The other day, Doc Russia had a post on the Minuteman Project. He noted that both the ACLU and MS-13 had decided to destroy them if possible, and offered this reasoning: "The ACLU, MS-13, weak foreign leaders who cannot care for their own citizens, and government bureaucracies and administrations who do not want to see their power evaporate in the Arizona desert. With enemies like that, you should not be ashamed of what you stand for."
No, indeed. Actually, this will be an excellent initiative if it lives up to its claims. Assuming it remains scrupulously law abiding, and restricts itself to gathering information and passing it to the authorities, this is a perfect example of citizens doing their duty to uphold the law.
But the report about MS-13 augurs badly. This is not a threat to blow off, and I hope the Minutemen are making better plans in private than in public:
"We're not worried because half of our recruits are retired trained combat soldiers," Mr. Gilchrist said. "And those guys are just a bunch of punks...."The backstory on MS-13 should concern you:Many of the Minuteman volunteers are expected to be armed, although organizers of the border vigil have prohibited them from carrying rifles. Only those people with a license to carry a handgun will be allowed to do so, Mr. Gilchrist said.
Because of their ties to [El Salvador], they have access to sophisticated military weapons, thus making firearms trafficking one of their main criminal enterprises.There's a certain amount of unwisdom going on here, on all sides. The Minutemen mean well by restricting their members to concealed, legally-carried handguns. On the other hand, it's perfectly legal to carry a rifle in Texas.
My suspicion is that the Minutemen are trying to address the concerns of the ACLU and others, by demonstrating that they are not attempting to intimidate or harrass, but only to defend themselves in the last extremity. That was fine, before this threat; but in the face of it, rethinking is in order. There is nothing to be gained by making yourself vunerable in this way, when possession of the tools with which you could defend yourself is both lawful and available.
MS-13, being a collective of undereducated thugs, has almost certainly not considered the ramifications of crossing the border in force and gunning down a bunch of middle-class American citizens. I doubt they have considered the response that would occur should they adopt the less confrontational policy of violent intimidation -- attacks on the families and children of Minutemen, for example. The first will be read as an invasion similar to, and needing the same type of response as, Pancho Villa; the second will be read as terrorism, and met with all available weight.
America tolerates a certain level of violence and disorder among its underclasses, mostly because we haven't sorted out a good way to stop it without trampling on the liberty that the Republic was founded to protect. More police? Less freedom for everyone. More laws? Less freedom for everyone. Laws targeting only the underclass? Generally unconstitutional because they trample civil rights and the principle of equal protection of the law. Curfews? More prisons? More government programs to track their movements and keep a registry of their activi... er, that is, "help" them? All of these things threaten American liberty more than the underclass and its violence; and so we have become tolerant.
MS-13 has been able to dwell in those regions, unstopped by America. I imagine they think America honestly cannot stop them. The recent raids on their national network can't have seemed very threatening, since the penalty is simple deportation, to nations even less likely to control them.
The rules are very different, however, when you begin killing Americans outside of the underclass. A criminal enterprise that decides to contend openly with America's civilian population will be destroyed in short order. The tragedy is that we may see them first kill law-abiding volunteers trying to do their duty to help their country. The Minutemen would be wise to reconsider their no-rifle policy, and arm themselves as the law and the Second Amendment allows. It was just this type of movement the Second intended to protect, after all: they may as well avail themselves of its benefits.
No comments:
Post a Comment