Leaving tommorow for the border, will miss you ATS'ers

a reply to: RUokayHun

Dude he is doing it for a fun time.
Read the op. He gets to play with his tech and beer drinking buddies, polish his armory til it reflects in the eye of the demon over the border fence, whilst getting Youtube hits.

Believe what you want.

originally posted by: zazzafrazz

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
Well I certainly hope you'll be wearing the light grey and Blue Batmans 1960s TV show outfit whilst you do this.

I'm making do with my Batman Underoos.

Is DB your Robin?

I'm more his Ms. Moneypenny.

I can carry it off because I have the legs for it.

But the Founders were also suspicious of standing armies. They knew that, in Europe, standing armies had been used by monarchies to oppress the people. In order to avoid this danger, while providing for the nation’s security, the Founders made the common defense a shared responsibility of Congress and the President, the elected (and separate) branches of government. This ensured the American military would serve the nation, not subvert the rule of the people.

Thus, Congress declares war and funds the armed forces: the Constitution gives Congress power to “raise and support armies” and to “provide and maintain a navy.” The President commands the armed forces and controls their operations: as Commander in Chief, he is obliged to defend and protect the nation. In his role as the country’s chief diplomat, he also seeks to keep the peace.

As Reagan recognized, America’s military strength exists to secure the blessings of ordered liberty for the American people. The rights enshrined in our Constitution are only safe in practice when that constitutional order is defended by adequate power. It is the federal government’s responsibility to maintain that power, and to bring it to bear against nations or enemies that threaten America’s security or interests, and thereby its freedoms.

www.heritage.org...
It is most unfortunate that factions in our government have given up its true responsibility in favor of some elusive utopian ideal which is both unrealistic and unsustainable.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

You’re just upset that every time you went as Princess Allura from Voltron, people thought you were the Pink Ranger from Power Rangers. As if you would forego being royalty.

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: RUokayHun

Dude he is doing it for a fun time.
Read the op. He gets to play with his tech and beer drinking buddies, polish his armory til it reflects in the eye of the demon over the border fence, whilst getting Youtube hits.

Believe what you want.

He said they have plans to use hobby drones, not do this for a hobby. There’s s difference.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Does Carmen Elektra play any of these characters G?

a reply to: zazzafrazz

I was just speaking generally about the general principle of citizens detaining illegal immigrants as happens on UK shores. I of course do not support drunken vigilante types operating outside of the law.
I don't know the OP so shall reserve judgement about his intentions.
If he is operating lawfully however, I see no issue, certainly not racism, otherwise border authorities must also be racist by default.

a reply to: RUokayHun

Who said anything about racism? Not me.

But now that YOU bring it up....

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
The House holds the purse strings and you know that.

That has zero to do with CBP enforcement.

Border Patrol is doing everything they can.

Exactly, they don't need a bunch of yahoos getting in their way.

Also Congress should be making the right legislation to protect our country but a bunch of Progressive Marxists and Deep Staters and CFR are whining about “nationalism” when it’s their job expressly outlines in the Constitution to defend against invasions. You likely know that too.

Let me clue you in on a dirty little secret....both sides of the aisle have constituents that regularly employ illegals. It isn't a left/right thing.

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
I forgot to ask which criminal sector is DB going to be dispatched to terrorize, eeerrr I mean citizen police ?

He's gonna be the trans-fat police but that job really has an ulterior motive for him since that stuff is like his favorite beverage and if he stops them from using it he has more to belt down.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Oh by the way surely you’ve read Manley Hall on the secret destiny of America.

Why would I care what Manly Hall has to say about anything?

a reply to: zazzafrazz

Racism is one of the biggest cries I read on ATS when discussion is about the border and the wall etc. It has been alluded to in this thread as well. Why focus on that one word in my reply? I spoke of the principle of citizens protecting g their nation's border lawfully while waiting for border force to arrive.
How about address the crux of my comments, the principle of citizens acting lawfully to assist authorities, do you agree or disagree?
We both agree about drunken yeehah vigilantes,but I'm not talking about them, just citizens acting lawfully to detain suspected illegal immigrants, as British people on our south coast have started doing.

originally posted by: RUokayHun
I spoke of the principle of citizens protecting g their nation's border lawfully while waiting for border force to arrive.

In this particular circumstance how does that function?

They cannot legally detain anyone and if they do try to do so they will most likely be charged with some serious felonies. The most they can do is report who they saw, when and what general direction they were headed but with the CBP not having enough resources I'm not quite sure I see the value.

...right, another vigilante wannabe, frustrated that he never made it into the army, feeling "the call" to "police" the "fatherland", from those really scary brown skinned people from the south...

Thank you for keeping us safe, cowboy.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I can only speak for the UK, but boats are being detained by citizens after calling 999, and there have been no arrests of citizens so far. This isn't the US, you can't sue someone for millions just for being held illegally, if force used is reasonable and the citizens have good cause to believe they have entered illegally then people on the south coast are doing just that.Authorities have no issue with it here as they are so badly under resourced.
If citizens were deemed to have been unlawful then you would be looking at an official caution or minor fine at worst, but ill be surprised if I ever hear about that happening in my lifetime.
UK/US totally different, its happening now on our south coast and nobody has a problem with citizens helping to fight illegal immigration, so long as it is lawfully done.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

Wouldn’t know, I turned her down. So she doesn’t hang out. There was some soap opera star that thought I was going to ask her out so she jumped the gun by shooting me down with a firm no when I said I had a question for her. You know me, I didn’t skip a beat when I replied “Well that’s good to know, but that wasn’t my question. What I would like to know if the hiatus on soap operas are enough time to take a large role in a big budget film or would you be limited to B movies for larger roles?” She was rather sheepish in her answer which quite frankly was better than asking her out to dinner because I found her pompousness and boring. Of course that wasn’t my original question. I was going to ask her who was her agent that represented her and if I could have their contact information. But i never pass up a good laugh when I can.

As for the OP, right or wrong, good thing or bad thing. He is going out to do something and can’t kick himself for doing nothing. Now whether it turns out to be a mistake or networks with someone that wants to form some sort of company and makes a mint is all a matter for the future. In the end, good, bad, right or wrong, will always take a backseat for standing up for your own convictions above the convictions of others. And that I can salute regardless of my opinion on the matter.

But what do I know, I blew off a girl that became one the hottest women in the world according to some articles. But at least we know that Prince took in one of my castoffs. So I can feel good about that at least.

originally posted by: RUokayHun
I can only speak for the UK...

I'm not asking about the United Kingdom, I asking about here. It is illegal for them to detain anyone and the CBP has said they don't want their help.

Again, what is their function?

originally posted by: RUokayHun
a reply to: zazzafrazz

I understand that, but the principle of citizens assisting in the protection of the UK border is totally accepted here, especially as our border force only have 3 patrol craft for the while island of Britain. Citizens are detaining people on the south coast of England now, it just doesn't make national news for some reason.
I, and the police here, have no problem with citizens lawfully detaining suspects while waiting for authority to arrive.
If the citizens break the law through unreasonable force then of course they should face justice, but the principle of citizens protecting their nation's border is accepted here.

Rubbish, in the UK vigilantes with guns are not accepted as 'protecting' us. It's not accepted, show me where it is please.

Seriously, show me where that is classed as accepted. Please don't use the RNLI as an example, they are making sure people are safe, not drowning and the authorities are called to take the next step, not people who think they are the nations unofficial police force.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
The House holds the purse strings and you know that.

That has zero to do with CBP enforcement.

Border Patrol is doing everything they can.

Exactly, they don't need a bunch of yahoos getting in their way.

Also Congress should be making the right legislation to protect our country but a bunch of Progressive Marxists and Deep Staters and CFR are whining about “nationalism” when it’s their job expressly outlines in the Constitution to defend against invasions. You likely know that too.

Let me clue you in on a dirty little secret....both sides of the aisle have constituents that regularly employ illegals. It isn't a left/right thing.

It does? Then why the House not approve a budget to deal with the crisis, instead opting to gripe about some kind of charge about racist nationalism? You showed me your hand though aside from your usual humorous quips. By the way didn’t I mention the Deep State and the CFR in my posts? I’m fully aware the Deep State operates on both sides. Even Rubio got money from Soros. It’s just that Progressives on the Democrat side seem particularly bent on getting votes fr as many illegals as they can import. I think you know that in your heart of hearts.
s

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Fair enough, I can't comment on the US, I was just explaining how it is here. I assumed that like the UK, your citizens could make a citizens arrest if someone was suspected of entering illegally. Immigration offences are indictable or either way offences here and fall under the legislation covering citizens arrest.
If citizens can't detain illegals in the US then again, fair enough, just seems odd to me. We are allowed to do it here, just treat them humanely until authorities arrive on scene.
I have no dog in this fight just sharing my observations and the differences between our nation's stances on controlling and managing immigration.