Drugs are smuggled into the United States through multiple means. Some comes through ports of entry by land or see, which gives border patrol the easiest opportunity to thwart their efforts. But much of the drugs are brought over by foot or boat, entering the United States where there is no wall or protection against foreign incursion.

Border patrol announced a bust this week of just such a type of incursion. The smugglers were carrying bags of methamphetamine across the desert, far from a part of entry and from areas where there is no border wall separating the United States from Mexico.

Agents from the Tucson Sector Mobile Response Team (MRT) aboard a National Guard helicopter responded to a report of six men walking in a desert area frequently utilized by drug smugglers. MRT agents found and arrested six Mexican nationals illegally present in the United States, after a tracking operation with a K-9 team.

One of the men was carrying four packages of methamphetamine concealed in a cardboard box inside his backpack. A search of the immediate area resulted in the discovery of a two-way radio, a communication method commonly used by smuggling organizations.

My Take

One of the main narratives being pushed by the left against building a border wall is their claim that nearly all arrests of drug smugglers are made at ports of entry. While this is true, it’s not a very good way to support their case. Drug smugglers who do not use ports of entry are simply not captured as often because… wait for it… there’s no wall in so many areas and border patrol can’t comb the entire desert looking for them.

Drugs are being smuggled into the United States, and not only through ports of entry. Those who use vehicles to try to smuggle drugs in do so because the loads may be too big to carry on foot, but whether it comes in on truck full of hundreds of pounds of drugs through ports of entry or by foot with hundreds of mules crossing the border illegally where there’s no wall, it’s getting here nonetheless.

It’s ignorant to believe our success in sniffing out drugs in vehicles means the smugglers are going to give up, especially when transit across our porous borders is so easy. Walls aren’t just to prevent illegal immigrants. They’ll help stop crime.

Don’t let the left use the “port of entry drug bust” claim to confuse the issue. Not all smugglers are dumb enough to drive their drugs through ports of entry. Most of it’s coming through places where there’s no wall. Build the wall.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

Is it fair to punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty?

Word has it that Jacinda Ardern the Prime Minister of New Zealand will immediately punish millions of innocent people with the taking of their property – at effective gunpoint no less. The plan is to grab the guns first and legislate later. Being that this is exactly what the terrorist wanted, it is the wrong thing to do from a practical and moral standpoint.

Practical because as the miscreant stated, it could have used any number of means to kill people. It is immoral because millions of innocent people will have to pay the price for its insane actions. They will not only be deprived of their property, but they will be left helpless in the face of criminals and terrorists who by definition do not comply with the law.

Why is tyranny quick to exploit a tragedy?

The Prime Minister had stated that previous attempts at depriving the people of their human rights failed to gain any traction. This time in the midst of the raw emotions of the moment the government took quick action to avoid any thoughtful deliberation on this extremely important civil rights question.

If they had contemplated this oppressive action over time, they would have realized that it won’t have the intended result. This will only embolden those who use terrorism to further their goals. This misguided action will only serve to encourage others to attain their own bit of ‘fame’ with these kinds of horrific acts.

As reported in USA Today, In her announcement of the ban and confiscation edict, the Prime Minister of New Zealand forwarded the bizarre presumption that somehow the government was the original owner of these weapons with the line: “We just want the guns back”.

Later on, in the same article, they reported on the statement she had made last Tuesday that

she would deny the man responsible for the nation’s worst terror attack in modern history the one thing he likely craved: fame.

This misguided action by the Prime Minister will have the opposite effect. What better way to gain infamy that to be the reason why millions of people will be deprived of their property and civil rights. This confiscation action will now enshrine the perpetrator of this crime in the history books. This is what happens when someone acts first and thinks later.

Immortalizing a criminal

The miscreant who perpetrated this crime will now be rewarded with exactly what it desired – being immortalized in the history books as the one who caused millions to lose their civil rights.  New Zealand already had strict limitations on Liberty and yet this did nothing to stop this crime from taking place. What will they do the next time around? Take away any remaining firearms in the country? Make no mistake, this will only cause more terrorism and division.

Socialists Bernie Sanders acted quickly to exploit on this serious crisis for political gain with a call for a ‘ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons in the United States.’ While Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez applauded this major denigration of Liberty.

The Takeaway

Leftist often parrot lines about ‘fairness’, ’equality’ and democracy, but this action shows that those are but mere window dressing. They will quickly jettison those precepts when the opportunity to exploit a serious crisis presents itself.

There should be no doubt that more of the Liberty grabber Left in the states will see this ‘progress’ as inspiration to call for gun confiscation as they have far too many times in the past. It will also ‘inspire’ would be terrorists to try to obtain this kind of result in other places. Instead of doing something about terrorism, it will encourage it while endangering the innocent.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

Where I’m at right now, there are nearly as many people in a 10-mile radius as there are in the entire nation of New Zealand. They aren’t accustomed to the carnage they witnessed last week when a neo-fascist terrorist decided to shoot up mosques and kill dozens of people. It’s not that we’re accustomed to it, either, but we’ve seen our share of mass shootings. New Zealand has not.

It’s for this reason it’s understandable that they would react very forcefully and rapidly by pushing through laws that would take it from one of the most gun-friendly nations in the world to being more aligned with the European model. Conservatives in America may not agree with it. We may dread any notion of duplicating their measures here. But we have to be understanding. This wasn’t just shocking for them. It was as close as they’ve had to a 9/11 moment. We all know the reduction of freedoms we’ve been trying to get back ever since our big terrorist event.

New Zealand has around 1.5 million firearms, or one for every three people. Depending on which estimates you use, there is somewhere between one and two firearms per person in the United States. There are more AR-15s in America than there are people in New Zealand. I mention all of this so we can understand the scale of their newfound problem thanks to the terrorist who killed scores of people in Christchurch.

It may be easy for 2nd Amendment defenders in America to scoff at their desire to eliminate all semi-automatic weapons, but we have to keep in mind the mentality there towards firearms is much different from ours. They do not view them primarily as objects of defense against tyranny from within our out, as many 2nd Amendment proponents do in America. Instead, they see them as the standard self-defense mechanisms against crime and “critter stoppers,” which is one of the reasons they have “military style” weapons, or as we prefer to call them, “scary looking regular firearms.”

I’m not going to lecture them at this time about the costs to freedom and safety that will come from such actions. They’re going to have to learn on their own. They are unified as a people right now to take away guns, so the best thing gun proponents in New Zealand can do at this point is make valid arguments against the measures without letting emotion get in the way. We’re often stuck making emotional arguments in America simply because it’s emotion that drives both sides of the debate, but the current state of New Zealand is one where there’s no way to use emotional arguments to fight to keep their firearm rights.

Both the ruling party and the opposition party are in agreement about guns, according to 1 News Now:

New Zealand’s leader of the opposition, Simon Bridges, said National welcomed the changes.

“The terrorist attack in Christchurch last week has changed us as a nation.”

This is a difficult argument for me to make because if the same attempts to take firearms were made in America, I’d be locked and loaded. But I have the luxury. Our rights are there for reasons that don’t necessarily exist in New Zealand. Or, perhaps a better way to put it is New Zealand hasn’t had the types of experiences America has had throughout its history where guns were imperative for our nation to continue to operate as it does. Without the 2nd Amendment, America would never have been what it is today. And no, we wouldn’t be better off, either.

New Zealand is going to ban certain firearms. The extent of the damage to their freedoms won’t be known until the dust settles. Once it does, the rebuilding process will begin so New Zealanders can work to get their right to self-defense back.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?