|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 20, 2002, 04:45 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 21, 2000
Posts: 819
|
petition for troops on our borders
If you think we should use troops on our
borders please go the the following website and sign congressman Tom Tancredo's petition. http://www.house.gov/tancredo/ |
June 20, 2002, 05:30 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 23, 2000
Location: California USA
Posts: 4,533
|
Done
Next?
|
June 21, 2002, 07:36 PM | #3 |
Member
Join Date: May 1, 2002
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 26
|
Done!!
Next
|
June 21, 2002, 08:20 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2001
Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America
Posts: 5,418
|
So the talk about the militarization of the police is out the window, huh?
__________________
"Arguments of policy must give way to a constitutional command." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602 (1980). |
June 21, 2002, 09:08 PM | #5 |
Member
Join Date: May 19, 2002
Location: California
Posts: 17
|
Done.Thanks for the reminder.
|
June 21, 2002, 09:30 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 18, 2000
Location: B.F.E.
Posts: 1,721
|
Think I'll have to pass on this one.
__________________
"Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves bananas, they'll never climb another tree." - Heinlein www.libertydwells.com |
June 22, 2002, 12:22 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 12, 2000
Location: Enfield, NH
Posts: 5,521
|
At the risk of repeating myself: the combat divisions of the United States Army and Marine Corps are there to fight wars, not to play traffic cop in Absurdistan, or border guard at the Mexican border to satisfy the emotions of either liberal or conservative do-gooder desk warriors. If you think the border needs more guards, apply for a job with the U.S.Border Patrol.
__________________
"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." --A.E. Van Vogt, The Weapon Shops of Isher the munchkin wrangler. |
June 22, 2002, 12:26 PM | #8 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: March 11, 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 16,002
|
Nothing degrades a combat unit's effectiveness faster than garrison duty...
|
June 22, 2002, 12:31 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2001
Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America
Posts: 5,418
|
Tamara, tsk, tsk, the militree does not exist to fight. It exists to make vote rich states feel better about themselves without solving any problems. Come now, you should know that!
__________________
"Arguments of policy must give way to a constitutional command." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602 (1980). |
June 22, 2002, 12:51 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2001
Posts: 4,988
|
British generals Gage, Clinton and Cornwallis would have been proud of you. I hope you step proudly forward to offer to quarter troops at your house, lil44.
|
June 22, 2002, 01:13 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2001
Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America
Posts: 5,418
|
Now, now, M&M, look what a bang up job the Brits did with garrisoning Boston!
People always think they feel safer with the soldati all lined up shoulder to shoulder, but that's not what wins wars. The militree must have the proper intel to go and find the new Barbary pirates and kill them. We must protect ourselves and that includes those rugged individualists in the hairy-chested West. Of course, this task is made harder by the morons in D.C. and Sacramento. Of course, history is replete with examples of the "protectors" being used to tyrannize the "protectees" as M&M pointed out.
__________________
"Arguments of policy must give way to a constitutional command." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602 (1980). |
June 22, 2002, 01:39 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2000
Posts: 230
|
No thanks.
I would support some anti-aircraft artillery set up at Ft. Hancock, Sandy Hook. Also reactivate the New York Harbor mines to take care of pirated LPG tankers. |
June 23, 2002, 02:28 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 21, 2000
Posts: 819
|
Like it or not border "control", legal and
illegal immigration is an important issue and will become in a few short years critical, those of you less then 30 will will see a time of no cars for the average working guy, as in mass transit, homes and 2 car garage gone, much due to over population. Right now each day approx. 1900+ illegals enter the country(low est. I think) combine this with legal immigration and you can see the problem we face. All of the southwest has school funding problems, hospitals can't stay open, etc Not enough property owners to fund it all. We have more and more un-skilled workers coming in and more factories going out of country, at some point system will fail.. How can we speak of homeland security and not protect our borders, by army, border patrol take your choice but it needs to be done.! |
June 23, 2002, 03:10 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2001
Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America
Posts: 5,418
|
So, now you want the militree to enforce domestic law?
The country is not "full." The entire earf's population could move to Tejas and it would have the same density as New York City. No cars for the "average man." Why would that be? Will Algore be elected president? Skul funding problems? Easy, if you do not pay, you cannot go to skul. All the Erlichesque "problems" you claim are best addressed with more freedom, not more government. Troops on the borders is a soccermommie feel good remedy for politically powerful sunbelt states. The government maintains a miltree to control its people, not protect them. Immigrants come here to work to build better lives for themselves. They do because the native born will not. Immigrants are more productive and patriotic than the native born on the couch waiting for WIC vouchers. If you wish to reduce the incentives for immigrants to come here, all it takes is a stroke of a pen, not troops on the border or other window dressing.
__________________
"Arguments of policy must give way to a constitutional command." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602 (1980). |
June 23, 2002, 09:07 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2001
Posts: 4,988
|
Quote:
So the best way to fix it is to use the Saudi method. No citizens perks at all for noncitizens. No children of noncitizens get citizenship. No welfare no food stamps no health care no property rights no nuthin. Not even a job except for specific indenture contracts. Ain't noboddy gonna stay in Saudi territory when their job runs out! |
|
June 23, 2002, 09:28 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 1999
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 2,117
|
Done and shared the link.
__________________
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." JFK My other favorite forum is The Armed Citizen My PGP key is 0x780B7C0A |
June 23, 2002, 09:43 PM | #17 |
Staff
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,374
|
Bullet,
That looks like something I read in history class in college back in mid-1980s. It was originally penned in the 1890s...
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower. |
June 23, 2002, 10:13 PM | #18 |
Staff in Memoriam
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA
Posts: 24,798
|
More control of the Borders, yes. Using the military, no way, no how!
Don't need any more dead teenagers, among other problems. Texas, by the way, needs an extra 100 guys in the Border Patrol, as well as additional BPs; that's how many are leaving the BP, here, to become Air Marshalls. Art |
June 24, 2002, 12:20 AM | #19 |
Staff
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,374
|
"leaving to become Air Marshalls..."
US Capitol Police is down 265 people, and hemmohraging more every day. US Park Police is down, nationwide, something like 400. Ditto. Secret Service Uniformed isn't in much better shape.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower. |
June 24, 2002, 12:27 AM | #20 |
Member
Join Date: June 17, 2002
Location: Wherever Uncle Sam tells me to
Posts: 23
|
Agree
I agree with those above that say expand the Border Patrol and Immigration staffs. We shouldn't use our military for work like that, it will only complicate their training since law enforcement and border control training is a whole different ball game than military combat training ie. escalation of force guidlines etc.
Anybody remember what happened on one of the JTF-6 missions? S/F |
June 24, 2002, 10:56 AM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2001
Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America
Posts: 5,418
|
Pinky, I hear you. What I don't understand is that the same persons crying about the "militarization" of the police and the use of the military at such places as Waco where the Dreaded D was shooting citizens are continually whining for the militree to guard the border. It seems inconsistent, no?
__________________
"Arguments of policy must give way to a constitutional command." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602 (1980). |
June 24, 2002, 12:01 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 417
|
I don't think this would be as big of a problem as it is if we were to just reverse our march towards Socialism. Won't happen though.
__________________
My PGP key |
June 24, 2002, 12:36 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 12, 1999
Location: North Texas
Posts: 2,834
|
No military for the borders. In this context, the constitution is violated. More BP agents with the right tools to get the job done.
__________________
"Without a rifle you are nothing, worthless, you are waiting for death, any minute, any second." -- Aron Bielski |
June 24, 2002, 12:57 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,764
|
I’d be happy to support and even petition for, troops on the border once six things have been met (BTW the first three apply to every instance where gov’t intervention is considered as an option).
1) Gov’t is granted the authority to do such things (check) 2) There is a true and necessary need for such gov’t intervention (debatable, but possibly check) 3) The private sector cannot acceptably solve the problem (again debatable but I’ll give it to you, check) 4) Other, less intrusive solutions have failed (no way has this been done) 5) The initial measures are at the lowest level of gov’t and the lowest level of intervention possible (definitely no check) 6) Escalation of gov’t involvement (i.e. from Border Patrol to military) only happens when the lesser methods cannot handle the problem (again no check) If those six things were satisfied then I would be willing to consider the extremely dangerous (to our liberty) measure of putting troops on the border as a viable option to solving the “problem of illegal immigration”. Since it could easily be argued that only one of those six have been met (constitutional authority) then you sure will not get me to support such a move. In fact I’d do everything within my power to keep it from happening. Troops on the border is a very, very dangerous move by the gov’t. It sets all sorts of precedents that I would just as soon not have set. The actual housing of troops down there in and of itself isn’t necessarily so dangerous (note the word necessarily), but it puts us on a road that I don’t want to tell my kids 20 or 30 years from now that I helped start. Ideas and actions have consequences and I don’t like the consequences of this idea.
__________________
Doing what you've done, gets you what you've got. |
June 25, 2002, 01:00 AM | #25 |
Member
Join Date: June 17, 2002
Location: Wherever Uncle Sam tells me to
Posts: 23
|
KSFreeman
ROFLMAO
You are 100% correct in my opinion, it is inconsistant. It just goes to show you that the most vocal (in our society) have a tendancy to forget to engage brain before opening spew hole (unfortunately me included sometimes). Either that or they don't really understand the mission of the military and just how difficult it is to re-train for what Tamara aptly calls garrison duty. Don't get me wrong, the guys I served with were a great bunch of human beings, but to not put too fine a point on it, some of them were "one trick ponys" and I would not want them checking my paperwork at the Canadian or Mexican border. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|