Hit this "Topic of the Day"

spy1 · Mar 16, 2009

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

Huck · Mar 16, 2009

imported post

Yes, 86%

No, 14%

2785 votes

Orygunner · Mar 17, 2009

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...

Dustin · Mar 17, 2009

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.

Spectre · Mar 17, 2009

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...

Click to expand...

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.

Orygunner · Mar 17, 2009

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...

Dustin · Mar 17, 2009

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 ?

darthmord · Mar 17, 2009

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.

Orygunner · Mar 17, 2009

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...

Dustin · Mar 17, 2009

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

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

Orygunner · Mar 17, 2009

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...

Sonora Rebel · Mar 17, 2009

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.

Dustin · Mar 17, 2009

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.

Orygunner · Mar 17, 2009

imported post

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

...Orygunner...

Dustin · Mar 17, 2009

imported post

Orygunner wrote:

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

...Orygunner...

:lol:lol It's working fine

Sonora Rebel · Mar 17, 2009

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?

Dustin · Mar 17, 2009

imported post

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

Orygunner · Mar 17, 2009

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...

Sonora Rebel · Mar 17, 2009

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.

Sonora Rebel · Mar 17, 2009

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.

Hit this "Topic of the Day"

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member