Security of a free state

[jboritzki]

Are we not seeing in Arizona the need for the 2nd Amendment? Armed drug dealing thugs illegally entering that state, murdering it's citizens, threatening Arizona's police officers. Isn't this one of the things the 2A is for? Not just personal protection, but for the security of a free state?

I would love to see the people of Arizona take up arms, adhere to a code of conduct and rules of engagement and protect their borders. Private citizens exercising their 2A rights to protect themselves and their state with their own privately owned firearms. How could the anti-gun people say that the 2A is outdated and unnecessary at that point? Maybe they are doing that there, I don't know, but if they are, why aren't we hearing more about it?

 

[downzero]

So you're advocating murder and vigilante justice? And you're wondering why most people who would be opposed to that?

 

[Bendrx]

So you're advocating murder and vigilante justice? And you're wondering why most people who would be opposed to that?

I think he's advocating that people "man up" (or woman) to stop murder, and by the "rules of engagement" statement I think "Vigilante"ism is excluded. Now vigilance would precluded.

 

[E5RANGER375]

So you're advocating murder and vigilante justice? And you're wondering why most people who would be opposed to that?

its not murder and vigilantee justice. its called being an American and protecting whats ours from foreign invaders. Give me a lawn chair my AR and lots of water, MRE's and an umbrella, and stick me on the border and I will show you true Patriotism. Oh I forgot the red magic marker and note pad so i can make tally marks.


ok im just kidding........... about the lawn chair and umbrella.

 

[beararms1776]

So you're advocating murder and vigilante justice? And you're wondering why most people who would be opposed to that?

What's wrong with advocating protection against violent illegal activity.

 

[jboritzki]

So you're advocating murder and vigilante justice? And you're wondering why most people who would be opposed to that?

I don't know where you got that I'm advocating murder or vigilante justice? You see, when I mentioned "rules of engagement" and a "code of conduct", that was supposed to lead you to believe that the people that join their local militia to protect the border are trained in when to engage and how to engage, so they don't just start shooting everyone they see. So they can make arrests and know how to defend themselves if need be. Kind of like when the common citizen grabbed his privately owned musket and defended his state and nation more than 200 years ago. Kind of like if you're being threatened by the people across the street, who have a history of violence and murder and drug dealing, and you wear your firearm just in case you need to defend yourself.

I'm in no way advocating Americans resort to violence towards anyone. The 2A doesn't advocate violence. It's getting bad down there and as far as I see it, this is one of those situations the anti-gun people always say will never happen. They say there is no need for AR15 rifles because you cant' hunt with them and because no one will invade and if they do, the military will be there to protect us. Well, why are Americans being killed in Arizona border towns? Why are there contracts being put on our police officers lives down there? According to the anti-gun people, this should not and can not happen because our military/national guard will be there to protect us. Well, where are they?

Now by using your logic and saying that I am advocating murder, then you'd have to say the same thing about anyone that starts or participates in a neighborhood crime watch. Crime watch people can be armed for self defense, They can walk their streets and report illegal activity, and they can make a citizens arrest if they really need to.

I don't mean to come off as rude. Maybe you just misunderstood what I was saying?

 

[downzero]

I suppose if you assume there's some general state power to prevent people from entering the United States, perhaps you'd have a point.

Seeing as how I have never heard any defensible argument as to why such an assumption would be sound public policy, I see no reasoning on which to support such an assumption.

If the assumption is that all illegal activity is so important to deter and/or prevent that we should take to the streets, I would wonder if we aren't under some general duty to overthrow our current government for radically overstepping its constitutional bounds. But that goes against the presumption that all laws are worth preventing their violation, and so this argument fails (leads to an obvious absurdity).

Then again, I've never really thought that the prefatory clause to the 2A had any meaning other than supplying perhaps one purpose for the operative clause, so perhaps that's why I don't think there's much merit in any idea that comes from that particular clause.

its not murder and vigilantee justice. its called being an American and protecting whats ours from foreign invaders. Give me a lawn chair my AR and lots of water, MRE's and an umbrella, and stick me on the border and I will show you true Patriotism. Oh I forgot the red magic marker and note pad so i can make tally marks.


ok im just kidding........... about the lawn chair and umbrella.

Maybe I'd agree with you if we were talking about a foreign Army. I tend to think it's laughable that the drug cartels are taking advantage of our failed policy of drug prohibition, and I hope the absurd consequences (death and destruction) that have resulted are heeded as warnings to our government when no intellectually honest person believes in the enacted policies.

If the problems are entitlements and the drug war, we'd be much better off fixing those policies than taking to the streets to defend the indefensible policies that have netted these unintended consequences.

If previous generations took seriously the notion of keeping out people who wish to work here and/or visit as "foreign invaders," my family wouldn't be here, and I doubt yours would be, either.

 

[PatriotPride]

If previous generations took seriously the notion of keeping out people who wish to work here and/or visit as "foreign invaders," my family wouldn't be here, and I doubt yours would be, either.

Nope. Wrong. MY ancestors (the ones who weren't here already ) immigrated the LEGAL way. They came through Ellis Island like everyone else requesting easement. There is a legal process for foreigners to enter the country and become citizens. They become ILLEGAL INVADERS when they enter the country illegally.

Try again.

 

[downzero]

Nope. Wrong. MY ancestors (the ones who weren't here already ) immigrated the LEGAL way. They came through Ellis Island like everyone else requesting easement. There is a legal process for foreigners to enter the country and become citizens. They become ILLEGAL INVADERS when they enter the country illegally.

Try again.

Which we no longer have. It now takes, on average, 131 years to legally immigrate from Mexico.

The Immigration Question - Reason Magazine

What we have is the inevitable consequence of that failed policy.

 

[Expat]

Open borders, one more reason the Libertarians will never get more than a couple percentage points in a national election.

If I lived closer I would definitely be willing to go out and man the border periodically. The Federal government continues to sell out the citizens of those border states for political gain.

 

[beararms1776]

Well, I guess nobody can complain when they introduce share housing next.

 

[PatriotPride]

Which we no longer have. It now takes, on average, 131 years to legally immigrate from Mexico.

The Immigration Question - Reason Magazine

What we have is the inevitable consequence of that failed policy.

You miss the point. I would think that you, of all people, would understand that we have laws in this country that must be adhered to, whether we agree with them or not. I don't have the option of saying "well, the poll-tax for the LTCH is ridiculous, so I'm not going to pay it and continue to carry (illegally) because it's my right". WRONG. Likewise, even if Mexicans, Russians, Canadians don't like our immigration laws, THEY STILL MUST ADHERE TO THEM! WHY should they get a free pass---because they don't agree with the laws?
I agree with policy has failed. However, it IS still in place, and STILL must be followed, until it has been amended.

 

[downzero]

You miss the point. I would think that you, of all people, would understand that we have laws in this country that must be adhered to, whether we agree with them or not.

I agree with policy has failed. However, it IS still in place, and STILL must be followed, until it has been amended.

Actually I think you're dead wrong about that. Until someone can identify the relevant clause of Article I, Section 8 that gives Congress the authority to restrict who may enter this country, my position is that the government has no power to restrict immigration at all.

 

[Expat]

Actually I think you're dead wrong about that. Until someone can identify the relevant clause of Article I, Section 8 that gives Congress the authority to restrict who may enter this country, my position is that the government has no power to restrict immigration at all.

As I recall that was very clearly demonstrated in a prior thread. You were unable to comprehend it however. But that's okay, we all have areas of specialness.

 

[jboritzki]

I suppose if you assume there's some general state power to prevent people from entering the United States, perhaps you'd have a point.

Seeing as how I have never heard any defensible argument as to why such an assumption would be sound public policy, I see no reasoning on which to support such an assumption.

If the assumption is that all illegal activity is so important to deter and/or prevent that we should take to the streets, I would wonder if we aren't under some general duty to overthrow our current government for radically overstepping its constitutional bounds. But that goes against the presumption that all laws are worth preventing their violation, and so this argument fails (leads to an obvious absurdity).

Then again, I've never really thought that the prefatory clause to the 2A had any meaning other than supplying perhaps one purpose for the operative clause, so perhaps that's why I don't think there's much merit in any idea that comes from that particular clause.



Maybe I'd agree with you if we were talking about a foreign Army. I tend to think it's laughable that the drug cartels are taking advantage of our failed policy of drug prohibition, and I hope the absurd consequences (death and destruction) that have resulted are heeded as warnings to our government when no intellectually honest person believes in the enacted policies.

If the problems are entitlements and the drug war, we'd be much better off fixing those policies than taking to the streets to defend the indefensible policies that have netted these unintended consequences.

If previous generations took seriously the notion of keeping out people who wish to work here and/or visit as "foreign invaders," my family wouldn't be here, and I doubt yours would be, either.

A well regulated Militia, (Arizona citizens that join an organized militia in their state) being necessary to the security of a free State, (free state being Arizona) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (Arizona citizens also have the right to keep and bear arms)

Now you believe the prefatory clause don't have any meaning other than to supply the operative clause with 1 purpose. That purpose being the security of a free state. So there it is... spelled out for everyone. Citizens have the right to be armed for service in an organized state militia for the purpose of that state's security.

No one said anything about militia members enforcing all laws and I think everyone knows that I was not suggesting that. This is really rather simple. We have organized criminals (call them drug cartels or terrorists because they're the same thing) coming into our country (illegal), killing our citizens(illegal), to sell illegal drugs(illegal) and so far not much of anything is being done with any sense of urgency on a federal level to prevent this. This is not your average criminals committing the average crimes. These are not Americans committing crimes on American soil who are protected by our constitutions and subject to our laws. These are foreign people that hold ranks in their terrorist organizations. There are heads of these cartels that give orders to the lower members that carry out the illegal activities and murder on our soil and against our fellow Americans. Now this is really no different than any other terrorist organization. Some are killing our citizens for religion and some are doing it for money. Neither are members of standing armies or represented by a government. But you'd agree IF these drug cartels were represented by a government, then and only then would the 2A apply and it make sense for citizens to arm themselves for protection, go camping or hiking or sight seeing along the border and calling in the border patrol when they arrest and detain obvious illegal activity? That just leads me to believe that I am talking to someone that thinks Arizona's new law is racist and a violation of human rights.

 

[downzero]

I do think Arizona's law is racist and intended to appeal to hyper-nationalist, potentially-racist people who elected them.

I'm not sure if I think travel is a "human right" or not. I do think that our capitalist system demands free trade, though, and that includes labor.

Demanding that citizens use force to enforce our failed policy experiment in drug prohibition is a huge waste of resources, as I see it.

 

[E5RANGER375]

If previous generations took seriously the notion of keeping out people who wish to work here and/or visit as "foreign invaders," my family wouldn't be here, and I doubt yours would be, either.

actualy my family was here before the revolution, and then they fought in it. both sides of my family were here pre-revolution and then served during the revolution.

but eitherway. im ok with LEGAL imigration. I think eventualy all imigration needs to stop, but for now, whatever.

Failed drug wars and illegal invaders are 2 seperate issues in most cases. its not too hard to secure the border and then kick out all the ones already here illegaly. I could care less if they drop them in the middle of the pacific ocean, or if they take them home, or maybe some other country wants the cold, hungry, poor and weary??? because America doesnt. we are tired of getting everyone elses riff raff. if your retarded and poor we dont want you. we have enough to fix already and dont need worthless imigrants. now if your here to work hard and you have a brain and your OWN startup money then come on. I think its total BS how foreigners get money from our govt to start businesses.
every other country wants to tell us what to do and ridicule us, but they still have their hands out palm up dont they.
,

 

[jboritzki]

Which we no longer have. It now takes, on average, 131 years to legally immigrate from Mexico.

The Immigration Question - Reason Magazine

What we have is the inevitable consequence of that failed policy.

That's funny. I work with 3 immigrants, all here legally (2 from Mexico and 1 from Honduras). One is only 25 years old. Their combined ages don't come to 131 years.

It seems that your real position is that the borders should be opened and damn America for not opening them all up to everyone. That explains a lot.

 

[jboritzki]

I do think Arizona's law is racist and intended to appeal to hyper-nationalist, potentially-racist people who elected them.

I'm not sure if I think travel is a "human right" or not. I do think that our capitalist system demands free trade, though, and that includes labor.

Demanding that citizens use force to enforce our failed policy experiment in drug prohibition is a huge waste of resources, as I see it.

This is really not an argument for this thread, but I do fund it funny that you think it's racist, when the law does not mention a single race of people. It's the people that say the law is racist that actually apply the question and label of race to the law.

Do you also find it racist of the Mexican president to "assume" that the illegal guns in his country are coming from America? Actually, I don't really care what you think about it.

 

[jsgolfman]

You miss the point. I would think that you, of all people, would understand that we have laws in this country that must be adhered to, whether we agree with them or not. I don't have the option of saying "well, the poll-tax for the LTCH is ridiculous, so I'm not going to pay it and continue to carry (illegally) because it's my right". WRONG. Likewise, even if Mexicans, Russians, Canadians don't like our immigration laws, THEY STILL MUST ADHERE TO THEM! WHY should they get a free pass---because they don't agree with the laws?
I agree with policy has failed. However, it IS still in place, and STILL must be followed, until it has been amended.

Sorry, just wanted to address one point here, don't want to hijcak the thread. No one HAS to adhere to the laws. They have to make a moral judgement of whether the value they place on not adhering to the law is worth the potential punishment.