El Diario de Juárez, having lost another journalist to a retaliatory slaying by the drug cartels, released an issue with a direct question to the cartels (Translation):

To the leaders of the different organizations that are fighting for control of Ciudad Juarez: The loss of two reporters from this publishing house in less than two years represents an irreparable breakdown for all of us who work here, and, in particular, for their families.

We’re aware that we are communicators, not fortune-tellers. Therefore, as workers in information we want you to explain to us what it is that you want from us, what it is that you expect us to publish or not to publish, so that we know what to expect.

All of you are, at this moment, the defacto authorities in this city, because the legally instituted authorities have not been able to do anything to stop our colleagues from continuing to die, although we have repeatedly called for them to act.

That is why, faced with these indisputable facts, we’re writing to you to ask, because the last thing we want is for another one of our colleagues to again be the victim of your shootings.

Do we now call Mexico a failed state? Although they do not admit to surrender, the editors and management realize that ultimately it is these grim-faced men, who will send other men to shoot and kill anyone that gets in their way, that are in a position to make the rules - not the Mexican government, not the Mexican police.

Some US citizens also feel less-than-protected by the police. Over at The Truth About Guns, Robert Farago criticized as irresponsible an armed homeowner that used his firearms to stop would-be burglars from robbing his neighbor's house. Farago takes the position that owning private firearms is strictly for the defense of the lives of yourself and your family, not for inserting yourself into situations for which you are not trained, meaning Vigilantism.

The homeowner and his friends responded in the comment section, feeling that defense of property is warranted and that defense of your neighbors and their property is well, just being neighborly. One called Farago a "cop-worshipping statist" and most rejected arguments in favor of letting the police handle crime prevention. The police did arrive fairly promptly, but that may have been because they were aware that firearms were in play.

I have a hard time being a complete statist here. I've watched enough John Wayne, and John Adams, to be sympathetic to the idea that neighbors supporting each other is a good thing. I also think organized groups are inherently stronger than individuals. On the other hand , no one made it clear as to who would support the man's family should he be killed while being neighborly, or should he shoot the wrong person and go to prison. If we are to the point where your armed neighbors are the best line of defense, haven't we also taken a step backwards from the rule of law, like Mexico?

Wisconsin Carry made the news last week when several of their members were arrested for carrying weapons openly, and legally, after dining peacefully in a restaurant. Another patron called police, who arrived in force and demanded identification from all the men. Two of the armed men refused, claiming that they were not required to produce ID simply because they were carrying a weapon. They were arrested for their refusal, but those charges were reviewed and dropped. But the "Wisconsin Five" as a group have now been charged with disorderly conduct, though it seems clear that they did nothing provocative. I think the police have handed Wisconsin Carry a strong case, and they are now raising funds for a lawsuit.

I would certainly have no problem if all Open Carry guys did was eat dinner, but there are a whole range of issues to consider, from bringing your sidearm into Denny's, which has a policy against, to bringing it into a classroom, or into the office, or into the bank.