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: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   


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.

Well, I wasn't talking about back then... I was talking of previous democrats administrations... like Bill Clinton's.




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

Originally posted by grover
t just that an international border is not the place to have independent armed vigilantes (individuals or groups) playing cops and robbers.


Rumor has it armed independent vigilantes gave birth to the US, tamed the West and still help maintain the law of the land.

American Revolution -Wiki
Citizen's arrest - Wiki



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Grover may have used an off color term (pun intended), but I think we all know what he means. It's the people who are just looking for a way, and means to take pot shots at an illegal alien, or whoever the outcast of the day may be. Should we have to wait for the erson to be shot before we do something about it?



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Grover may have used an off color term (pun intended), but I think we all know what he means.


I'd call it a racial slur, funny how it changes to an "off color term" when the shoe is on the other foot...



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   
This is beyond ridiculous.What's even funnier is that everyone applauded the american people for voting in Democrats this last election.

How is it that we vote a group of people that were at least divided on the border issue,and vote a group in,the Democrats, who want open borders across the board? It's rather amazing to me.

It's also strange that a group of people, the Minutemen, who are willing to do the job that our Federal government should be doing,
are being labeled "terrorists."



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Should we have to wait for the erson to be shot before we do something about it?


So does that mean you're for a pre-emptive attack on Iran or launching a nuclear first strike on Russia? After all, they might shoot some of us, before we do anything about it. Or does that logic just apply for protecting criminals?



[edit on 22-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I really do not care about this issue one way or the other, all I am trying to point out that if you read it carefully the target is vigilantes, individuals and groups which as far as I can see it is good.


You should care. While we are fighting a "War on terrorism" our freaking borders are wide freaking open and the Fed is not doing anything about it. Now they are prosecuting American Citizens who are willing to defend their nation's borders. I care. I care a damn great deal.

[edit on 22-1-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Well now I just looked up "cracker" on wikipedia and it refers to it as a slang for white person. I had always understood it to mean, basically another term for redneck or hick which is exactly how I meant it.

We are not fighting a war on terror.... we are waging a war against some terrorists... specifically Islamic ones. There are plenty that we don't give a rat's ass about.... the Tamil tiger's for one... the IRA and the Basque seperatists are others...how about the Shining Path in Peru of the Maoist in Nepal? If we were actually fighting a war on terror ALL of those would be in our sights and obviously they are not. Besides you cannot wage war against ideas... that is the fundamental fallacy in the "war on terror" when you take that stance, you merely reinforce the idea that they are under assault and do their recruiting for them. That should be obvious by now.

("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." ... Me... see a few posts back)


I quoted myself above to highlight why trying to seal our borders is a lost cause... I was specifically talking about enviornmental degradation but economic disparity is also a major cause for migrations legal or otherwise as well.

[edit on 22-1-2007 by grover]

[edit on 22-1-2007 by grover]

[edit on 22-1-2007 by grover]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 03:09 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.

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

Why would you be surprised? Pelosi, Obama, Kerry, Clinton, etc., etc. are for gun control.

And of course people are making a fuss over gun control. That's the essence of this thread. Not gay rights or abortion.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   
If you read what I wrote Jsobecky you would see I was using them as examples of Republican rhetoric vs their actions.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with with certain restrictions on who can have a gun. Of course you can say why bother laws won't stop a person if they want one which is true but also circular logic. There is nothing wrong with a back ground check or a waiting period or a weekly limit on how many a person can buy. AND if you law and order types look past your rhetoric you will find most police groups favor them.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
You should care. While we are fighting a "War on terrorism" our freaking borders are wide freaking open and the Fed is not doing anything about it. Now they are prosecuting American Citizens who are willing to defend their nation's borders. I care. I care a damn great deal.




They're defending their nation's borders without intelligence. And I mean that in every applicable sense of te term. At this point it's just a bunch of guys with guns and pickup trucks driving around looking for "illegal activity". And, if they don't find it by the end of the first six pack, then they'll just have to keep drinkin' till they find that dang Osama bin Ladin.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
You should care. While we are fighting a "War on terrorism" our freaking borders are wide freaking open and the Fed is not doing anything about it. Now they are prosecuting American Citizens who are willing to defend their nation's borders. I care. I care a damn great deal.




They're defending their nation's borders without intelligence. And I mean that in every applicable sense of the term. At this point it's just a bunch of guys with guns and pickup trucks driving around looking for "illegal activity". And, if they don't find it by the end of the first six pack, then they'll just have to keep drinkin' till they find that dang Osama bin Ladin.


Bingo!!! And even if they aren't drinking the attitude is the same. International borders are no place for some self appointed law and order yahoo's with guns trying to enforce the law.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Especially when 98% of the time they don't actually know what the law is.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Especially when 98% of the time they don't actually know what the law is.


It's really not that complicated. Not a citizen? Then it's against the law to sneak across the border. Pretty simple. And you sure do a good job at stereotyping with your "pick up trucks and six packs" comment above. I seem to remember you being pretty firmly against that, unless of course it's towards white people I guess, then stereotyping and "off color terms" are okay.



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

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
They're defending their nation's borders without intelligence. And I mean that in every applicable sense of te term. At this point it's just a bunch of guys with guns and pickup trucks driving around looking for "illegal activity". And, if they don't find it by the end of the first six pack, then they'll just have to keep drinkin' till they find that dang Osama bin Ladin.


Maybe you best explain to me why a noncitizen who breaks the law deserves more protection than a law abiding citizen. Also explain to me why you'd rather imprison a law abiding American as a terrorist in order to protect drug smugglers, slave merchants and the mafioso.

Your have a bizarre, bigoted and distorted view of the situation to say these ranchers, veterans, senior citizens and retired police officers are drunk dumbasses looking for Osama. They report what the see to the border patrol and have many of the same tools the border patrol does. They are just like any neighborhood watch group, it is a constitutional right to bear arms, and Arizona is a right to carry state.



[edit on 22-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   
The thing is if a nation, or nations fail to maintain their international borders, like some on the right claim this country is doing (funding children the problem is funding... funding promised but never delivered) there is a train of thought that suggests that maintaince thereof should fall to the citizen and that is the crux of the issue. The problem is it is an international border and it is exactly the wrong place for vigilantism for a whole series of reasons, not to mention the simple fact that individuals do not represent, or speak for the state, unless they have been duly appointed to do so; and the Minutemen have not but instead chose to take this on by their own accord. While this may or may not be admirable they have neither the authority or the cart blanc to act for the state.

I still say though if the illegals sneaking across the border to take the jobs we will not do anymore were white, English speaking Canadians instead of brown, Spanish speaking Hispanics, this wouldn't even be an issue.

In the long run the vast majority of those sneaking across the border are poor laborers looking for work NOT drug smugglers, slave merchants and the mafioso... though of course they are there too... but most just want a job.

[edit on 22-1-2007 by grover]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   
If you sneak in to the US you are a criminal. If your are watching the border, you are not a criminal. This isn't bizarro world...

The Aztecs, Incas and the native Americans would say we should of controlled our borders better....it's too late for them.

[edit on 22-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   
The thing is the vast majority of the people who sneak illegally across the border are no different than you or me except that they Spanish speaking Hispanics... they are working class stiffs who are just trying to provide for their families. I have worked with several of them in various restaurants and they were far harder workers than your average college kid that is for sure... and they did quality work.

Really want to curb the flow and encourage them to come here legally? Make getting a work visa a hell of a lot cheaper and easier to get... or have companies that tend to hire them contract out with companies like Manpower who would go and recruit them and take them through the whole process of getting employed with a visa and keep tabs on them. Make the companies who hire them pay the costs.... yes a guest worker program.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
While this may or may not be admirable they have neither the authority or the cart blanc to act for the state.

In the long run the vast majority of those sneaking across the border are poor laborers looking for work NOT drug smugglers, slave merchants and the mafioso... though of course they are there too... but most just want a job


The Minutemen have the authority as delegated by the US and state constitutions and ranchers want them on their property. Even local law enforcement supports them.

The border patrol can't handle the situation it alone. There's large numbers of criminals and gangs coming across the border. That is why Governor Napolitano (D) activated the National Guard, declared a state of emergency and made Arizona's border the number one priority.

They need a migrant worker program like they used to have, but making law abiding Americans into terrorists and crapping on the Constitution is just plain nuts.




[edit on 22-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
The problem is it is an international border and it is exactly the wrong place for vigilantism for a whole series of reasons, not to mention the simple fact that individuals do not represent, or speak for the state, unless they have been duly appointed to do so; and the Minutemen have not but instead chose to take this on by their own accord.


Then neighborhood watch groups should be disbanded and labeled terrorists as well, nobody appointed them, so if I want to steal a car they have no right to do anything about it, it's up to the police to be everywhere at once. I am in AZ, and the minutemen have my approval, the border patrol does nothing. Pretty much the only people here that are against it are the illegals themselves.



I still say though if the illegals sneaking across the border to take the jobs we will not do anymore were white, English speaking Canadians instead of brown, Spanish speaking Hispanics, this wouldn't even be an issue.


There it is, the race card. You are completely wrong and speculating without anything other than a preconceived notion. My father is Canadian, he had to go through the process of citizenship like anybody else does.



In the long run the vast majority of those sneaking across the border are poor laborers looking for work NOT drug smugglers, slave merchants and the mafioso... though of course they are there too... but most just want a job.


Yeah, okay. Poor laborers that are STILL BREAKING THE LAW! Again, if I wanted to steal a car, it would probably only be because I was a poor pedestrian and just wanted a ride. And if you lived here with all these illegals, you may feel differently, they can do pretty much whatever they wish since there's no way to identify them.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join