imperialism2024
Regular Member
imported post
deepdiver wrote:
I understand what you're saying in regards to the symbolic aspect of it. And I can see how the government should treat this differently. Yet I object to the notion that more government, more law-enforcement, and more laws are the solution.
Perhaps it stems from the fact that I see immigration like I see guns. Both are tools that are predominantly used for good. When they are abused, through the commission of criminal acts like this, or through shooting and assaulting people, respectively, it is the acts of the individuals involved that are illegal, not the tools.
deepdiver wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I never said that this story never deserved to be posted on this forum, and I never said that it wasn't significant, and I believe neither. However, in how it relates to the gun-owning community, it is on equal footing with domestic gang members' doing the same thing. Both are equal threats, that is.imperialism2024 wrote:If any people, suspected of being members of another nation's military, are here in this nation illegally and shooting up other people I think it is of great interest to members of this forum. That is a far different situation from any domestic-born gang member committing a violent act in this nation. Domestic-born gang members doing so is a violent criminal act whereas active members of a foreign military performing violent acts in this nation, regardless of who is targeted, can be considered an act of war. A real act of war as in congress actually declares war and we actually throw the entire might of our military, without pussy footing around, behind eliminating that nation's ability to attack us on our own soil. It would further be (another) significant act of violation of our national sovereignty. The fact that they were disguised as members of our domestic police force is even more troubling.I'm betting that if these were domestic-born gang members of non-Hispanic descent, this story would never have been posted on this site.
My concerns are not greatly assuaged by an official statement that the men were not active members of a foreign military. There have been numerous incidents of the Mexican military violating our sovereignty by crossing our border and even engaging in armed action against our border patrol and national guard which have been glossed over or initially denied by our government. Our government has and continues to blatantly ignore and even obfuscate such facts. Given the constitutional charge that the federal gov't provide for the common defense, the continued failure of our gov't to secure our borders against gang bangers, foreign military incursions and other unauthorized crossings is in many people's opinion a gross abrogation of constitutional duties and a breech of the many covenants of statehood.
Given that perspective, I think this story is more germane to the matters of this forum than are many other items posted herein.
I understand what you're saying in regards to the symbolic aspect of it. And I can see how the government should treat this differently. Yet I object to the notion that more government, more law-enforcement, and more laws are the solution.
Perhaps it stems from the fact that I see immigration like I see guns. Both are tools that are predominantly used for good. When they are abused, through the commission of criminal acts like this, or through shooting and assaulting people, respectively, it is the acts of the individuals involved that are illegal, not the tools.