Mexico Ambush Proves Why We Need A Wall

Mexico Ambush Proves Why We Need A Wall

Mexico Ambush Proves Why We Need A Wall

The news out of Mexico about the slaughter of multiple Americans, including children, likely by organized crime, is gut-churning.

There just aren’t the words to describe the horrible details of this ambush massacre.

Members of the LeBarón family, who lived in a Mormon community in northern Mexico for decades, were traveling in three vehicles on Monday when gunmen attacked. Family members told the New York Times one child was shot while running away and others were trapped inside a burning vehicle.

Two of the children killed were less than a year old, family members said.

Julian LeBarón, a cousin of the three women who were driving the vehicles, said one of the women, Rhonita, was on her way to Phoenix to pick up her husband, who works in North Dakota and was returning home to celebrate their wedding anniversary when her car broke down. The gunmen “opened fire on Rhonita and torched her car,” he said. The woman, a 9-year-old girl, an 11-year-old boy, and twins less than a year old were killed, he said.

The two other cars, about eight miles ahead, were also ambushed. The two women driving, a 4-year-old boy, and a 6-year-old girl were killed, LeBarón said.

“Six little kids were killed, and seven made it out alive,” LeBarón said, adding that one of the women got out of her car and put her hands up when “they shot her point blank in the chest.”

President Trump initially tweeted and CBS News later confirmed that it is an open question as to whether the family was targeted, or this was a case of mistaken identity. Regardless, it’s another devastating reminder that drug cartels are still running the show in Mexico, despite the pledges of Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador during his campaign. Mexico cannot get a handle on the cartels, and the change in leadership at the top meant nothing.

President Trump offered help to Mexico. What that help would look like is anyone’s guess, but with the murder of American citizens, President López Obrador had better find his spine somewhere.

And others agree that if Mexico asks, we should help.

Here’s the problem: Mexico isn’t going to ask for help. And that’s why we need a wall. Yes, smugglers are trying to cut through. Yes, American drug consumption hasn’t slacked off – Seattle, of course, has become a de facto legalized drug zone as the city attorney and county prosecutor refuse to pursue possession charges for even repeat offenders, but that’s never brought up when pundits talk about how American drug use doesn’t seem to be stopping, so the cartels keep moving drugs across the border. But with this level of violence right at our doorstep, where women and children are ruthlessly slaughtered, calls for an immediate response.

If Mexico won’t stamp them out, then we HAVE to keep them out. We have no other choice. Our safety depends on it.

Featured image via Pixabay, Pixabay license

Written by

  • GWB says:

    Mexico Ambush Proves Why We Need A Wall
    Actually, it proves why we need to invade northern Mexico and at least turn it into a buffer zone, if not make it a US territory.

    I volunteer for Blackjack’s old job!
    I figure a couple of companies of light infantry, an attack helicopter regiment, scouts, a flight of A-10s (with some F-22s/35s with bunker busters on call, as required), and some decent military intel should clean the place up in time for Spring Break next year.

    Yes, smugglers are trying to cut through.
    And they should be shot on sight when caught doing so. Sorry, but that’s a clear act of war/invasion and requires absolutely no “due process” to resolve. *BANG* Done.

    If Mexico won’t stamp them out, then we HAVE to keep them out.
    No, we have to go and do the job ourselves.

  • […] Victory Girls:            Mexico Ambush Proves Why We Need A Wall […]

  • Mad Celt says:

    How about mandatory and random drug tests for congress?

  • Kevin says:

    This incident was horrific. I heard about it when I was passing through the Guadalajara airport on my way to catch my connecting flight to my home in the Yucatan for the winter. I have lived half the year in Mexico for 5 years and have owned a home in Mexico for 12 years and I feel safe. I stay away form the Northern border or other areas where violence is likely to break out. I do the same thing in the USA … I’m not wandering around in south Chicago at 2 am or any of the other “high gun violence cities” in the US. It’s always stunning when people are picking at the “toothpick” in the eye of another and miss the “log” stuck in their eye. Have you googled or researched countries with high gun violence? The US and Mexico usually are just four or five rankings apart from one another. You know what was truly horrific? When a typical white adolescent male takes a high powered rifle into a kindergarten/first grade class and kills 20 angels … and here is the truly horrific unspeakable outcome … nothing changed. Why don’t you try and fix the problem in your own house before telling your neighbor what to do about their problem?

    • GWB says:

      Sorry, but there’s very little comparison between Sandy Hook and the North Mexico massacre.

      Oh, and we here on this site try regularly to convince people in those bloody cities/regions (Chicago, NYC, NJ, Baltimore, San Fran, LA, etc.) to do the things that will cut down significantly on violence in their jurisdictions. They refuse to listen – all while calling for pointless restrictions on law-abiding citizens.

      BTW, Mexico has tight gun control laws. That evidently do nothing to stop that violence. Huh, interesting that.

      And, know what was horrific in the eyes of many free Americans after Sandy Hook? That the Democrats politicized the whole thing to call for disarming free citizens and avoiding doing anything that might actually work (like enforcing the laws already extant, or actually locking away people who were demonstrably violent crazy*).

      (* IMO, they’re afraid their voter turnout would drop if they did that.)

      • Kevin says:

        “Research shows that a majority of guns in Mexico can be traced to the U.S. A report from the U.S Government Accountability Office showed that 70 percent of guns seized in Mexico by Mexican authorities and submitted for tracing have a U.S.” It’s great that Mexico has strict guns laws. If only the United States would obey them.

        • GWB says:

          70 percent of guns seized in Mexico by Mexican authorities and submitted for tracing
          You don’t do statistics very well, do you?

          Oh, and if you want to talk about disobeying gun laws, let’s talk about Eric Holder and 0bama, shall we?

          • Kevin says:

            So, when Mexico law enforcement officials obtain weapons and submit those weapons for tracing, 70% come back as originating from the United States. They seize 100 guns, submit them for tracing and 70 come back as originating from the US. What am I missing? (Try to respond to genuine question versus creating a long list of “what I’m missing.” I know you can do it.)

            • Scott says:

              Obviously you don’t understand simple English, so I’ll break it down even more for you. The point is that Mexican authorities seize 500 guns, and only submit 100 of them for tracing, of which 70% (to use your numbers) come back as from the US .. of course no word if those were a result of Obama / Holder, but you get your 70% number to parrot, when the actual number is less than 15%.. on top of that, it’s not like the US government is sending guns there, but then again, you already knew that. The number you don’t mention is how many of those that are traced to the US were stolen or bought illegally, since that wouldn’t fit your narrative..
              So the real question is, are you actually this dimwitted, or do you just enjoy being slapped down as the low information troll that you are?

            • GWB says:

              submit those weapons for tracing
              What part of this don’t you get? Oh, I know, you don’t grasp that that reduces the numbers. See, they seize 100 guns. They don’t submit all 100. They submit the ones that are likely to come from the US. They don’t – unlike progressives – just throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.

              Now, if you can determine what percentage are actually submitted for tracing you might have a meaningful number.

              (Hint: a great number are stolen right there in Mexico – sometimes from the military and police – and a great number come from overseas. A lot of countries produce firearms. And we produce almost NO automatics in America, anymore. None of those are going to get submitted for a trace in the US.)

              Again, you don’t seem to do statistics very well.

              • Kevin says:

                This is in reply to both Scott and GWB … “About 70 percent of the 15,316 weapons submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) by Mexican authorities nationwide in 2017 were traceable to the U.S.” That number is still a significant number and, statistically speaking, is a significant and sizable sample that can be extrapolated to the overall gun population. Even if that was it … 10,721 guns (15,316 x 70%) is still deplorable. So, the question is how are these weapons making it from the US to Mexico. Some of it’s due to theft (vehicles/home/business) and also some of it is due to the lax gun purchasing laws … especially the transfer of a weapon from a private owner to another person. Shouldn’t something be done to curb even the 10,000+ guns being imported to Mexico? There isn’t going to be one magic solution to any problem, it’s an incremental process. There will always be loop holes, people who don’t follow the laws, people who skirt the laws … try.

                • GWB says:

                  some of it is due to the lax gun purchasing laws
                  No. It is due to lax enforcement. Our gun purchase laws are anything BUT “lax” – at least if you still believe in freedom. (If you believe in control above all else, then you can consider them inadequate.)

                  However, how many straw purchases get prosecuted? How many people who lie on their 4473 are ever prosecuted? Heck, how many gang-bangers are ever prosecuted under the full reach of firearms laws? The number is minuscule.

                  Let’s assume the 10,000+ number is accurate. (Is that an annual figure? That’s hard to believe.) How many have been narrowed down to an illegal sale? How many to theft (some chunk of which are law enforcement losing their friggin’ weapons in a bathroom or out of their trunk or left on top of their car – sheesh!)? The ones to shut down are the ones due to illegal sales, I’m betting.

                  So, tell me: What new law will do so? What imposition on law-abiding free citizens of the United States will slow/stop these weapons? Especially since it is already illegal to make straw purchases or to export firearms without gov’t approval? Heck, it’s illegal to cross the border with firearms without the proper approval from Uncle Sam. (Of course, it’s also illegal to cross the border without approval, but the same gun control people want to let folks break that law with impunity.)

                  Every pro-freedom, pro-2d-Amendment citizen I’ve met or corresponded with would love to see proper enforcement of our current laws. We advocate for it. But, somehow, the only answer from the left is to instead restrict the freedom of law-abiding citizens ever more tightly.

                  What needs to change? How about actual Rule of Law?

                • GWB says:

                  Oh yeah, tightening the border would also reduce the number of firearms flowing south. Actually enforcing your sovereignty has many benefits beyond keeping out the riff-raff.

                • GWB says:

                  One last comment cf the issue of gun control laws: just as in places like Chicago and Baltimore, the violence in Mexico is not a problem of firearms. It is a problem (in Mexico) of un-civil gov’t. The folks who rule the northern portions of Mexico are NOT duly elected representatives of the people interested in justice and securing their people’s freedoms. Oh, they have some of those – they tend to not live long.

                  And that’s why a “simple solution” of invading northern Mexico – to protect our sovereignty and defend our people – would actually accomplish so much more than your further gun control laws. It could eliminate the tyranny currently being imposed on the people there, as well as shut off the demand for those firearms that so concern you.

                  Support gun control! Invade Mexico!

    • Scott says:

      Hey dumbass… guess you climbed out of your moms basement long enough to post again.. You obviously don’t know a freaking thing about firearms, because by ANY objective standard, and AR-15 is anything but HIGH POWERED… And a seriously mentally ill individual, who’s mother tried to have him committed, and who in fact killed his mother, and stole her firearm is hardly a “typical white (racist much you fuck?) adolescent male”…On top of that, if you remove half a dozen cities that have been run into the ground by the democrats over the last half century, the crime / death rate in the US drops to less than half what it is when they are included.. Please try and educate yourself before you post again, or better yet, just freaking stay in mexico, and whatever you do, DO NOT pollute the gene pool…

      • Kevin says:

        Have you ever looked at the last 25 (50, 75, or 100) mass shootings to see what’s the primary demographic of a mass shooter in the United States? It’s not African American women or men. Not Muslim fundamentalists. Not gay men or women. Not women. Not Asian Americans. Not Native Americans. Not Hispanic/Latinos. Gee, who does that leave? Straight, Caucasian adolescent (teens to late 20’s) males. I’ll return to my home in the States in April. Maybe we’ll bump into one another while I’m passing through some airport and you’re cleaning the restrooms. Make sure to say hi.

        • GWB says:

          And “mass shootings” as portrayed in the media (schools, WalMart, etc.) also comprise a nearly negligible number of gun deaths in any given year. Once you take away suicides, the vast majority of gun violence in this country occurs in Democrat-controlled cities, among two demographics: black and hispanic males – specifically gang members.

          As to islamic fundamentalists, most of their violence is not of the firearm sort. AND, most of them get stopped by law enforcement before they manage to do anything horrendous. (And, occasionally by armed citizens who happen to be better shots than they are.)

          I bet you meet lots of people in the bathroom……
          (Hey, you went there.)

          • Kevin says:

            Oh, so that’s “where you want to go.” I referenced bathroom in the airport because that’s the most common thought I have when I mentioned the airport. As I’m traveling to India, Turkey, throughout Central America last year the first thing I thought of getting off flights is racing to the bathroom. It’s nice to know one can have an intelligent and rational conversation on this site. Unlike former Republican Senator Larry Craig, I don’t engage in sex in an airport bathroom or any other public area … because that’s where you’re going to go.

            • GWB says:

              As I said, YOU went there. Regardless of your thoughts, it’s a valid reply snark.

              • Kevin says:

                “Maybe we’ll bump into one another while I’m passing through some airport and you’re cleaning the restrooms.” That’s where I went. Because I say hello to people, bump into people, excuse my bulky luggage when passing through the entry … it’s a simple response to passing someone in close quarters. You then went to “I bet you meet lots of people in the bathroom……” and the logical step to that statement is having sex in public bathrooms. I don’t.

        • Scott says:

          Nice try sparky, the only way you can get to 100 “mass shootings” is to twist the definition horribly, and leave out all gang related shootings… also, never mind that the whites are a majority of the population, so any reasonable person would assume that based on percentages of the population that whites would be a higher number (of course this doesn’t hold true for almost any category of crime, to which idiots like you scream “racist!”, because, once more, it doesn’t fit your narrative…
          As for cleaning bathrooms, I do that every shift at the station, since unlike you, we don’t just fling our poo in every direction.

          • GWB says:

            Actually, Scott, one of the fun games the anti-gunners like to play is to count gang shootings as “school shootings” if they happen at 2am on (or near) school property. Also, drug deals gone wrong and other assorted unrelated-to-school issues.

            Also, the one newspaper that recently did one of those add-up-the-“mass”-shootings stories actually DID count gang-shootings as “mass shootings”, despite their unrelated character in the minds of the people. (The populace interprets – and the media reinforces – “mass shooting” as innocents being shot for no apparent reason in a place in which they think they should feel safe. NOT as gang members shooting other gang members at midnight in the bad part of town, or something that is otherwise a crime where multiple people get shot/killed.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner