Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 52

Thread: Hit this "Topic of the Day"

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    242

    Post imported post

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/index.html

    Mid-way down the page on the left:

    "Should U.S. troops be sent to the U.S.-Mexico border to prevent violence from spreading?" Pete

  2. #2
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647

    Post imported post

    Yes, 86%

    No, 14%

    2785 votes
    "You can teach 'em, but you cant learn 'em."

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Springfield, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    737

    Post imported post

    I'm not sure if I understand the context of that question.

    Should they be sent to the US-Mexico border to keep the illegal drugs and illegal aliens out of our country? Hell yes!

    Should they be stationed near the US-Mexico border for domestic law enforcement and to prevent "civil unrest"? Hell NO! That's a blatant violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

    So what does the poll mean, "to keep violence from spreading."? That's pretty damn vague.

    ...Orygunner...

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    Orygunner wrote:
    I'm not sure if I understand the context of that question.

    Should they be sent to the US-Mexico border to keep the illegal drugs and illegal aliens out of our country? Hell yes!

    Should they be stationed near the US-Mexico border for domestic law enforcement and to prevent "civil unrest"? Hell NO! That's a blatant violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

    So what does the poll mean, "to keep violence from spreading."? That's pretty damn vague.

    ...Orygunner...
    I'm with you.

    BUT...

    If the Troops are there, you can bet that border patrol will ALSO be a main priority.

    Which is why I voted YES.







  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    324

    Post imported post

    Dustin wrote:
    Orygunner wrote:
    I'm not sure if I understand the context of that question.

    Should they be sent to the US-Mexico border to keep the illegal drugs and illegal aliens out of our country? Hell yes!

    Should they be stationed near the US-Mexico border for domestic law enforcement and to prevent "civil unrest"? Hell NO!* That's a blatant violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

    So what does the poll mean, "to keep violence from spreading."? That's pretty damn vague.

    ...Orygunner...
    I'm with you.

    BUT...

    If the Troops are there, you can bet that border patrol will ALSO be a main priority.

    Which is why I voted YES.

    *

    *

    *
    I asked myself the same questions..But came to the same conclusion as Dustin so I vote yes.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Springfield, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    737

    Post imported post

    So if I understand you both correctly (Dustin and Spectre), you would be OK with the military doing domestic law enforcement, as long as they protected the border as well?

    I sure hope not...

    "Those who would give up Essential liberty to purchase a little Temporary safety, defserve neither Liberty not Safety." - Benjamin Franklin.

    ...Orygunner...

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    Orygunner wrote:
    So if I understand you both correctly (Dustin and Spectre), you would be OK with the military doing domestic law enforcement, as long as they protected the border as well?

    I sure hope not...

    "Those who would give up Essential liberty to purchase a little Temporary safety, defserve neither Liberty not Safety." - Benjamin Franklin.

    ...Orygunner...
    I'm very familar with that quote and I beleive it's used improperly here.

    Border Control is necessary. I don't exactly consider "On the Border", the same as In the middle of downtown Houston, Texas.

    Our country is currently being INVADED by illegal immigrants from the south. The rate at which they are invading is quite fierce. It needs to stop immeditately. If putting troops there stops it, than my vote is indeed YES.

    What's your suggestion ?



  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,000

    Post imported post

    Orygunner wrote:
    So if I understand you both correctly (Dustin and Spectre), you would be OK with the military doing domestic law enforcement, as long as they protected the border as well?

    I sure hope not...

    "Those who would give up Essential liberty to purchase a little Temporary safety, defserve neither Liberty not Safety." - Benjamin Franklin.

    ...Orygunner...
    I have no problem with domestic law enforcement if the scope of such enforcement is limited to border protection. Our military should be used to secure our borders, perhaps under the jurisdiction of the Border Patrol.

    The one of the military's purposes is to defend the nation. Border Patrolling is an act in support of that purpose.

    Now if people are sayingthe military should be patrolling streets, quelling civil unrest, writing tickets/citations, busting down doors to citizen homes, etc... Um, no. Anyone invading my home is an enemy. I don't play nicely with enemies.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Springfield, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    737

    Post imported post

    Oh, absolutely. I believe the Military should be used to protect our border.

    My concern is the increasing threat of the military enforcing civil law, in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

    Wasn't it in California where the Marines were involved in State Police DUII roadblocks? Oh, they were just "observing."

    MY concern is like what happened in Alabama, where Military Police were involved in law enforcement activity after that guy went on a shooting spree. Oh, they were just "supporting" the local law enforcement.

    The United States Military has absolutely, 100% NO BUSINESS enforcing civil law. It's a slippery slope from "observing" to "supporting" to "assisting" to "enforcing." This is creeping dangerously towards the "standing army" our forefathers recognized as one of the greatest threats to our liberty.

    So deploy the military to our border. I'm 100% behind that! For the strict purpose of defending our border and stopping the inflow of illegal aliens. Not setting up roadblocks within our country for harrassing people, with warrantless searches and seizing people and property illegally (such as the border patrol already does now 20-30 miles within our borders).

    I would rather have 10 illegal aliens sneak into the country than have one citizen's rights infringed upon. There has to be a way to stop BOTH.

    ...Orygunner...

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    Orygunner wrote:
    Oh, absolutely. I believe the Military should be used to protect our border.

    My concern is the increasing threat of the military enforcing civil law, in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

    Wasn't it in California where the Marines were involved in State Police DUII roadblocks? Oh, they were just "observing."

    MY concern is like what happened in Alabama, where Military Police were involved in law enforcement activity after that guy went on a shooting spree. Oh, they were just "supporting" the local law enforcement.

    The United States Military has absolutely, 100% NO BUSINESS enforcing civil law. It's a slippery slope from "observing" to "supporting" to "assisting" to "enforcing." This is creeping dangerously towards the "standing army" our forefathers recognized as one of the greatest threats to our liberty.

    So deploy the military to our border. I'm 100% behind that! For the strict purpose of defending our border and stopping the inflow of illegal aliens. Not setting up roadblocks within our country for harrassing people, with warrantless searches and seizing people and property illegally (such as the border patrol already does now 20-30 miles within our borders).

    I would rather have 10 illegal aliens sneak into the country than have one citizen's rights infringed upon. There has to be a way to stop BOTH.

    ...Orygunner...
    Your right on the money. I'm still with you :P

    It is indeeda slippery, NASTY little slope. Sometimes though, you got to give a little.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Springfield, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    737

    Post imported post

    See, that's the attitude that disturbs me. We've already given a little, and a little more, and a little more. We've compromised all sorts of individual liberties away, and just because we're still the freest country in the world, the average person thinks it's OK to just give a little more.

    That's why I think the Franklin quote it quite appropriate. It's fine to protect our border, as long as they know their place and don't take other actions "for our safety." Remember, safety is a tyrant's tool, because who can be against safety?

    I agree with darthmord, as long as the scope is limited to border protection, and as long as such protection is limited to the border.If they slip past the imaginary line, they're local law enforcement's (or immigration's) problem now.

    ...Orygunner...





  12. #12
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Most of the sheep dunno what all that 'military on the border' entails. First off... I can see Mexico from my veranda... so it's not academic.

    The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 forbids US Military from assuming 'police powers'.

    National Guard or 'regulars' deployed to the border (or anywhere else) within the US under Federal orders (Title 10 USC) have NO police powers... They can't even defend themselves. National Guard deployed by the States (Title 18 USC) by respective Governors have full police powers and 'can' defend the border by force of arms. 'National Guard'... it's what they were created for. The first priority of the border State Goverments is to defend the State and it's citizens and property. Not play Mother-May-I footsie with the Feds. 10th Amendment 'n all that!

    This little detail eludes the TV talkin' heads 'n most politicians. So... Federally ordered NG's are little more than window dressing to placate the sheep. Theyhave NO effectiveness. Not being acclimated to the border terrainis another problem. The desert is what it is.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    Orygunner wrote:
    See, that's the attitude that disturbs me. We've already given a little, and a little more, and a little more. We've compromised all sorts of individual liberties away, and just because we're still the freest country in the world, the average person thinks it's OK to just give a little more.

    That's why I think the Franklin quote it quite appropriate. It's fine to protect our border, as long as they know their place and don't take other actions "for our safety." Remember, safety is a tyrant's tool, because who can be against safety?

    I agree with darthmord, as long as the scope is limited to border protection, and as long as such protection is limited to the border.If they slip past the imaginary line, they're local law enforcement's (or immigration's) problem now.

    ...Orygunner...




    Geez, C'mon man. Your taking every comment to the extreme.

    I voted yes, on the premise that why they are there, they will indeed enforce BORDER PATROL the same.

    I know what you mean Ory, I guess I'm assuming you know how I feel on these issue's as well.

    I completely understand the entire "give a little, take alot" that governments have been doing for 1,000 years ! I promise, I do. Nonetheless, it is true. These days it's not always relivant to wage war at every corner, we need to be more tactical, and plan our strategies the same.



    BTW, I'd much prefer MinuteMen be on the Forntlines of that Border than the US MIlitary.




  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Springfield, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    737

    Post imported post

    Heheh, sorry Dustin. I'm trying out my new "no compromise" hat today.

    ...Orygunner...

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    Orygunner wrote:
    Heheh, sorry Dustin. I'm trying out my new "no compromise" hat today.

    ...Orygunner...
    lol It's working fine

  16. #16
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Minutemen have no powers whatever... altho they are not prevented from use of deadly force in self defense. They report intrusions... but cannot usually intercept or prevent them (at risk of being sued by pro-illegal factions. Yeah... they exist to protect the invaders. The whole situation is back-asswards.

    As a Minuteman, you put yourself and property at risk. These scummyillegals can (and will) claim you did this or that 'n there's no way to prove otherwise. Your vehicle is at risk if you wander afar. (damage... tires slashed... 'name it...) The 'media' LOVES to focus on anything you're armed with. The pro-illegals will harrass you and test your patience into some sort of reaction if they can. As can be expected... most are rabidly anti-gun. The official position of the Border Patrol is anti-Minutemen. 'Get the picture?

    So when you people who don't live here bring up all this stuff... you don't have a clue what you're talkin' about relative to the actual dynamic of the situation.



    Orygunner... Have you ever actually encountered a Border Patrol checkpoint? Wanna explain to me what's 'illegal' about it?I mean... you KNOW what they're doin' 'n how they do it ... Right?


  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    wow, I'm done trying to explain myself here .... :quirky

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Springfield, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    737

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel, No, I haven't been through a border patrol checkpoint, except for the Alaska Marine Highway terminal in Seattle, and that was over 20 years ago.

    I'm not arguing against the checkpoints AT the borders. It would be ludicrous to stateit's illegal to stop and question anyone comingacross the border. I'm referring specificallyto the unconstitutional border patrol checkpoints several miles INSIDE our country that harrass and detain people in violation of their rights. Such as this one:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6uw7506xMw

    If anyone watches the video and think the guyin the truck isa jerk, realize that this is a BORDER PATROL checkpoint 40 miles INSIDE the US.People within this country have a right to privacy, and against unreasonable search and seizure, as enumerated and supposedly protected by the Bill of Rights. If anyone thinks THAT kind of checkpoint is reasonable, please consider moving to some other "nanny state" country.

    How can we do a better job of protecting our border? If we did, there really wouldn't be any remotely legitimate reason for border patrol checkpoints other than where they belong, on the border.

    Your thoughts?

    ...Orygunner...

  19. #19
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Illegal incursions do not generally originate at the 'marked'border crossings. besides... if you know where the checkpoints are... it's rather easy to avoid them. Understand the concept of defense in depth beyond point defense? Point defense is US Customsand Coast Guard.

    Phoenix, AZ has become the 2nd highest kidnap capitol of the world... and WHERE is Phoenix in relation to... the border? 'You ever get down here to this particular border? Not where the pavedroads go...

    Yeah... the guy in the truck is a jerk and a deliberate provacateur who needs his punk You Tube ass kicked. What you don't see is him... how he is dressed... what he looks like. If he looks like some punk Mex gang-banger... then yeah... they're gonna ask him nationality. Nobody's ever asked my nationality... but that's not an unreasonable question. Not down here at any rate. If you think this punk is 'correct' in what he's doing... You're WRONG! He's just bein' a snot-nosed pain in the ass.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    I live about 10 minutes north of that particular check point on 86. He's heading west toward Three Corners, where there's much illegal smuggling thru the Organ Pipe National Monument (which they've trashed).10-1 he's a pinko University of Arizona 'student' from someplace other than Arizona.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Springfield, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    737

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Illegal incursions do not generally originate at the 'marked'border crossings. besides... if you know where the checkpoints are... it's rather easy to avoid them. Understand the concept of defense in depth beyond point defense? Point defense is US Customsand Coast Guard.

    Phoenix, AZ has become the 2nd highest kidnap capitol of the world... and WHERE is Phoenix in relation to... the border? 'You ever get down here to this particular border? Not where the pavedroads go...

    Yeah... the guy in the truck is a jerk and a deliberate provacateur who needs his punk You Tube ass kicked. What you don't see is him... how he is dressed... what he looks like. If he looks like some punk Mex gang-banger... then yeah... they're gonna ask him nationality. Nobody's ever asked my nationality... but that's not an unreasonable question. Not down here at any rate. If you think this punk is 'correct' in what he's doing... You're WRONG! He's just bein' a snot-nosed pain in the ass.
    Yeah, I can understand point defense. However, the points INSIDE the US wouldn't be necessary if they could come up with a better border LINE defense.

    Nope never been quite that far south. I've love to visit that corner of the country someday, just haven't gotten there yet.

    So, someone standing up for their rights is a jerk, a deliberate procacateur, a snot-nosed pain in the ass, and needs to have their ass kicked? Wow! Well what are you doing being a longtime prominent memberon a board dedicated to "a right unexercised is a right lost"? Or do you think the 2nd Amendment is the only one worth defending and the rest can go to hell?

    If he's wrong, watch the rest of his videos, and tell mewhy is it they let him go EVERY SINGLE TIME? Because they're bullies, that's why, intimidating weak and ignorant people into giving up their rights. If someone comes along with the balls to call their bluff, there's not a damn thing they can do but cave in and let him go.

    What does it matter if he's a student, young, old, liberal or conservative? The point is he's right, and just in what he's doing. Do you feel sorry for the officers he's dealing with? Poor little JBTs, boo hoo, they don't get to violate his rights. I don't care if they catch a drug smuggler in 1 car out of 10, our essential liberties are more important than their glorified "fishing expedition."

    My freedom is more important to me than any "safety" the government can claim to provide for us by infringing on those freedoms. You would seem to want to trade yours freely?

    ...Orygunner...

  22. #22
    Guest
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    958

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    I live about 10 minutes north of that particular check point on 86. He's heading west toward Three Corners, where there's much illegal smuggling thru the Organ Pipe National Monument (which they've trashed).10-1 he's a pinko University of Arizona 'student' from someplace other than Arizona.
    Then when the UOA student gets his a$$ spanked after provoking authorities, he cried foul and whines on the Internet.



  23. #23
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Be glad you're in Oregon. Otherwise you'd maybe appreciate the Border Patrol... 'n NO... they're hardly JBT's. JBT's would'a dragged Mr go-lookin' for a confrontation Camera jerk thru the window 'n tazed his ass for drill. Had I been in the vehicle behind him I would applaud. Some people need an ass kickin' now 'n then. If I ever run across him in some remote rest area... I'll give him somethin' to record.

    "I don't care if they catch a drug smuggler in 1 car out of 10, our essential liberties are more important than their glorified "fishing expedition."

    You're either totally ignorant... or an idiot. You have no freakin' idea what goes across this border... from drugs to human trafficking and even terrorists. Your 'essential liberties' are not always carte blanche free ride. Actually... you don't even have a dog in this fight. I appreciate that Border Patrol has got my back down there.

    I appreciate the helo's 'n light planes I see makin' the rounds as well. They're the closest thing we've got to the Cavalry.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    GWbiker wrote:
    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    I live about 10 minutes north of that particular check point on 86. He's heading west toward Three Corners, where there's much illegal smuggling thru the Organ Pipe National Monument (which they've trashed).10-1 he's a pinko University of Arizona 'student' from someplace other than Arizona.
    Then when the UOA student gets his a$$ spanked after provoking authorities, he cried foul and whines on the Internet.

    He thinks he's a YouTube star... 'you know who I am?...' One of the BP guys mentioned Ohio plates... so he's a damn yankee to boot. I'd take him for 'disorderly conduct, failure to obey' 'n tow his car to the Nogales impound lot... or Ajo...

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Yorktown VA
    Posts
    110

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Be glad you're in Oregon. Otherwise you'd maybe appreciate the Border Patrol... 'n NO... they're hardly JBT's. JBT's would'a dragged Mr go-lookin' for a confrontation Camera jerk thru the window 'n tazed his ass for drill. Had I been in the vehicle behind him I would applaud. Some people need an ass kickin' now 'n then. If I ever run across him in some remote rest area... I'll give him somethin' to record.

    "I don't care if they catch a drug smuggler in 1 car out of 10, our essential liberties are more important than their glorified "fishing expedition."

    You're either totally ignorant... or an idiot. You have no freakin' idea what goes across this border... from drugs to human trafficking and even terrorists. Your 'essential liberties' are not always carte blanche free ride. Actually... you don't even have a dog in this fight. I appreciate that Border Patrol has got my back down there.

    I appreciate the helo's 'n light planes I see makin' the rounds as well. They're the closest thing we've got to the Cavalry.
    I’m always amazed at how quickly people are willing to give up their liberty for some sense of security, or in this case the liberty of others.

    I find it offensive in more ways than I care to count that an American citizen (I’m assuming you are one) would endorse or recommend an arm of US law enforcement forcefully remove an American citizen, illegally stopped, from their vehicle and then abusing them with slightly less than lethal force. I’m very concerned about people like you who threaten people they don’t know, view our liberty so lightly but otherwise encourage the exercise of the RKBA.

    No arm of the government has a right to restrict the movement of US citizens and/or question them simply because it may lead to the intervention of some possible crime, be the odds 1 in 10 or 1 in 10,000.

    I do have a dog in this fight just as Orygunner and every other citizen does. As for me, I’m an active duty military officer with more than 27 years of service in defense ofthis great Nation. I take my oath seriously and it begins, “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend The Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” And The Constitution of the United States of America includes The Bill of Rights. In case you haven’t read it in a while please see Amendment IV below.

    Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    I recommend you reconsider your threatening statement that the guy in the video van “need[s] an ass kickin'” and that you’ll “give him somethin' to record.” He may well be as serious about the second amendment as he is the fourth.



Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •