Sunday, January 13, 2013

Civilians Arm to Protect 2 Mexican towns

When government is unable to provide protection to the people, some arm and  take action.  An example of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms at work in another country (Mexico).  The term "vigilante" has negative connotations, and abuses are inevitable, but they are also inevitable when government is in charge.


  1. “We want to return peace and tranquility to the entire population. Only the people can restore order.”

    In the US, numerous court decisions have held that the only duty of the police is to maintain peace in a community, not protect individual citizens who are out of sight of a policeman. The individual is thus responsible for his own security and well-being.

    If the police cannot or do not keep the peace in a community, who is left to do so? I submit that it is a grouping of concerned citizens to do the work--as those down south are essaying.

    Which leads to the question of why vigilantes are somehow by definition bad guys.

    Gets back to that "delegated by the People" thing.

  2. Des: Thanks for the post. Two reasons why the term vigilante has negative connotations for some. (1) past abuses by some vigilantes, e.g, KKK. On the other hand these abuses pale by comparison to the abuses by government. (2) Individuals taking responsibilty for their lives and having guns are politically incorrect to the Far Left. They want the government to control everything, and people to be dependent on government. However, the government will never be able to stop crime. Hence, the need for self-help and self-defense.

  3. Per my limited knowledge, the vigilance committees of Montana (Plummer Gang era, in the gold rush days) were among the most warped from the original benign intent.

    (I wont' go further; too many decades since reading about the events there.)