Answer me this.

[kandrathe]

...    On another note, I think that people need to be smart about the whole "right for guns" issue.  I mean, look what happened at Columbine.  Kid brings gun to school and kills other kids.  I'm betting that those kids hadn't gone through gun education.  Now, I know gun education would probably mean nothing (I know that Driver's Education does not guarantee an improvement in driving skills) and in some cases, forcing people to sit through lectures they have no desire of hearing can only aggravate the situation.
...
[right][snapback]104465[/snapback][/right]

Where to start?

The "right to bear arms" is the way our founding fathers thought about enabling citizens to secure and defend their freedoms. Anti-gun activists would want to confuse the issue by extremes of anecdotal evidence, or trying to link gun rights to hunting. Guns are tools of death, and hand guns are mostly intended to be tools of human death. That right to secure ones own liberty, or the responsibility of every citizen to defend the Constitution makes some people very uncomfortable.

Patrick Henry proclaimed, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

The Alexis de Toqueville quote on Doc's sig that was commented on earlier expresses a similiar sentiment in essence that trading the mammon of comfort for the virtue of freedom is unacceptable. Better to be naked, hungry, and free than a sated slave.

As for your comment, "A couple billion people working towards a cause can accomplish a lot more than a bullet can." Well sure. A couple billion people working together would be a phenomenon I would like to see in my life as long as they were doing something constructive rather than destructive. Violence is a last resort of a failed political struggle, and is sometimes the only option other than complete surrender. Usually not, and definately not as often as some more hawkish politicians would argue.

[DeeBye]

And frame that arrogant bastard Colonel Mustard I take it.
[right][snapback]104622[/snapback][/right]

He had it coming. I bet he's not even a real Colonel. :angry:

[Doc]

Where to start? 

The "right to bear arms" is the way our founding fathers thought about enabling citizens to secure and defend their freedoms.  Anti-gun activists would want to confuse the issue by extremes of anecdotal evidence, or trying to link gun rights to hunting.  Guns are tools of death, and hand guns are mostly intended to be tools of human death.  That right to secure ones own liberty, or the responsibilityof every citizen to defend the Constitution makes some people very uncomfortable. 

Patrick Henry proclaimed, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

The Alexis de Toqueville quote on Doc's sig that was commented on earlier expresses a similiar sentiment in essence that trading the mammon of comfort for the virtue of freedom is unacceptable.  Better to be naked, hungry, and free than a sated slave.
[right][snapback]104623[/snapback][/right]

Yeah! Hooray for naked hungry gun owners!

And nice choice of words there. The responsibility of every citizen to defend the constitution makes some people very uncomfortable. So very true. I commend you on your choice of words.

It is every man, woman, and child's right and responsibility to be trained in the use of firearms. In the event of anarchy, government breakdown and failure, invasion, or whatever other reason may arise. Flesh eating zombies. Civil war. Transexual nazi body snatchers.

There was a time when the Japanese considered invasion, but decided against it because they knew there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. And people that knew all to well how to deal death. Now, this is not at true as it once was. It presents weakness.

Because of our government's lax control, our citizens have taken matters in to their own hands, and formed millitias to protect our borders from the rampaging and dangerous drunken Molsen drinking Canadians. Er, frightfully sorry, our Southern borders, which are entirely to open. Not just from farm workers looking to make a buck, but rampant drug trade, human mules full of coke and smack, and even more dangerous types like potential terrorists. These men use their constitutionally given right to form a millitia and protect our home. And God bless them. If I lived closer to the borders, I might even consider joining them on some of their patrols. The incoming farm workers aint a big deal to me, but the drug dealing scum I wouldn't mind using for target practice. Especially since most are just let go and shipped back home to Mexico. I am not a fan of catch and release on this particular issue. :angry:

A few cents worth of lead does a hell of a lot more than a few million dollars worth of fences.

[DeeBye]

The "right to bear arms" is the way our founding fathers thought about enabling citizens to secure and defend their freedoms.
[right][snapback]104623[/snapback][/right]

I'm fairly ignorant about the US constitution. I've read it a few times, and it always makes my mind boggle. I cannot for the life of me figure out the second amendment.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I guess that I just don't understand the logistics of this. How does one coordinate a "well regulated militia"? Is there any "well regulated militia" sporting firearms that hasn't been broken up by US authorities?

[SwissMercenary]

Is there any "well regulated militia" sporting firearms that hasn't been broken up by US authorities?
[right][snapback]104626[/snapback][/right]

Now you've opened the federalism vs state rights worm can, Deebye. It's not something that poor saps like us are meant to understand. It's all got to do with how each state wants to make all of its own decisions on how to run itself, resulting in how X is illegal in state B, but not illegal in state C, and so on. Really confusing. It's really best to let it go past you.

[roguebanshee]

And nice choice of words there. The responsibility of every citizen to defend the constitution makes some people very uncomfortable. So very true. I commend you on your choice of words.[right][snapback]104625[/snapback][/right]

Probably because even though some people are ok in your mind there are others who aren't. And who is to say that you don't snap tomorrow? That you suddenly felt the only way you could defend the constitution was to eliminate everyone owning a dog?

That's what makes people nervous about widespread gun ownership.

[Doc]

Now you've opened the federalism vs state rights worm can, Deebye. It's not something that poor saps like us are meant to understand. It's all got to do with how each state wants to make all of its own decisions on how to run itself, resulting in how X is illegal in state B, but not illegal in state C, and so on. Really confusing. It's really best to let it go past you.
[right][snapback]104632[/snapback][/right]

States want self rule so long as it suits them. It's all about leave federal government out of this, we can do this our selves... Blah blah blah.

And then some big expensive mire of some sort comes along and it's "Oh, rescue us Uncle Sam, we don't want to blow state funds on this, we need federal funding and authority!"

Sort of like how states expect FEMA to come in and rescue everybody, but don't want to spend a single frigging dime on their own disaster and emergency contingency plans. People bitch about the taxes, people are entirely to critical of a states circus peanuts budget, etc.

Bah humbug.

[Occhidiangela]

Probably because even though some people are ok in your mind there are others who aren't. And who is to say that you don't snap tomorrow? That you suddenly felt the only way you could defend the constitution was to eliminate everyone owning a dog?

That's what makes people nervous about widespread gun ownership.
[right][snapback]104638[/snapback][/right]

Do I need to make a comment now about wide spread computer ownership? :P Perhaps not, the Endless September is a genie who won't go back into the bottle --rather like nuclear weapons, don't you think?

News Flash: yesterday, over 22 million gun owners didn't kill anyone, which subset of all gun owners includes me. If you object to me owning firearms, friend, I object to you being a busy body and a craven sheep.

The main problem with firearms ownership is the idiots involved, which is the same as the problem with the most dangerous weapon in America: the automobile. Cars and trucks are a lot less dangerous in the hands of intelligent people than in the hands of idiots.

The next most dangerous weapon in America is a lawyer: not so much for killing people as for the conduct of ritual killings in court, and in trashing the lives of citizens. The most pernicious of these creatures are the sub genus, politician, and the sub genus political advisor. :P

So, do you have a license to use that lawyer?

Occhi

[Doc]

Probably because even though some people are ok in your mind there are others who aren't. And who is to say that you don't snap tomorrow? That you suddenly felt the only way you could defend the constitution was to eliminate everyone owning a dog?

That's what makes people nervous about widespread gun ownership.
[right][snapback]104638[/snapback][/right]

Well then. Should that happen, hope and pray a friendly gun owner is there to save your sorry butt while you sit by and do nothing. :P One of us will pull out our trusty side arm and stop this madness.

Nobody picks on puppies when I am around! :angry:

[Occhidiangela]

I'm fairly ignorant about the US constitution.  I've read it a few times, and it always makes my mind boggle.  I cannot for the life of me figure out the second amendment.
I guess that I just don't understand the logistics of this.  How does one coordinate a "well regulated militia"?  Is there any "well regulated militia" sporting firearms that hasn't been broken up by US authorities?
[right][snapback]104626[/snapback][/right]

I will point out to you that the West Coast Cripps, and any number of street gangs, are local militias. They are well armed, well organized, but not well regulated given their tendency to act unlawfully.

The Minutemen are a well regulated militia who, at present, have chosen a firearms free scheme to improve the defense of the American border. When they take up arms, which I see as inveitible over the next decade or two unless the Feds start complying with Article 4 oc the Contitution, things will get rather interesting.

Occhi

[Doc]

I will point out to you that the West Coast Cripps, and any number of street gangs, are local militias.  They are well armed, well organized, but not well regulated given their tendency to act unlawfully.

The Minutemen are a well regulated militia who, at present, have chosen a firearms free scheme to improve the defense of the American border.  When they take up arms, which I see as inveitible over the next decade or two unless the Feds start complying with Article 4 oc the Contitution, things will get rather interesting.

Occhi
[right][snapback]104656[/snapback][/right]

Occhi, I was reading someplace that some of those Minutemen Types are already going around armed, due to the drug runners trying let the sun shine on their livers for poking their nose in the drug trafficking routes. I think it may have been in Cali. Tejas has problems too.

I know I certainly wouldn't be doing that unarmed. I respect human life and all, but the drug trade and all the misery it produces, all of the bloodshed and loss, all of the lawlessness and death, I figure the best way to save lives in this case is to just shoot the messenger, so to speak. Er, delivery man? One dead smuggler is an acceptable loss of life for me, compared to the greater good and potential loss of life due to what the smuggler carries.

[Occhidiangela]

Occhi, I was reading someplace that some of those Minutemen Types are already going around armed, due to the drug runners trying let the sun shine on their livers for poking their nose in the drug trafficking routes. I think it may have been in Cali. Tejas has problems too.

I know I certainly wouldn't be doing that unarmed. I respect human life and all, but the drug trade and all the misery it produces, all of the bloodshed and loss, all of the lawlessness and death, I figure the best way to save lives in this case is to just shoot the messenger, so to speak. Er, delivery man? One dead smuggler is an acceptable loss of life for me, compared to the greater good and potential loss of life due to what the smuggler carries.
[right][snapback]104658[/snapback][/right]

You might want to check the Minutemen's official organization and policies, rather than rumor and speculation. I also suggest you do your own homework, Google is your friend and you earned an advanced degree. As Pete once said about the Internet:

"Once you know the basics of research, you can learn nearly anything."

As the professor of Philology at Faber College once quipped: "Knolidj is gud."

Occhi

[Doc]

You might want to check the Minutemen's official organization and policies, rather than rumor and speculation.  I also suggest you do your own homework, Google is  your friend and you earned an advanced degree.  As Pete once said about the Internet:

"Once you know the basics of research, you can learn nearly anything." 

As the professor of Philology at Faber College once quipped: "Knolidj is gud."

Occhi
[right][snapback]104663[/snapback][/right]

If not the minutemen, there are others?

I heard it in passing that there had been some shoot outs lately with private citizens guarding the border. AM radio news from a local station. They talked about the areas south of San Diego.

Aha.

You will abide by the laws of Arizona. If you choose to arm yourself, you will do so for the purpose of self defense only; you will never have to take action to defend yourself, for you will abide by the rules of no contact and no engagement. (By the way, no weapons are allowed in the Coronado National Park, but we will not be working there, so no need to go any further).

They do carry fire arms. Policy may frown upon their use, but they are in fact, an armed militia. Looks to me, after reading the whole thing, that they are offering public lip service, to ease the minds of the 'bleeding heart liberals.' Mind you, this is just my opinion. You don't take guns along with you to use as decoration and never once pull them out to use them. Sorry, but I don't believe it. If I did, I am sure there would be a nice bridge for me to buy someplace.

If challenged, you will physically remove yourself from the situation. At this point 'tis better to retreat and preserve the ability to return and fight another day. The idea is for your sidearm to remain holstered for the duration of your visit. There will be absolutely no need to ever remove your firearm from its holster - not for cleaning, not for show-and-tell, not for any reason. By never removing the firearm from the holster, never keeping it chambered and always keeping the safety on and keeping your hands away from it, there can be no accidents. End of discussion. Remove the firearm from the holster for any reason, and your group members will likely send you on your way back home.

Horse crap. Going out in to the desert, in high dust conditions, on patrol, with a working side arm and never once pulling it out to clean it? HORSE CRAP. That's just lip service plain and simple. I've seen these guys on TV and in photos on the net. They are armed!! I've seen them in photos with M16s and mini 14s. In hand. At the ready. Pistols on belt with plenty of ammo. Clips.

The stuff there from the manual is lip service, plain and simple. Anybody with a lick of sense can see right through that.

Bollocks.

Edit.

Also in the manuals. They carefully avoid national parks where they would be deprived of firearms.

[jahcs]

I also was viewing the references you posted Doc.

The planned shifts, according to the website, are 8 hours in the day and 12 hours at night.

A properly cleaned firearm, not in the presence of a dust storm and not rolled in the dirt, should have no trouble remaining clean enough to function during that period. Note I say properly cleaned. Clean it before and after going out on the patrol and do not slather it in gun oil because too much gun oil attracts too much dirt.

[Doc]

I also was viewing the references you posted Doc.

The planned shifts, according to the website, are 8 hours in the day and 12 hours at night.

A properly cleaned firearm, not in the presence of a dust storm and not rolled in the dirt, should have no trouble remaining clean enough to function during that period.  Note I say properly cleaned.  Clean it before and after going out on the patrol and do not slather it in gun oil because too much gun oil attracts too much dirt.
[right][snapback]104667[/snapback][/right]

**Shrugs**

They make it sound as if it is "policy" to never pull out your sidearm the whole time you are out and about with the company.

If I have five minutes where I am sitting down and resting my feet, I am pulling out something and cleaning it, making sure it is in top notch condition, etc, etc, etc.

Either way, I don't buy it.

[jahcs]

Me thinks the "Official Policy" is written for liability reasons more than operational reasons anyway...

[Doc]

Me thinks the "Official Policy" is written for liability reasons more than operational reasons anyway...
[right][snapback]104669[/snapback][/right]

Yeah. I am pretty sure all those pictures I saw of them with them holding M16s and mini 14s means that if the crap should ever hit the fan, company policy is going to go down with a hail of bullets. You don't go packing that kind of firepower and then never expect to use it. Some of those guys also had some pretty big pistols. I don't mean pussified little 9mm pop guns either. (Sorry, no offense to 9mm owners, just a personal thing, I want a gun with real stopping power) And on one tv news snippit, I think I may have saw a couple of uzis.

And you don't tell people that you can have a sidearm along with you in a militia and then actually expect them to keep it at rest when a situation goes bad. Reality dictates the battlefield. If many of these guys actually have any sort of small (or large) arms training, or military background, and somebody lobs off a shot, I would bet hard cash money that training and instinct will kick in, and there will suddenly be a lot of guns out of their holsters.

If the company policy actually meant anything at all, they wouldn't allow guns at all.

[roguebanshee]

Well then. Should that happen, hope and pray a friendly gun owner is there to save your sorry butt while you sit by and do nothing. :P One of us will pull out our trusty side arm and stop this madness.[right][snapback]104655[/snapback][/right]

I'd prefer if the police/army would do that instead.

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?

[Doc]

I'd prefer if the police/army would do that instead.

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?
[right][snapback]104671[/snapback][/right]

Traitors and defectors do become heros. Men who commit treason for noble cause are called patriots.

Everybody who took part in the American Revolution were guilty of treason against the crown.

Where these bad men?

[Occhidiangela]

I heard it in passing that there had been some shoot outs lately with private citizens guarding the border. AM radio news from a local station. They talked about the areas south of San Diego.

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. ;)

Aha.  They do carry fire arms. Policy may frown upon their use, but they are in fact, an armed militia. Looks to me, after reading the whole thing, that they are offering public lip service, to ease the minds of the 'bleeding heart liberals.' Mind you, this is just my opinion. You don't take guns along with you to use as decoration and never once pull them out to use them.

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

They are armed!! I've seen them in photos with M16s and mini 14s. In hand. At the ready. Pistols on belt with plenty of ammo. Clips.

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

The stuff there from the manual is lip service, plain and simple. Anybody with a lick of sense can see right through that.

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 in the manuals. They carefully avoid national parks where they would be deprived of firearms.

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.

Policy: If you choose to arm yourself, you will do so for the purpose of self defense only; you will never have to take action to defend yourself, for you will abide by the rules of no contact and no engagement.

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