Answer me this.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I'd prefer if the police/army would do that instead.
[right][snapback]104671[/snapback][/right]

"There's never a cop around when you need one."

If a militia decides to topple the government because they disagree with various laws being put into effect, are they doing their patriotic duty or are they a bunch of loonies who need to be shot?

Look up the definition of 'rebellion' and 'revolution'. Or contemplate:

"Treason doth not prosper. What's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
--Sir John Harrington

As to the Second Amendment, I wish the founders had said somewhat less (left out the whole bit on militias) or somewhat more (explained just what they thought reasonable limits were). But one must take what they said into historical perspective. Handguns, which are much of the gun control problem, were rare at the time. Long guns (rifles, muskets and shotguns) were the norm. And, outside of towns (including on trips between towns) were almost an essential part of self preservation.

In reality, I strongly doubt that weapons in the hands of the population are much of a protection of civil liberties. If the government is in control of the military, then I offer small hope for handguns against battle tanks. Personal protection is a more valid point, although the lack of training and resolution in the average individual probably negates much of this. I suspect that, armed just with a pocketknife, I am more dangerous than most people with a gun simply because I know from experience that I will use that knife without hesitation.

But, ultimately, I am for personal freedom (and personal responsibility). The supreme law of the United States ensures (with some small ambiguity) the right of citizens to bear arms. If for no other reason I support bearing arms. If that law were to be further amended, my position would depend on how that amendment was worded. I doubt that I could ever support a ban. On the flip side of the coin, any crime committed with a handgun should result in the rapid execution of the criminal. The freedom to take a life can only be matched by the risking of one's own.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

I'd prefer if the police/army would do that instead.
[right][snapback]104671[/snapback][/right]

If the Army were assigned to defend our borders, they would do it. They haven't been. The Federal and State police are not resourced for the task, nor is the political will there to do so. The Minutemen are embarassing a lot of pols whose decision not to enforce Article Four of the US Constitution is a gross case of negligence, borderline treason.

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
--Sir John Harington"

I dare. The Congress, and the last three Presidents, have committed treason for their failure to defend our borders for reason of political, financial gain; and they have ignored both the Constitution and Congressional statute in the exercise of their negligence.

EDIT: For those unfamiliar, check section 4 of Article IV.

Article IV

Section 1.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Where is Mack Bolan when you need him?

Occhi

[Doc]

Mexican drug runners in military garb shooting at persons too close to their infiltration/defiltration routes.  Are you referring to San Diego CA, or San Diego,  TX?  San Diego, TX is out near Alice, TX, which is not all that far from where Dick Cheney went lawyer hunting with the wrong shotgun load a while back.  ;) 

BS.  Presence calls for such an armed posture, see the majority of UN peacekeeping missions.  See police on patrol.  Guns carried, not generally used.

And they have been given a strict RoE.  You note that the rule is "you screw up, we send you home." 

Your cynical opinion, which I will add to your category of "Bollocks."  However, the risk is pressent that someone will violate the RoE.  No question.  It can happen, humans are their imperfect selves.
Also to avoid unintentional confrontations with federal and state park rangers, who look out for the usual armed drug runners and other leakers in parks as part of their expanded duties.

That is a standard military RoE method with which I am most familiar: fire only if fired upon.  It is used by the UN in every peacekeeping operation with which I am familiar.

You and others in this conversation are ignoring "presence."  Jahcs' comment on "liability versus operational" intents may be close to the truth, due to the LULAC challenges and other carping by Mexicana Irredenta factions within our borders. 

There is both a political and a functional purpose to the quoted policy.  Politically, it is to preserve legitimacy.  The theme is the "neighborhood watch" method for assisting official law enforcement, which vigilante action does not do.  Vigilantism exacerbates law enforcement's problem, which the Minutemen do not wish to do.

Quite a few Minutemen patrol in private aircraft, sort of like the Civil Air Patrol.  It is not all boots on the ground surveillance of a porous border.  If they had UAV's --there are a variety of small, hand launched UAV's that would suffice for local patrol missions -- their efforts would be more effective, so long as those UAV's do not come into conflict with DEA, and Border Patrol, and Customs airborne border surveillance that the current official operational method.

Occhi
[right][snapback]104680[/snapback][/right]

Your wisdom and insight on the situation is appreciated. Thank you.

San Diego cali by the way. I thought I said Cali, but might have missed it. I am not quite as sharp as I once was on detail.

And I do know about the aircraft actually. I was listening to some guy on the radio talking about why they should approve grants to buy fuel and maintainance to keep these planes in the air. He made a lot of sense, about how it was cheaper to spend the grand money on private air craft than having to spend money for government air craft because of all the over spending and the price that Uncle Sham pays for parts and such. A citizens eye in the sky program seems like it would be cheaper to fund, if only partially.

They found a small notebook filled with Arabic near the border a few weeks ago. It was detailed information on how to make simple bombs for very little money once you enter America.

[roguebanshee]

If the Army were assigned to defend our borders, they would do it.  They haven't been.  The Federal and State police are not resourced for the task, nor is the political will there to do so.
[right][snapback]104682[/snapback][/right]

The piece you quoted was part of a different discussion about a lone maniac with a gun. I'd hope that the police has the resources to take care of that kind of people in USA, otherwise you're #$%&ed.

As for revolutionaries:

"The winner dictates history."

[Premezilla]

A citizens eye in the sky program seems like it would be cheaper to fund, if only partially.
[right][snapback]104685[/snapback][/right]

Of course, then you'd venture into the "personal privacy" issue with people concerned that those operating the planes/UAV things are invading the privacy rights of others.

[Premezilla]

"The winner dictates history."
[right][snapback]104740[/snapback][/right]

I believe that that's the reason why China had a problem with some of the textbooks being used in Japan. Apparently the Japanese government had "glossed over" some of the Japanese atrocities of war.

Just like in the States.

[Occhidiangela]

The piece you quoted was part of a different discussion about a lone maniac with a gun. I'd hope that the police has the resources to take care of that kind of people in USA, otherwise you're #$%&ed.

As for revolutionaries:

"The winner dictates history."
[right][snapback]104740[/snapback][/right]

Armed, para military drug runners have been a problem for our police and border patrol folks, and some park rangers, for some years. If you are fool enough to believe in a lone maniac being the explanation for various occurrences with armed bandits and thugs along our borders, I can't help you.

Occhi

[roguebanshee]

Armed, para military drug runners have been a problem for our police and border patrol folks, and some park rangers, for some years.  If you are fool enough to believe in a lone maniac being the explanation for various occurrences with armed bandits and thugs along our borders, I can't help you. 

Occhi
[right][snapback]104770[/snapback][/right]

I'm sure they have big problems with drug runners in Kentucky.

The United States of America consists of a bit more than the border states.

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
"Treason doth not prosper. What's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
--Sir John Harrington

--Pete
[right][snapback]104681[/snapback][/right]

That was interesting. Oblivious to your post, I ended up using the same quote in a somewhat different context and wandering down another path with it.

I just read your post this morning. (Friday)

EDIT: Ah, it looks like the old "Post in Parallel thing." Our posts were about six minutes apart.

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

That was interesting.  Oblivious to your post, I ended up using the same quote in a somewhat different context and wandering down another path with it. 
[right][snapback]104852[/snapback][/right]

It was interesting that we both used the same quote to illustrate somewhat differing ideas. And that we did it, sorta, simultaneously. I had never considered your interpretation till I read your post, but I can see what you mean. I'm reminded of The Mouse that Roared in which 'the pen is mightier than the sword' is countered with (as best as I remember) 'but at any given time, the sword is louder'. ;)

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
It was interesting that we both used the same quote to illustrate somewhat differing ideas.  And that we did it, sorta, simultaneously.  I had never considered your interpretation till I read your post, but I can see what you mean.  I'm reminded of The Mouse that Roared in which 'the pen is mightier than the sword' is countered with (as best as I remember) 'but at any given time, the sword is louder'. ;)

--Pete
[right][snapback]104856[/snapback][/right]

Great book, I just realized it is not on my daughters reading list.

*goes off to remedy that oversight*

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

Great book, I just realized it is not on my daughters reading list.

*goes off to remedy that oversight*
[right][snapback]104876[/snapback][/right]

The movie with Peter Sellers is also worth renting :)

--Pete

[Premezilla]

The movie with Peter Sellers is also worth renting :)

[right][snapback]104881[/snapback][/right]

As long as you're renting Peter Sellers, you should snag some Pink Panther videos. I just saw them one by one and had to stitch my sides together after 6 hours of intense laughing.

Peter Sellers=Master of Physical Comedy. And comedy in general. And, generally, a funny guy.

[Occhidiangela]

As long as you're renting Peter Sellers, you should snag some Pink Panther videos.  I just saw them one by one and had to stitch my sides together after 6 hours of intense laughing.

Peter Sellers=Master of Physical Comedy. And comedy in general. And, generally, a funny guy.
[right][snapback]104946[/snapback][/right]

ALso a seer. Rent the movie "Being There" and then look at today's political situation. Spooky.

Occhi

[Premezilla]

All this time, I thought the only movies Peter Sellers ever did were the Pink Panther movies and that fairly recent (late 20th century) movie involving a tribe of some sort.