Gun Free Zone

I could no longer be a member of Florida Carry. Not in good conscience anyway. It is my belief that the group no longer represents the gun owners of the Sunshine State but cater to a selected and very clannish subsection of armed Floridians who are not in for the rights but for the posing in Social Media and the massaging of their elevated egos.
I have no idea what happened to the young committed people I meet at the GRPC in Orlando in 2012, but the group now is dedicated only who those who Open Carry AR15s in piers for “fishing” the deluded dream that it will somehow convince legislators to pass an Open Carry bill next week. So far it has not come to fruition, in fact the opposite is true. Meet Senate Bill 634 – The Florida Carry Bill or Thank You For Making Open Carry More Illegal.

(h) A person engaged in fishing, camping, or lawful hunting
or going to or returning from a fishing, camping, or lawful
hunting expedition. A lawful activity under this paragraph may 
not be conducted within 1,500 feet of the real property
comprising any school, house of worship, government building, or
guarded beach.;

I believe that an enterprising Florida county will find a way to use this bill (if passed) as a way to also restrict hunting unless the hunter can shoot from inside the rifle or shotgun case. And yes, once taken to court, the arrest will probably be vacated, but the person will be out several thousand dollars.

But back to the original point: When you are a Gun Rights organization, the idea is not to help add more gun control bills or get the people against Gun Owners, but just the opposite. This seems to have been lost among Florida Carry overseers who seem to be more interested in “shocking the Normals” than actually advance good legislation.

When tried to make this points, I was pretty much branded as impure,
unerwünscht and a traitor for not accepting that there is only one answer: No Gun Laws at all and now. Any other consideration will be verboten. Incrementalism is a bad word for them. An 80% goal achievement is considered 100% failure and akin to treason that should not be tolerated. As much as I commune with the general principle, experience has taught me that there is a pragmatic way to see things, and that philosophy is neither strategy nor tactics. That 10% left unachieved in the present is to be the next goal, not the excuse to bring everything down and remain in the same spot we started.  The Clique in Florida Carry calls it compromising with the Enemy (treason) and want nothing to do with it. That kind of insane purity test should have been stopped long ago but it seems it is now part of the DNA of the group and that is reason one why I am leaving.

Reason 2 is based in something more damaging to Gun Rights: Cop Killing Fantasies. Now, you know and I know that the members of this clique are probably a bunch of keyboard warriors that at the first sounds of incoming fire by a SWAT team, they will probably scream in fear and join Moms Demand to prove they were never like that. But to paint all Law Enforcement as Redcoats that will be taken care of the same way as in 1776 and similar posturing is stupid bravado that will be used against all Florida Gun Owners.   It is not hard to be a member of the secret Florida Carry page, just pay the annual $25, get a membership card and ask to be let in. Now imagine if an enterprising member of the Opposition sneaks in and spends  couple of weeks collecting screen captures of Florida Carry member spouting this nonsense and anti-cop memes so they can later post all over the internet?  Do you think they will be kind enough to say “Hey, this is just a very small minority of malcontents, the majority of Gun Owners are law-abiding citizens.” Not in a million years. We are all gonna be painted as cop killer wannabes and Florida Carry will be providing the tar unless they finally decide that is not appropriate conduct for the Group.

I do believe Florida carry does not comprehend the level of disgust they have among Florida Gun Owners and that is our fault: We were so intent on presenting a united front, we ignored this type of behavior the way a parent tries to minimize and excuse the fact that the young one of the family is killing the neighborhood cats and setting small fires for fun.

We cannot longer afford to ignore this knife at our throats.

Some serious gun-related news has broken over the Thanksgiving weekend in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

First, the Virginia legislature has drafted a bill that has the potential to ban all firearms training, along with any self-defense or martial arts instruction.

Senate Bill VA SB64 states:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

§18.2-433.2. Paramilitary activity prohibited; penalty.

A person shall be is guilty of unlawful paramilitary activity, punishable as a Class 5 felony if he:

1. Teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that such training will be employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder; or

2. Assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, intending to employ such training for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder; or

3. Assembles with one or more persons with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons by drilling, parading, or marching with any firearm, any explosive or incendiary device, or any components or combination thereof.

2. That the provisions of this act may result in a net increase in periods of imprisonment or commitment. Pursuant to §30-19.1:4 of the Code of Virginia, the estimated amount of the necessary appropriation cannot be determined for periods of imprisonment in state adult correctional facilities; therefore, Chapter 854 of the Acts of Assembly of 2019 requires the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission to assign a minimum fiscal impact of $50,000. Pursuant to §30-19.1:4 of the Code of Virginia, the estimated amount of the necessary appropriation cannot be determined for periods of commitment to the custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice.

Clause No. 3 is new and was seemingly created to ban activities like the infamous Charlottesville Unite the Right rally.

It would be a felony for a bunch of white supremacists or alt-righters to march with tiki torches.

Theoretically, this could also be used to break up Antifa in Virginia, but as one of my regular readers likes to remind me:

It is not the action being taken by the person that causes offense, it is the political affiliation of the person taking action that causes offense.” 

So I have a feeling it won’t be.

What should scare the hell out of all of us is Clause No. 2:

Assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, intending to employ such training for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder

Reading this as liberally as possible, any firearms, martial arts, or defensive training could be considered a felony.

Most people would think “intending to employ such training for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder” means “going out and starting some shit.”

Thinking like a prosecutor, “intending to employ such training for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder” could mean “defending yourself against a civil disorder you got caught up in.”

Do you want to be prepared in case you are caught in the middle of a riot or Antifa blocks the traffic on the road you are on?  Do you want to be prepared in case you become the victim of mob violence?  That’s a felony.

There are a dozen different IDPA stages that I can think of off the top of my head that would be a felony to set up in Virginia if this law passes.

You might have read that on other sites.  It gets worse.

Here is part two of the equation, from the Washington Post:

In Virginia, and elsewhere, gun supporters prepare to defy new laws

Families, church groups, hunt clubs and neighbors began arriving two hours early, with hundreds spilling out of the little courthouse and down the hill to the street in the chilly night air.

They were here to demand that the Board of Supervisors declare Amelia County a “Second Amendment sanctuary” where officials will refuse to enforce any new restrictions on gun ownership.

A resistance movement is boiling up in Virginia, where Democrats rode a platform on gun control to historic victories in state elections earlier this month. The uprising is fueled by a deep cultural gulf between rural red areas that had long wielded power in Virginia and the urban and suburban communities that now dominate. Guns are the focus. Behind that, there is a sense that a way of life is being cast aside.

As I said after the Virginia election, it is the new Illinois.  The 51% of the population that lives in the two blue bubbles around the state capital and DC are going to stamp their boot in the faces of the 49% of those who live in the rest of the state.  Just the way Chicago passes the gun laws for the rest of Illinois.

In the past two weeks, county governments from the central Piedmont to the Appalachian Southwest — Charlotte, Campbell, Carroll, Appomattox, Patrick, Dinwiddie, Pittsylvania, Lee and Giles — have approved resolutions that defy Richmond to come take their guns.

It mirrors a trend that began last year in western parts of the United States, where some law enforcement officials vowed to go to jail rather than enforce firearm restrictions, and has spread eastward. In New Mexico, 25 of 33 counties declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries after the state expanded background checks. In Illinois, nearly two-thirds of its counties have done the same.

The Illinois model is antagonizing people across the country who live in states where one or two blue counties have the population to impose their will on the rest of the state.

“My oath of office is to uphold the Constitution of the United States,” Amelia Sheriff Ricky L. Walker said Wednesday night as he waited for the supervisors to meet in this rural county west of Richmond.

If a judge ordered him to seize someone’s guns under a law he viewed as unconstitutional, Walker said, he wouldn’t do it. “That’s what I hang my hat on,” he said.

Good for him.

Some of the unrest is fanned by gun rights groups, such as the National Rifle Association and the Virginia Citizens Defense League, which have used social media and old-fashioned networking to offer boilerplate language for resolutions. But the movement is speaking to the anxieties of many who are unsettled by a state that has shifted from red to blue with shocking speed.

It’s not a whole state.  It’s two or three counties with big cities.  This is EXACTLY the same issue that we saw in the 2016 elections.  There about two dozen blue cities that made up Hillary’s voters.  The rest of American went for Trump.

All of the top leaders in the new Democratic-controlled legislature hail from urban or suburban districts in Northern Virginia, Hampton Roads and Richmond. The liberal suburbs outside Washington have the largest delegation in the legislature. And the status of lawmakers from rural red parts of the state has never been lower.

So the rural red areas get the boot to the face.

“We need to send a signal to Richmond about Northern Virginia. We don’t want their influence to affect us down here. We’re very different people,” said Clay Scott, a 25-year-old construction project manager whose family has lived in Amelia for generations.

This is why we are heading for CW2.0 at breakneck speed.  Large swaths of America don’t want to be ruled by some people that live packed into concrete boxes on top of each other in a city far away who do not even remotely share the same culture or values.

The resolutions rocketing around the Virginia countryside all have similar language. Philip Van Cleave of the Virginia Citizens Defense League said he drafted one for Amelia to consider, along with about 30 other counties — out of 95 total — also taking it up. The matter was added to the Amelia agenda too late for it to be advertised so, by law, the board cannot vote on it until next month. Yet, a crowd of 300 or more turned out after hearing about it through word of mouth.

“I’ve never seen anything like this,” Van Cleave said of the outpouring of interest. “Everything has exploded right now. Gun owners are awake.”

A similar resolution that passed Monday in Appomattox County pledged to oppose any efforts to “unconstitutionally restrict” the right to bear arms. It said the county would do this “through legal action, the power of the appropriation of public funds, and the right to petition for redress of grievances, and the direction to the law enforcement and judiciary of Appomattox County to not enforce any unconstitutional law.”

The concept is modeled after the “sanctuary city” stance that some localities have taken in response to federal immigration enforcement efforts. In those cases, local law enforcement officials decline to take voluntary steps to help the federal government detain or deport undocumented immigrants.

And The Washington Post has backed those sanctuary cities to the hilt.  Some laws can be violated and some can’t, it just depends on the political alignments of those violating the laws.

“The notion that law enforcement would not follow the law is appalling,” said Lori Haas, a longtime activist with the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. “I suspect that many of these counties and their elected officials are posturing in front of certain voters.”

Tell me about all the big city police chiefs who refuse to honor ICE detainers?  When do they get sent to jail?

But to many residents in Amelia, any kind of gun restriction feels personal. They’ve heard that some proposals would prevent kids under 18 from owning guns and say people who would ban assault weapons don’t understand what they are.

They feel that way because it’s true.

“I live out here in the country; I’m a rural citizen,” Easter said. “We don’t agree with how Fairfax and Newport News and now even Chesterfield have dominated the state.”

He realizes, he said, that people in those places see guns differently — and that he doesn’t understand their circumstances any more than they understand his. But solving their problems shouldn’t mean changing his way of life, he said.

“What goes on in Fairfax can stay in Fairfax,” Easter said. “We just want to live our life the way we have been raised to live.”

That is a sentiment many people across the country can agree with, just change the name to their local population center.

Add the two parts of this together.

I don’t think the change to VA SB64 being filed when it did was a coincidence.

“Assembles with one or more persons with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons by drilling, parading, or marching with any firearm, any explosive or incendiary device, or any components or combination thereof”

This is clearly aimed at open carriers who want to demonstrate for gun rights and against Virginia gun control bills.

Every single open carrier who decides to take his AR-15 to a gun-rights rally is going to end up on the ground, in handcuffs, and then become a prohibited person.

This is the ultimate anti-gun 4-D chess, trap.

1. Propose a bunch of aggressive gun control laws.
2. Get the most chest-thumping gun-owners to commit felonies while protesting said bills and get them banned from life from owning guns.
3. Use those arrests and convictions to claim that the gun community is not “law-abiding” and made of a bunch of dangerous criminals justifying the need to pass said gun laws.

VA SB64 is a terrible bill, and if passed into law I know that some gun-rights people will end up becoming prohibited persons because of it.

This is the coming Virginia gunfight, and it’s going to be bad.

December 13 at 00:00 Zulu, don’t forget.

Not quite churchy but why not.

If you were a teenager in the mid-1990’s you might remember a TV show called Party of Five.

It was about five siblings who were orphaned when their parents were killed in a car crash, and the eldest, a 24-year-old college dropout had to man up and raise the rest of the kids.

Now, 19 years after the original show ended, it is getting a “relevant” reboot.

When the world forces them apart, they must fight to stay together.
__________@FreeformTV’s new series, #PartyOfFive, premieres Wednesday, January 8th. https://t.co/LfSE6Z0pqx

— Party of Five (@PartyofFiveTV) November 26, 2019

So instead of the parents dying, they are deported for being illegals.

I just want to check some facts we can see from the trailer.

For the eldest brother to get legal custody of his siblings, he has to be at least 18 years old, and if they stick with the format of the original show, he’s in his early 20’s.

They apparently live in a decent middle-class house, so they have some money.

The kids are not being deported, so they must be either US citizens or DREAMers.

So… mom and dad have been in the country illegally for 18-24 years and have been financially successful enough to achieve middle-class status, but never went about the process of becoming legal immigrants?

And I’m supposed to have sympathy for them?

No.  Sorry, but no.

You don’t get to skirt the law for two decades and then act like victims when you get caught.

The good news is: this looks like very Woke TV, so it will go broke fast.

If you did not follow the news on Black Friday, there was another terrorist knife attack in London, on the London Bridge.

I guess the Islamists are not taking advantage of the knife disposal bins.

If you were playing “Progressives enabling Terrorism bingo” you would have won.

From CNBC:

London Bridge attacker had previous conviction for terrorism offenses

The London Bridge attacker who killed two people on Friday has been named as 28-year-old Usman Khan who was known to authorities and had been convicted in 2012 for terrorism offenses.

The BBC reported that Usman Khan was sentenced to “indeterminate detention” in 2012 with a minimum jail term of eight years, adding that it would have allowed him to be kept in prison beyond that minimum term. The prosecution at the time said the plotters, including Khan, had discussed attacking the London Stock Exchange as well as pubs in the English city of Stoke.

In 2013, the U.K.’s Court of Appeal quashed that sentence and replaced it with a 16-year-fixed term with half of it being spent in jail.

From CNN:

This is what we know about London Bridge stabbing suspect Usman Khan

Khan, 28, was identified as the suspect in Friday’s central London attack that left two people dead and three others injured, Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu said.

He was released from jail in December 2018 on an ankle monitor after he plead guilty to terrorism charges in 2012.

In 2010, Khan and eight others were arrested in London as part of a major counterterrorism operation. Some of the men were accused of terror charges over an “al Qaeda-inspired plot” to bomb the London Stock Exchange, UK police said at the time.

Authorities said Khan’s family land already had a mosque on it and those involved in the plot were looking to infuse the group with cash to “establish and operate a terrorist military training facility,” according to a sentencing document.

Khan and another suspect in the case were accused of planning to train people at the facility with the goal of making them “more serious and effective terrorists,” the documents said.

So, a Pakistani Muslim goes to the UK to raise money to train a terrorist cell, attempts to bomb the London Stock Exchange, is convicted, his sentence is reduced, he is let out of jail early with an ankle monitor, he goes to London Bridge and stabs two people to death and wounds three more.

You would think that when the UK Police arrest a man for trying to bomb the Stock Exchange, they’d throw him in jail forever, or deport him after his sentence is over.  But that sort of conventional thinking is how now Progressives do things, so he was released early and allowed to carry out another successful terrorist attack.

Remember earlier this year when a bunch of activists blocked a gang rapist from being deported out of the UK?  They claimed that deportation was cruel.  I figured that getting stabbed to death by a convicted terrorist is crueler than deporting a convicted terrorist back to his home country, but I’m not a Progressive.

The police eventually shot Khan because he was wearing a fake suicide vest.

But before that, his stabbing spree was cut short by two civilian heroes.

What makes this notable is not just that two UK citizens rushed in to help, but how they armed themselves against a knife-wielding terrorist.

https://twitter.com/DarrenPlymouth/status/1200682547660906498

A narwhal tusk.  You read that correctly.

https://twitter.com/theamycoop/status/1200513388889223169

According to The Mirror UK, the tusk-wielding man is a Polish immigrant, which explains a lot.  The Pols, unlike the British, have not taken well to Progressivism and have stood up to Islamic terrorism.  I’m actually kind of surprised that the UK Police even allowed him to import his balls into England, considering they have taken them away from nearly all British men.

The tusk appeared to be an effective weapon.  In melee combat, range is your friend.  If your enemy has a 10-inch knife, a five-foot pike is superior.

Improvise, adapt, and overcome.

This is the second terrorist stabbing on the London Bridge.

When Israel had to deal with terrorist stabbings during the Knife Intifada, they liberalized handgun carry for Israeli citizens and the Knife Intifada ended as quickly as it began.

In Texas, the two terrorists who tried to shoot up the Draw Muhammad competition didn’t make it out of the parking lot.

As long as Londoners won’t defend themselves and lack the ability to, this will happen more and more.

Vox is a Leftist new site which is written by people so stupid that they thought Bonnie and Clyde were fictional people.

They are the Captain Peter Peachfuzz of political analysis.  If they think something is good, don’t do it, if they think something is bad, go with it 100%.

Vox published an article on Wednesday:

“A terrible idea”: Experts blast Trump’s plan to label Mexican drug cartels “terrorists”

Absolutely, let’s do it then.

President Donald Trump may be on the verge of opening a whole new front in America’s war on terror that would hit much closer to home: Mexico.

You mean that cartels butchering Americans, shooting people, cutting off heads and lighting people on fire, all funded with drug money, displacing the legitimate government of a nation and becoming the de facto ruling force in areas of the country by way of terror, making them not that much difference from Al Qaeda means that we shouldn’t consider them terrorist organizations?

In a Tuesday interview with conservative radio host Bill O’Reilly, Trump said his administration will soon give Mexican drug cartels the same distinction as al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Boko Haram: designating them as “foreign terrorist organizations.”

If the shoe fits…

That label would make it illegal for anyone in the US to knowingly provide support to the drug cartels. It would also allow the US government to sanction anyone who funds them, deport their members from America, and bar any affiliate from entering the US.

Good.

Better: people associated with the cartels get deported at 15,000 feet without a parachute.

“I will be designating the cartels,” the president told O’Reilly. “We are losing 100,000 people a year to what is happening and what is coming through from Mexico,” he continued without citing where he got that statistic, adding, “they have unlimited money, the people, the cartels, because they have a lot of money, because it is drug money and human trafficking money.”

It’s therefore that possible Trump’s move could see US drug dealers labeled and treated as terrorist supporters. What most worries critics about Trump’s comments, though, is that the designation opens up the possibility that Trump could authorize US military force against the cartels without Mexico’s permission.

We need to do it.  It’s not the first time the US has had to use the Army to shoot Mexican outlaws that have come across the border to cause havoc in the US.

“It’s a terrible idea in part because it will reduce Mexican cooperation as many in Mexico fear it’s a first step toward some kind of military intervention, which Trump keeps mentioning when he talks to Mexican presidents,” Roberta Jacobson, the US ambassador to Mexico from June 2016 to May 2018, told me.

The Mexican government cooperates with us?  When did that happen?

The Mexican government that takes money from the cartels is fighting the cartels?

This is the same Mexican government that encourages its poor to enter the US illegally so it doesn’t have to spend money on education, welfare programs, rural infrastructure, or anything other than lining the pockets of government officials and their cronies.

The Mexican government sees the US as its trashcan where it can throw away the bottom of their economic classes.

I really don’t care what those corrupt fuckers think about us.

Trump is obsessed with fighting drug cartels

Trump has long focused on Mexico, making his plan to build a border wall to keep drug smugglers and undocumented immigrants out of the US a pillar of his presidency.

“Trump wants to stop the flow of sex slaves, exploited children, and lethal narcotics which caused the deaths of 70,000 Americans last year into this country, and that makes him a bad Orange Man.”

What a fucking sentiment that is.

But his renewed focus on the cartels came after six children and three mothers — all Mormon US-Mexico dual citizens — were killed by gunmen on November 5. That same day, Trump tweeted it was “time for Mexico, with the help of the United States, to wage WAR on the drug cartels and wipe them off the face of the earth.”

“Yeah, six Americans were murdered, including children, but fuck ’em because they were Mormons.  But if that was a school shooting, we’d demand every gun in America be confiscated and every NRA member get put to death.”

The problem, though, is that Mexico’s government strongly opposes any unauthorized American military intervention.

So the fuck what?  The Afghani leaders who were on the payroll of the Taliban were also opposed to US military intervention.

“There is no political will in Mexico to invite US troops in. It is both an issue of nationalistic pride and an understanding in Mexico that what fuels drug cartels are weapons sold to them in the United States and drugs consumed by Americans,” Jana Nelson, a Mexico expert at the Wilson Center think tank in Washington, DC, told me. “From the Mexican perspective, the root cause of violence is on the other side of the border.”

I do not care about the nationalistic pride of a corrupt narco-state.

I saw the video of the cartel gunmen attacking police after the arrest of El Chapo’s son.  What US gun store sold them the M2 50 cal mounted into pickup trucks?  Or sold the fully automatic rifles?

The weapons that the Mexican cartels have that come from the US come out of Mexican military arsenals by way of corrupt Military officers.

Trump’s comments, then, have clearly increased tensions between the two neighbors by touching on a very sensitive subject in Mexico — one that could lead to a fight over whether the US may soon engage in another war.

Mexico’s lack of security cost the lives of the majority of the 70,000 US citizens that OD’ed last year.  The overdoses are not coming from US pharmacies.  The overdoses are coming from addicted Americans buying pharmaceuticals made in China and smuggled in, primarily through Mexico.

They’ve waged a war of negligence on us.

AMLO still faces pressure to do something about the drug cartel problem in his nation. Last month, Mexican authorities severely botched an operation to arrest notorious Sinaloa drug cartel leader El Chapo’s son, Ovidio Guzmán López. Video released by the government showed security personnel arresting him in Culiacán on October 17, only to let him go after cartel members were shot and wounded in an ambush as part of a peace offering.

The Mexican government surrendered.

Now it’s time for the US to deal with the Sinaloa cartel with some B52s loaded with heavy ordinance.

It was a massive embarrassment for AMLO, who came to power promising to solve the scourge of violence with “hugs, not bullets.” He’s failed on that front, according to the Mexican government’s own numbers. There were 14,603 murders from January to June, compared to the 13,985 homicides tallied during the same period last year. That means Mexico could surpass the 29,111 total murders from 2018, which was an all-time high.

Seems to me like more evidence that the US needs to start killing cartels, it would help the Mexican people too.

The situation is so bad that even 2020 Democrats have spoken openly about sending US troops to Mexico. “There is a scenario where we could have security cooperation,” South Bend, IN, Mayor Pete Buttigieg told a Latino forum in Los Angeles two weeks ago. But he added a major caveat, “I’d only order American troops into conflict if American lives were on the line and if it was necessary to meet treaty obligations.”

How about some 70,000 OD’ed Americans?  Is that not enough?  How about the thousands of Americans killed by illegal immigrants from and through Mexico?  We’ve suffered casualties.  The Democrats just refuse to acknowledge them.

This means AMLO is trying to balance not getting too much US help with relying on a skeleton crew in his own government. Still, he’s the leader, and having Trump send troops would be an admission that he’s not up to the task and is permitting violations of Mexico’s sovereignty.

“Mexico will never accept any action that violates our national sovereignty,” Marcelo Ebrard, Mexico’s foreign minister, tweeted Tuesday night.

If Trump does designate Mexican drug cartels as terrorists, then, you can expect US-Mexican relations to take a turn for the worse.

If (when) Trump wins a second term, this is what I think he should do:

Pull our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan.  We should no longer prop up those Islamist shit holes.  They have been slitting each other’s throats over tribal reasons for thousands of years, we’re not going to make a bit of difference.

Then build the wall.  Not in the US, but in Mexico.  We take the first 500 yards of Mexico on the other side of the border as a buffer-zone.  Build the wall and mine the land in front of it.  Impose a shoot-to-kill order on the land.

It has worked for more than 50 years to keep the North Koreans contained.  It should be equally effective on the cartels.