded Hitler (which by the way is pure speculation as the Swiss govt does not have any evidence of what Hitler thought or planned). In those 4 listed factors, the military/militia issue is listed.

So, the Swiss govt article supports my position on that issue.

I am not dancing.

you, on the other hand, said that the Swiss govt article listed the banking issue as the primary reason that Hitler left Switzerland alone. That, like many of your statements, was of your authorship and was not found in the quoted article.

Dancing? That is your game.

[wmbwinn]

Statement from the Illinois Rifle Assoc. regarding Obama's anti gun ideology.
Please forward this to as many people as you can. Thank you.


Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson Issues
Open Letter to Nation's Sportsmen Regarding Obama's History in the Illinois
Senate



CHICAGO, Oct 15, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- The following is
the text of an open letter to the nation's hunters and sportsmen issued
by Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson:

Fellow Sportsman,

Hello, my name is Rich Pearson and I have been active in the firearm rights
movement for over 40 years. For the past 15 years, I have served in the
Illinois state capitol as the chief lobbyist for the Illinois State Rifle
Association.

I lobbied Barack Obama extensively while he was an Illinois State Senator. As
a result of that experience, I know Obama's attitudes toward guns and gun
owners better than anyone. The truth be told, in all my years in the Capitol I
have never met a legislator who harbors more contempt for the law-abiding
firearm owner than does Barack Obama.

Although Obama claims to be an advocate for the 2nd Amendment, his voting
record in the Illinois Senate paints a very different picture. While a state
senator, Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every hunting rifle, shotgun
and target rifle owned by Illinois citizens.
That same bill would authorize the state police to raid homes of gun owners
to forcibly confiscate banned guns. Obama supported a bill that would shut down
law-abiding firearm manufacturers including Springfield Armory, Armalite,
Rock River Arms and Les Baer. Obama also voted for a bill that would prohibit
law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month.

Without a doubt, Barack Obama has proven himself to be an enemy of the law
abiding firearm owner. At the same time, Obama has proven himself to be a friend
to the hardened criminal. While a state senator, Obama voted 4 times against
legislation that would allow a homeowner to use a firearm in defense of home
and family.
Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a "friend" of the law-abiding gun
owner?

And speaking of friends, you can always tell a person by the company they
keep. Obama counts among his friends the Rev. Michael Pfleger - a renegade
Chicago priest who has openly called for the murder of gun shop owners and pro-gun
legislators.

Then there is his buddy Richard Daley, the mayor of Chicago who has declared
that if it were up to him, nobody would be allowed to own a gun. And let's not
forget Obama's pal George Soros - the guy who has pumped millions of dollars
into the UN's international effort to disarm law-abiding citizens.

Obama has shown that he is more than willing to use other people's money to
fund his campaign to take your guns away from you. While a board member of the
leftist Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama wrote checks for tens of millions of
dollars to extremist gun control organizations such as the Illinois Council
Against Handgun Violence and the Violence Policy Center.

Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a "friend" of the law-abiding gun
owner?

By now, I'm sure that many of you have received mailings from an organization
called "American Hunters and Shooters Association(AHSA)" talking about what a
swell fellow Obama is and how he honors the 2nd Amendment and how you will
never have to worry about Obama coming to take your guns. Let me make it
perfectly clear - everything the AHSA says about Obama is pure hogwash.

The AHSA is headed by a group of left-wing elitists who subscribe to the
British view of hunting and shooting. That is, a state of affairs where hunting
and shooting are reserved for the wealthy upper-crust who can afford guided
hunts on exclusive private reserves. The AHSA is not your friend, never will be.

In closing, I'd like to remind you that I'm a guy who has actually gone nose
to nose with Obama on gun rights issues. The Obama I know cannot even begin to
identify with this nation's outdoor traditions. The Obama I know sees you,
the law abiding gun owner, as nothing but a low-class lummox who is easily
swayed by the flash of a smile and a ration of rosy rhetoric. The Obama I know is a
stony-faced liar who has honed his skill at getting what he wants - so long
as people are willing to give it to him.
That's the Barack Obama I know.

The ISRA is the state's leading advocate of safe, lawful and responsible
firearms ownership. Founded in 1903, the ISRA has represented the interests of
millions of law-abiding Illinois firearm owners.

WEB SITE: http://www.isra.org
SOURCE Illinois State Rifle Association
http://www.isra.orgCopyright (C) 2008 PR Newswire. All rights reserved

http://sksparts.com/things_to_consider.htm

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

When I make a statement in statistics, I provide a link. You provide nothing more than your statement. The following link speaks to the reduced crime/murder rate in a time period of increased gun ownership.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...ad.aspx?ID=126

Here is the article again that discusses the lower crime/murder rates in most countries with more free access to guns (this looks at 27 countries):

http://www.nraila.org//Issues/FactSh...ead.aspx?ID=78

Here is the link showing the number of accidental deaths with a firearm have declined despite an increase in the number of guns:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...=242&issue=009

Anyway, Mavdog, you said that the overall trend has been an increase in crime and murder in a time period of increased gun ownership. No link? No data? Is the increase primarily in Washington DC, Chicago, and California's large cities?

Now, as to Rudy: I particularly quoted Rudy in post 131. Go back and read that or look at this link:

http://www.nraila.org//News/Read/Speeches.aspx?ID=45

Rudy very specifically spoke about his issues of gun bans and gun control and specifically backtracked on those issues. He specifically stated that the successes in NYC were due to increased punishment for gun related crime and decreased "passes" in the correctional system.

I bolded many of those areas in post 131.

That is what I'm talking about. I realize that Rudy was on the wrong side of the debate earlier in his career. He flip flopped. I am running with his more recent stance.

you remind me of sarah palin, who would regurgitate an answer to a question and totally miss what the questioner asked....all those nra sites do a great job of telling it like the nra wants to portray the facts, which is selecting the parameters which best support their more guns for more people position.

here, I'll make it simpler for you: the number of guns in america has increased steadily, with no decrease in the number of guns in any one year, over time.

the crime rate has had periods of increasing rates of crime and decreasing rates of crime over time.

therefore over time there is not direct correlation between the number of guns and the level of crime. the two are independent of each other.

nice try tho.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

I never said at any time that the only reason Hitler avoided Switzerland was due to the militia/military of Switzerland.

I never said that the loss of German life calculations were the primary reason that Germany did not sack Switzerland.

I did say that the calculated loss of Germian life was a consideration for Hitler. The Swiss govt article lists 4 things that dissuaded Hitler (which by the way is pure speculation as the Swiss govt does not have any evidence of what Hitler thought or planned). In those 4 listed factors, the military/militia issue is listed.

So, the Swiss govt article supports my position on that issue.

I am not dancing.

you, on the other hand, said that the Swiss govt article listed the banking issue as the primary reason that Hitler left Switzerland alone. That, like many of your statements, was of your authorship and was not found in the quoted article.

Dancing? That is your game.

you're denying it again?

your assertion was that the swiss having so many guns was the reason that hitler never invaded switzerland, to wit:

Look at the history of Switzerland. Hitler bypassed that little nation because taking that nation would be horribly expensive in death to Germans....All men take their military weapons home for life

so I provided quotes from the swiss government's own report that discussed the role of the financial system and its importance to germany in why the germans did not invade, the quotes on how a "single tank regiment" of germans could have taken over switzerland, and you even contributed the railway as a reason the germans didn't invade....all of which show that the number of guns possesed by the swiss provided no "protectrion" at all to the swiss.

just admit your assertion was wrong, and we can just move on. stop trying to "rewrite history" as you put it...

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you remind me of sarah palin, who would regurgitate an answer to a question and totally miss what the questioner asked....all those nra sites do a great job of telling it like the nra wants to portray the facts, which is selecting the parameters which best support their more guns for more people position.

here, I'll make it simpler for you: the number of guns in america has increased steadily, with no decrease in the number of guns in any one year, over time.

the crime rate has had periods of increasing rates of crime and decreasing rates of crime over time.

therefore over time there is not direct correlation between the number of guns and the level of crime. the two are independent of each other.

nice try tho.

Perfect. I can live with that. But, I can't live with your earlier statements that increased guns equaled increased crime rates or murder rates or even accidental gun deaths.

So, we can agree that guns have not made crime rates, murder rates, or accidental gun deaths worse.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you're denying it again?

your assertion was that the swiss having so many guns was the reason that hitler never invaded switzerland, to wit:


so I provided quotes from the swiss government's own report that discussed the role of the financial system and its importance to germany in why the germans did not invade, the quotes on how a "single tank regiment" of germans could have taken over switzerland, and you even contributed the railway as a reason the germans didn't invade....all of which show that the number of guns possesed by the swiss provided no "protectrion" at all to the swiss.

just admit your assertion was wrong, and we can just move on. stop trying to "rewrite history" as you put it...

No. my assertion was correct. But, the militia/military issue was only one of four causes of Hilter not hitting Switzerland. Still, the militia/military issue was one of the issues. So, I am not wrong.

[wmbwinn]

It happened in England.

++++++++++++++++++

It is now closer to reality than you think. You're sound
asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom
door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you
hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken
into your house and are moving your way. With your
heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and
pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber,
then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness,
you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the
intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun
and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes
and screams while the second man crawls to the front door
and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call
police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and
the few That are privately owned are so stringently regulated
as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police
arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They
arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a
Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to
worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave
yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.
Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two
men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives
can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the
article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested
numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue
Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from
career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on,
the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international
media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably
win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized
several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police
for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last
break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared
next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you
were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been
reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When
you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works
against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean,
vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict
you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England,
killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was
convicted and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once
great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable
law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that
handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.
The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only
handguns but all firearms except shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of
any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration
of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest
after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan,
a mentally disturbed Man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked
down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke
cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of
"gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The
seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective
even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used
a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at
a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as
mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a
real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day
after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of
objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The
Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, Sealed the fate of the
few sidearm still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally
took Away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the
right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.
Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were
threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered
a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or
rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted
as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and
several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young
thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector
of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns
were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.
Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The
few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year
prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that
they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had
been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.

[chumdawg]

His home was burglarized several times in the past, yet no one died. This time, the guy looked out into the dark, saw only shadows and what may have been a crowbar, and decided to unleash a shotgun blast. He immediately knew he was in trouble.

He knew he was in trouble because you can't go around firing off shotguns when you see shadows and maybe a crowbar.

God forbid those were cops in there.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

His home was burglarized several times in the past, yet no one died. This time, the guy looked out into the dark, saw only shadows and what may have been a crowbar, and decided to unleash a shotgun blast. He immediately knew he was in trouble.

He knew he was in trouble because you can't go around firing off shotguns when you see shadows and maybe a crowbar.

God forbid those were cops in there.

Break into my house, and crowbar or not........you are a dead man.

I will defend my family.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

His home was burglarized several times in the past, yet no one died. This time, the guy looked out into the dark, saw only shadows and what may have been a crowbar, and decided to unleash a shotgun blast. He immediately knew he was in trouble.

He knew he was in trouble because you can't go around firing off shotguns when you see shadows and maybe a crowbar.

God forbid those were cops in there.

He knew he was in trouble because his Country doesn't give him the ability to protect his house.

[Mavdog]

was that story written by mickey spillane? there are so many incorrect, fabricated and twisted statements in that piece.

btw the dunblane inquiry did NOT advocate the removal of all guns, and in fact said just the opposite, that individual ownership of premitted guns SHOULD be continued.
--------------------------------------------------
Tony Martin: Crime and controversy

Farmer Tony Martin became a focus of huge national debate after shooting dead a teenager who was burgling his home. The incident ignited a furore in Britain over issues such as rural crime and the rights to defend property.

Many vigorously supported the then 54-year-old, but others dismissed him as a violent eccentric who chose to act as a vigilante.

The case continues to attract controversy, with the ongoing attempts of Brendon Fearon, an accomplice of the teenage burglar, to sue Martin for injuries sustained during the incident.

The episode began in August 1999 when 16-year-old Fred Barras, and 33-year-old Fearon, broke into Martin's remote, semi-derelict farmhouse in Emneth Hungate, Norfolk.

Martin, who was in the house at the time, opened fire with an illegally-held pump-action shotgun. Barras was shot in the back and died at the scene, while Fearon was shot in the leg and recovered after treatment in hospital.

Three days later, Martin was taken into police custody and charged with murder and wounding with intent.

The case caused an immediate furore, with local supporters protesting outside the remand hearing.

It became apparent that Martin's orchard farm and home, called Bleak House, had been plagued by crime for years.

Gun history

Martin had been burgled so many times that he had set up an elaborate network of look-out ladders and traps, even removing a stair to hinder intruders.

Three months before the shooting, crooks had broken into the house and taken £6,000 worth of furniture.

Martin distrusted the police and was said to have begun fearing for his life. He slept with his clothes and boots on and reportedly kept his gun primed and ready by his bedside.
When his trial began in April 2000 Martin argued that he had genuinely been acting in self-defence.

But it emerged the pair had been shot as they tried to flee through a window.

'Mind of a child'

Jurors also heard that Martin had a history of gun-related misbehaviour, including firing upon a car six years before - an incident which led to his shotgun certificate being revoked.

Norwich Crown Court decided he had gone beyond self-defence, and convicted him of murder - for which he was automatically sentenced to life. The verdict sparked even more argument, with campaigners calling it "monstrous". Martin received thousands of supportive letters in prison.

He began an appeal immediately. In court he argued he had suffered from a paranoid personality disorder which diminished his responsibility.

His barrister told the court Martin had suffered sexual abuse as a child and "considered himself a boy of about ten".

Burglar sues

The court found in Martin's favour and in October 2001 his offence was downgraded to manslaughter and his sentence reduced to five years.

But the controversy did not end there.

Fearon, who had more than 30 criminal convictions, is now trying to sue Martin for damages as a result of being shot.

He has asked for a reported £15,000 for loss of earnings, claiming he can no longer enjoy sex or bear to see shootings on television.

Fearon is himself currently in jail, after being convicted in February of this year on drugs charges and jailed for 18 months.

The case is likely to be heard once both Fearon and Martin have been freed.

Future security

Martin has also continued to make front pages as he has wrestled with the parole board for early release from prison.

He is due for automatic release on 28 July, when he will have served two-thirds of his sentence, but this could have been brought forward to as early as September last year.
The parole board, however, has continually refused him early release - saying he has shown no remorse and would continue to pose a danger to any other burglars.

Martin argues he has made plans to ensure peace and security on his eventual return home.

He has discussed protecting his home with electronic gates and an air raid siren, and has been given a specific police contact to call in case of trouble.

This has not stopped commentators worrying that he will therefore be vulnerable to revenge attacks from Fearon's supporters - who have reportedly put a bounty on his head, worth tens of thousands of pounds.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...lk/3009769.stm

[u2sarajevo]

Why in the world did he kill that kid. He should have let him get away so he could come back some other night and get away with it.

[Underdog]

I would have used my freaky voodoo on the kid to make him grow man-boobs... That outta learn him!

(alternative form of vigilante justice: remember the rape scene from Pulp Fiction?)


...because shooting a man is just TOO easy!

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Underdog

I would have used my freaky voodoo on the kid to make him grow man-boobs... That outta learn him!

(alternative form of vigilante justice: remember the rape scene from Pulp Fiction?)


...because shooting a man is just TOO easy!

I would have tied him up and poured gasoline all over him and then cut his ear off while listening to "stuck in the middle with you." that's justice.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I would have tied him up and poured gasoline all over him and then cut his ear off while listening to "stuck in the middle with you." that's justice.

You, sir, are much kinkier than I...

[u2sarajevo]

What would I have done? Run to the police and ask for a lineup consisting of suspects in the dark brandishing crowbars. I bet I could pick him out.


edit: I bet all he really wanted to do was to change the guys tires.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

What would I have done? Run to the police and ask for a lineup consisting of suspects in the dark brandishing crowbars. I bet I could pick him out.


edit: I bet all he really wanted to do was to change the guys tires.

No - that's just a stupid as shooting the guy...

Seek out the rational middle-ground - learn freaky voodoo!


(you guys are always trying to make things more complicated than they really are...)

[alexamenos]

I would have hit the guy with a compilation of basketballgirl25 posts.

[Mavdog]

^cruel and unusual punishment.

sane people would say "just shoot me!"...

[wmbwinn]

CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico (Reuters) – Shadowy vigilante groups are threatening Mexico's drug gangs near the U.S. border in retaliation for a wave of murders and kidnappings that killed 1,600 people in this city alone last year.

One group in the border city of Ciudad Juarez pledged last week to "clean our city of these criminals" and said their mission was to "end the life of a criminal every 24 hours."

The emergence of vigilantes would be a new twist to a vicious drug war that killed 5,700 people in Mexico last year and forced the United States to give hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to the Mexican government.

Ciudad Juarez, a manufacturing center in the desert across from El Paso, Texas, was the scene of the worst violence in 2008 as drug cartels fought each other as well as staging kidnappings for ransom and extorting businessmen.

In an e-mail to news organizations, the "Juarez Citizen Command" said it was funded by local businessmen sick of abductions and extortion in the city, home to factories that export goods to the United States.

While none of the city's 1,600 in the last year were undoubtedly the work of vigilantes, a body was found on January 7 with a message next to it that read: "This is for those who continue extorting."

And six men in their 20s and 30s were shot dead and dumped together in Ciudad Juarez in October with a cardboard sign reading: "Message for all the rats: This will continue."

Drug gangs often leave threatening messages with the bodies of their victims, but security officials said those two incidents might have been the work of vigilantes.

Another group, "Businessmen United, The Death Squad" put a video on Internet site YouTube last June threatening to go after kidnappers and criminals in Ciudad Juarez, the biggest city in Mexico's Chihuahua state. The video is no longer on YouTube.

"FACELESS, ANONYMOUS"

State officials in Chihuahua said they were investigating who was behind the messages.

"We cannot tolerate the presence of these type of faceless, anonymous groups," said Manuel del Castillo, a spokesman for the state government.

Retiring CIA chief Michael Hayden said last week that Mexico's drug violence was possibly a greater problem than Iraq for President-elect Barack Obama. The U.S. Justice Department also says Mexican gangs are one of the biggest threats to the United States.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon has sent tens of thousands of troops and federal police to battle drug gangs but the violence has become worse since he took office in 2006.

At least two other groups calling themselves vigilantes have sent statements to news organizations in the past two months, one in the northern state of Sonora bordering Arizona, and the other in the Pacific state of Guerrero, home to the beach resort of Acapulco.

In Ciudad Juarez, some residents say they would welcome vigilantes. "That way they would stop the gangs, the mafia. People are leaving here because of so many murders," said David Hinojosa, 30, who shines shoes in the city.

The city has been rocked by gun battles and beheadings by rival gangs fighting over smuggling routes into Texas, despite the presence of around 3,000 troops and federal police.

But local lawmakers say encouraging vigilantes is a mistake. Some residents question whether soldiers are moonlighting as hitmen for drug gangs, a charge the army denies.

"People's reactions are understandable. But this is not the route we should take to solve things," said Andreu Rodriguez, an opposition lawmaker and the head of security issues in Chihuahua's state legislature.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090119/...s_mexico_drugs

____________________________

So, this should be fun to discuss.

1)Would you become a vigilante if that were happening in your town? What if your children were kidnapped and ransomed? What if your business or estate or other holdings were extorted?

The police/military can't fix the problem (they usually can't and they can't fix the problems in Dallas either).

It is just a matter of degree. How bad does it get before you are a vigilante?

Now, of course, it is better if the police/military can handle the issue and keep the crime issue far enough away from you that you can live your life oblivious to the problems.

Want a gun?

It may continue to spill further north into Texas and the other border areas.

[dalmations202]

This problem is much like the problem the Dallas Cowboys had.

You can't just throw money at the issue.

You have to find or Be willing to get the job done.

The Cowboys didn't have it, and if they want to clean up the border town, they need to find it.


Oh yea, No need for me to answer, because you already know my answer. I'd prefer a posse or deputy situation to a vigilante -- but call it what you will.

[wmbwinn]

I told you that this was a growing problem and that it would affect you at some point...

How much until you decide to get a gun to defend yourself???
___________________________

Just as government officials had feared, the drug violence raging in Mexico is spilling over into the United States.

U.S. authorities are reporting a spike in killings, kidnappings and home invasions connected to Mexico's murderous cartels. And to some policymakers' surprise, much of the violence is happening not in towns along the border, where it was assumed the bloodshed would spread, but a considerable distance away, in places such as Phoenix and Atlanta.

Investigators fear the violence could erupt elsewhere around the country because the Mexican cartels are believed to have set up drug-dealing operations all over the U.S., in such far-flung places as Anchorage, Alaska; Boston; and Sioux Falls, S.D.

"The violence follows the drugs," said David Cuthbertson, agent in charge of the FBI's office in the border city of El Paso, Texas.

The violence takes many forms: Drug customers who owe money are kidnapped until they pay up. Cartel employees who don't deliver the goods or turn over the profits are disciplined through beatings, kidnappings or worse. And drug smugglers kidnap illegal immigrants in clashes with human smugglers over the use of secret routes from Mexico.

So far, the violence is nowhere near as grisly as the mayhem in Mexico, which has witnessed beheadings, assassinations of police officers and soldiers, and mass killings in which the bodies were arranged to send a message. But law enforcement officials worry the violence on this side could escalate.

"They are capable of doing about anything," said Rusty Payne, a Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman in Washington. "When you are willing to chop heads off, put them in an ice chest and drop them off at a police precinct, or roll a head into a disco, put beheadings on YouTube as a warning," very little is off limits.

In an apartment near Birmingham, Ala., police found five men with their throats slit in August. They had apparently been tortured with electric shocks before being killed in a murder-for-hire orchestrated by a Mexican drug organization over a drug debt of about $400,000.

In Phoenix, 150 miles north of the Mexican border, police have reported a sharp increase in kidnappings and home invasions, with about 350 each year for the last two years, and say the majority were committed at the behest of the Mexican drug gangs.

In June, heavily armed men stormed a Phoenix house and fired randomly, killing one person. Police believe it was the work of Mexican drug organizations.

Authorities in Atlanta are also seeing an increase in drug-related kidnappings tied to Mexican cartels. Estimates of how many such crimes are being committed are hard to come by because many victims are connected to the cartels and unwilling to go to the police, said Rodney G. Benson, DEA agent in charge in Atlanta.

Agents said they have rarely seen such brutality in the U.S. since the "Miami Vice" years of the 1980s, when Colombian cartels had the corner on the cocaine market in Florida.

Last summer, Atlanta-area police found a Dominican man who had been beaten, bound, gagged and chained to a wall in a quiet, middle-class neighborhood in Lilburn, Ga. The 31-year-old Rhode Island resident owed $300,000 to Mexico's Gulf Cartel, Benson said. The Gulf Cartel, based in Matamoros just south of the Texas border, is one of the most ruthless of the Mexican organizations that deal drugs such as cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine and heroin.

"He was shackled to a wall and one suspect had an AK-47. The guy was in bad shape," Benson said. "I have no doubt in my mind if that ransom wasn't paid, he was going to be killed."

In July, Atlanta-area police shot and killed a suspected kidnapper while he was trying to pick up a $2 million ransom owed to his cartel bosses, Benson said.

State and federal governments have sent millions of dollars to local law enforcement along the Mexican border to help fend off spillover drug crime. But investigators believe Arizona and Atlanta are seeing the worst of the violence because they are major drug distribution hubs thanks to their webs of interstate highways.

In fact, drug officials have dubbed Atlanta "the new Southwest border," said Jack Killorin, a former federal drug agent and director of the Atlanta region's High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area task force.

El Paso, population 600,000, is only a quarter-mile away from Mexico's Ciudad Juarez, which has seen open gun battles and 1,700 murders in the last year. But El Paso remains one of America's safest cities, something Cuthbertson said is probably a result of the huge law enforcement presence in town, including thousands of Border Patrol and customs agents.

In the past year, more than 5,000 people have been killed across Mexico in a power struggle among Mexico's drug cartels and ferocious fighting between them and the Mexican government. The cartels have established operations in at least 230 U.S. cities, according to the Justice Department's National Drug Intelligence Center.

Payne said the U.S. and Mexico are working together to pressure the warring cartels. Payne cited the extradition of high-level drug suspects — four members of the Arellano Felix cartel in Tijuana were brought to the U.S. in December — and the capture or killings of several other top cartel leaders across Mexico in the past year.

"We have to make sure that we attack these criminal organizations at every level so that we are safer not only in Mexico and on the Southwest border, but here in the rest of the country," Payne said.

While some Americans may feel victimized by the spillover of violence, others are contributing to it. Americans provide 95 percent of the weapons used by the cartel, according to U.S. authorities. And Americans are the cartels' best customers, sending an estimated $28.5 billion in drug-sale proceeds across the Mexico border each year.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090209/...lover_violence

[wmbwinn]

disturbing lawsuit:

_____________________
A group of 16 illegal aliens is suing an Arizona rancher, claiming he violated their civil rights, falsely imprisoned them and inflicted emotional distress by holding them at gunpoint on his property along the border.

The federal lawsuit against Douglas, Ariz., rancher Roger Barnett, his wife, Barbara, and his brother, Donald, is taking place before Judge John Roll in U.S. District Court and will run through Feb. 13. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF, is representing the five female and 11 male illegals.

Al Garza, National Executive Director for Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, attended the first day of hearings on Monday. While the plaintiffs allege that Barnett attacked them because he is racist, Garza, an American of Mexican descent, said Barnett has never shown any hostility toward him.

"There is no racist agenda here, or I wouldn't be a part of it because I am an American of Hispanic descent," Garza said. "We don't hate anyone from any particular country. We just want our laws enforced. This is not about color."

Many of the aliens are residents of Michoacan, Mexico. Four live in Illinois, one resides in Georgia and another in Michigan. All of the plaintiffs currently living in the U.S. listed pseudonyms in the lawsuit due to "fear of adverse action based on immigration status."

According to the complaint, Barnett, a resident of Douglas who owns 22,000 acres along the border in southeastern Arizona, approached the group of illegals on an all-terrain vehicle on March 7, 2004. He allegedly began yelling at them in English and broken Spanish while aiming his gun at the group. While Barnett's dog barked at the intruders, the illegal aliens accused him of ordering the dog to attack. One of the women said the rancher kicked her because she refused to get up.

Barnett allegedly detained the trespassing illegals until Border Patrol agents arrived.

But Garza said their testimonies don't add up.

"I saw yesterday that these stories were fabricated," he said. "They were coerced into saying things that would ordinarily not be said by an illegal immigrant with no education."

Garza said Barnett's dog has never been vicious and that Barnett did not kick the woman. He also said one female witness told the court the group had been robbed in Mexico and that the only time they feared for their lives was when Barnett accosted them.

"She said she was not afraid in Mexico because there were only four men, and there was only one gun, and the way that they robbed them was in a very nice, very polite fashion," he said. "But when Barnett came into the picture, she said he was very vicious and he wanted to kill them. So they were more afraid of one American defending his property than four robbers on their side."

The lawsuit alleges that Barnett never told the illegals they were trespassing and failed to post a sign notifying them that they were on private property. Because they detained the group, the Barnett family is accused of depriving the plaintiffs of equal protection and due process under the law.

"What in the world are they doing on anyone's property?" Garza asked. "What are they doing in the United States? It doesn't make any sense."

He continued, "They are here breaking laws. They conspired to come here. What makes anyone believe that they are credible?"

MALDEF claims the family attacked, harassed, threatened and held the illegals against their will because they were motivated by racial and class-based discrimination. The Barnetts allegedly caused the group "severe emotional and mental distress," including fear, anxiety, humiliation, stress, frustration and sadness. Each illegal alien is suing for $1 million in actual damages and $1 million for punitive or exemplary damages.

In March, the same judge refused to have the lawsuit thrown out, because he said he believed the family denied the aliens' right to interstate travel and that the detention was racially motivated.

The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps and Arizonans for Immigration Control have been rallying in support of Barnett in front of the court.

Garza said property owners are forced to deal with the consequences when immigration laws are not strictly enforced. Illegal aliens cross the border and destroy private property every day.

"I wouldn't blame the guy if he told them to leave," Garza said. "I would have done the same thing because of all of their discarded trash. They urinate everywhere. There is feces all over the place, discarded clothing, shoes, backpacks, cans and other things that we're responsible to pick up. They do that, and we're racist?"

In a 2004 interview with Fred Elbel and Frosty Wooldridge, Barnetts said he used to pick up trash from illegals, but he no longer makes the effort.

"I won't pick it up because some day, I think if our government gets up off their a-- and does the job they're supposed to, they're going to quit coming across and I can make one big concentrated effort, if I'm still alive, to get the trash off," he said. "It's going to take 20, 30 or 40 people with garbage bags to carry it off ... of one particular area. Some days, I think what the hell am I doing this for?"

Garza said groups of illegals cross the border and head to Tucson, Phoenix and other staging areas in Arizona.

From there, they go into Michigan, Idaho and wherever the demand is," he said. "They find jobs in the hotel business, working at golf courses, landscaping, cooking, and washing dishes. It's not because Americans won't do these jobs; it's because they don't want to pay."

While illegals may only earn $7 an hour for such jobs, Garza said they find other ways to compensate for lack of income.

"They don't mind because they go on welfare and use aliases. They get welfare, food stamps, free education, section 8 housing. They don't have to pay taxes. Why not work for $7 an hour?"

Garza told WND he believes politicians need to stop caving into demands for cheap labor so the influx of illegals will stop. They must secure the borders, enforce immigration law, hold people who hire illegals accountable and stop giving social benefits to noncitizens.

He said, "We're inviting them by giving them an appetite for things like jobs, public and social services like welfare, free medical and things that we don't get as taxpayers."

In the interview, Barnett said he has tried to contact his representatives about the wave of illegals coming across his property.

"They won't listen," he said. "They're useless."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=87988