It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proposed Arizona Law Would Define Armed Minutemen As "Domestic Terrorists"

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I am not against controlling the border or stopping illegal aliens though I think its a lost cause, I am against people taking the law into their own hands. As for who they have shot....no one YET that I know of but in that type of hothead environment, its only a matter of time.




posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Repblocrats, same smelly turd which comes in red or blue.
Idiotcrats are the ones who elect them, comes in one flavor...dumb.


Quirkily profound.
But true!

Just doesn't leave us a whole lotta options, does it? If the Repblocrats and Idiotcrats drink to that, then certainly chocolate and vanilla mix too. I just can't drink chocolate milk... No dairy for me...



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   
The main problem with this law is that it takes a perfectly legal activity and makes it illegal. It assumes that you are going to commit a crime. You are guilty with no chance of being proven innocent.

It's akin to arresting a person who is driving with an unopened bottle of booze in their car because you assume he will he DWI later on.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
It assumes that you are going to commit a crime. You are guilty with no chance of being proven innocent.



What many fail to see is the broader picture if this bill gets on, Js, because it can spill into anybody owning guns.

Sometimes certain bills are introduced in the hopes that they can widen the meaning of the law in references to the issue they are trying to attack, in this case armed groups of people.

No necessarily has to be minuteman.

I see anti-gun groups all over this bill.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I am not against controlling the border or stopping illegal aliens though I think its a lost cause, I am against people taking the law into their own hands. As for who they have shot....no one YET that I know of but in that type of hothead environment, its only a matter of time.


i guess i have a different impression of the minutemen, as i read it they arent out there arresting anyone, they are there just watching and when the find illegals they call border patrol. if they have guns its for their own protection. where is the problem there? ive been known to carry a gun from time to time when i travel becuase ill stop to help people if they are broke down, but ill be damned if i end up like a guy i used to work with who got the piss beat outta him by two guys that had pulled over and turned on their flashers just to get someone to stop so they could beat them up. does that make me 'some damned fool with a gun'?

i think not.

and for the most part the minutemen are on private property with the owners permission unless i am misinformed. so, what laws are they breaking? if they were already breaking a law why write a new one?

as a guess id bet the lady introducing this bill is pro choice too. seems people are ok with abortion but not guns. hypocrisy.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   
It is a very short step from what they are doing now, to trying to take the law into their own hands. I am not saying that they are now, but the potential is there and the longer the situation continues, that potential will remain and the odds will keep going up that there will be some form of incident and someone will get hurt.

Lets face it the only "sin" the illegal aliens are guilty of is trying to come here to work and help their family without going through proper channels... and why is that? The proper channels are expensive and take forever.

Let me ask all of you this...with all things being equal except that the United States is the one that is poverty ridden and Mexico is the wealthy neighbor with jobs that the locals don't want to do...and the only thing stopping you from getting those jobs and helping your family is a porous border, and you are too poor to do things properly....what would you do?

Me personally... I would illegally skip across the border without a qualm if it meant helping my family... and the odds are, so would you.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   
ill agree that id probably try to skip over the border as well, but teh fact is that things ARENT reversed.

im not advocating shooting anyone crossing the border by any means. but i do support the minutemen as long as they do as they have been which is just to observe and report. i also support their rights to defend themselves should the need arise, becuase lets face another fact. not everyone crossing the border is in search of a better life and the guys with lots of dope usually also carry guns and have NO qualms about shooting anyone that gets in their way.

and i see your point about it being a small step from observation to vigilatism, but that can be said for neighborhood watch and many other groups as well. so in my mind i still feel that the proposed law is BS. one could argue that a bit of prevention is good, but not only is the law pointless at THIS piont it also opens the doors to many other chances to violate our 2nd amenndment rights along with our rights to peaceful assembly and so forth.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Well I am not talking about drug dealers etc. As for bad laws they can always be revised or appealed... as for the situation not being reversed...I have always tried to place myself in another persons position before I pass judgement. it is only fair and decent.

If you would do it to help your family, why say that they are wrong to do so? As the global environmental and social situation decays from pollution, warming and degradation caused by too great of a strain on resources you will see a global migration begin that will make the one of the 3 and 400 AD period look like nothing and in the long run there will be nothing states can do to stop it... that in part is why I believe it is a lost cause... a rear guard action as it were.

[edit on 21-1-2007 by grover]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I was referring to vigilante groups and individual vigilante's...your average citizen is not a vigilante.

As for your slam of Ms. Sinema, that was totally unnecessary.

Whether the border is not enforced is a matter of opinion but me personally I don't want some damned fool cracker armed with a gun out and playing cops and robber near me. The real cops are bad enough without some macho dude getting in the way.


But I think you misunderstand the confusion here grover. The problem isn't about what the supposed "real cops" do; it's about the freedoms of every man, woman, and child to "keep and bear arms". What's worse than being deprived that right, is being told that we cannot police our own homes anymore.

Don't you see what this is leading to? We won't even be able to stop a burglar from breaking and entering our homes because that's the police's job. And since we can't have guns, we can't defend ourselves, which means we're screwed when it comes to trying to keep anyone from hurting us.

To quote the law text from the OP:



HB 2286 reads:

Sec. 2. Title 13, chapter 23, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 13-2320, to read:

13-2320. Domestic terrorism; classification

A. An individual or group of individuals commits domestic terrorism if the individual or group of individuals are not affiliated with a local, state or federal law enforcement entity and associate with another individual or group of individuals as an organization, group, corporation or company for the purpose of patrolling to detect alleged illegal activity or to individually patrol for the purpose of detecting alleged illegal activity and if the individual or group of individuals is armed with a firearm or other weapon.


It's right there, in gray and black. It tells us what is and is not considered a domestic terrorist. By that very definition, I can be arrested for attemtping to stop someone from entering my home illegally, since I'll be "patrolling" my home, in the hopes of keeping intruders out.

Let me put it bluntly. If this passes, it will change the very definition of a terrorist to be anyone that carries a gun. And before anyone disputes this, what it doesn't say is just as important as what it does say. It doesn't say under what circumstances that someone with a weapon isn't considered a domestic terrorist. All it says is what makes someone one.

To be frank, this has me exceedingly worried. The Hive is all abuzz about it, which is part of the reason for our silence of late. We're struggling to put together a solid story, which we should be posting soon. My sig should have a link to the Hive's main site. Have a gander. We all look forward to the thoughts of all, especially in this case.

TheBorg



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBorg
It's right there, in gray and black. It tells us what is and is not considered a domestic terrorist. By that very definition, I can be arrested for attemtping to stop someone from entering my home illegally, since I'll be "patrolling" my home, in the hopes of keeping intruders out.

Yup, this is what I said would happen when they bought in all the anti terrorism laws. Everyone would approve it and then theyd change the definition or terrorists so they could arrest anyone and hold them without any rights. First it was gang members, then its minute men and then who knows.

Its a slippery slope.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 07:05 AM
link   
@grover: just because i would do it doesnt make it right. ive done and would do many things that either bordered on or were blatently illegal to survive in my days and to protect my family or provide for them i cant say i wouldnt do these things again.

so if i was in mexico, and i wanted out and couldnt for some reason do it legally, yeah, id cross the border illegally and id KNOW it was illegal to do so. if i got caught, well, i broke the law. i know it and they know it.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 08:23 AM
link   
I never said it would make it right... I said it would make it understandable. There comes a point when laws and consequences be damned, you either have to protect or provide for those you love or you simply aren't doing your job. AND I am certain that the illegals know what they are doing is against the law... but the vast majority are really trying to do what is right for those they love.

I am not a Bush backer by any stretch of the imagination but his guest worker program is a step in the right direction, at least in my opinion.

Borg... I reread what the law proposed and I can see how it could be construed to target homeowners and the like protecting their own property, BUT it still reads to me as if the intented target are vigilantes, both individuals and groups that take the law into their own hands.... totally different than a homeowner protecting his God's half acre.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Sinema should be removed from office for wasting taxes by introducing a bill that borders on treason. It's time for her recall election.


Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

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.


Don't worry, this crap will not pass.



[edit on 22-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I am really surprised that a Democrat came up with this bill... after all it is the Republicans who make the most noise about individual rights and then back policies that are diametrically opposed to their rhetoric. For example: gay rights and/or gay marriage... and woman's right to chose. Matters, Republican opposition towards meddle profoundly in the most personal of all individual rights, that of sexuality and reproduction. It is under a Republican administration that we have had the most rights chipped away at under the guise of homeland security; and then there is the patriot act. I kind of wonder even if we will have an election in 2008 or whether Bush and his puppet master Cheney will find some reason to call it off...like a "terrorist" threat. You know that they had plans like that in the works for 2004 until the media caught on and suddenly it became a "contingency" with no plans to carry it out.


And you guys make a fuss about gun control... talk about rich.

[edit on 22-1-2007 by grover]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   


I am really surprised that a Democrat came up with this bill...

Well, actually, it was the democrats who were against the second amendment and for big government... now republicans and democrats are hybrids...



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I am really surprised that a Democrat came up with this bill... after all it is the Republicans who make the most noise about individual rights and then back policies that are diametrically opposed to their rhetoric


I agree, both parties are crap and not voting for any of those in the two party mafia is a start.

Meanwhile, recall those who make it easier for foreign governments to control Americans or think a Boyscout with pocketknife is a terrorist. Freedom first and corporate globalists be damned...

[edit on 22-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Let me preface by saying that I'm all for the right to keep and bear arms. I think taking away that right will stop us from being able to defend ourselves when the gvt finally steps into my house and really messes with me.

That aside, I'll play devils advocate here. We all know that there is extreme tension in the southwest regarding illegal immigration. If there is a sense of hightened violence against illegals, and there are recorded instances where so called "militias" and "minutemen" are threatening and attacking illegal immigrants, why would it not be prudent to prevent gun violence through these types of laws?



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo


I am really surprised that a Democrat came up with this bill...

Well, actually, it was the democrats who were against the second amendment and for big government... now republicans and democrats are hybrids...


Sorry but you are wrong the 2nd amendment was inserted during the Constuitional convention of 1787 and as such, neither the Democrats or republicans as we know them existed at the time.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Personally I am more in favor of arming bears.
It would make hunting a lot fairer.

In all reality I have no problem protecting our border...It just that an international border is not the place to have independent armed vigilantes (individuals or groups) playing cops and robbers.

[edit on 22-1-2007 by grover]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Whether the border is not enforced is a matter of opinion but me personally I don't want some damned fool cracker armed with a gun out and playing cops and robber near me.


I'm really surprised this was allowed to fly, is there really a need for racism in this thread? LAME.

Anyway, there's NO way that's gonna pass here. No way at all. Everybody has guns in this state....




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join