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: 7
3
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
The gov't is not allowing private groups to enforce the laws. The Minutemen are not enforcing the law on their own.


Granted they aren't making arrests, but surveillance is also a common law enforcement function. I'm not saying that private citizens don't have a right to open there eyes in public and report a crime if they see it, or take some other legally allowable response. What I am saying is that by failing to do its part, the government has made such action a major contributor to what little enforcement exists.


And a discrimination lawsuit is frivolous on it's face. How can it be discrimination unless the elements necessary to create that atmosphere exist, i.e., Poles, Germans, Irish, etc., also sneaking across?

Nobody said a discrimination lawsuit. I agree that there are not sufficient grounds to sue the minutemen for discrimination. I'm saying that illegal immigration charges could concievably be defeated on the grounds of selective enforcement targeted against the Mexican border. The argument would be that by not sufficiently policing either border or visa-holders, the federal government has in some portion restricted its enforcement of the law to the border being watched and reported on by private groups.
Afterall, there are more than just Latinos coming in. People who overstay their visas are illegal as well, are they not? There probably are a couple of illegal Germans, there are definately illegal middle eastern and asian illegals. Some of them became rather well known about 5 and a half years ago.


I wouldn't worry about the 9th anyway. They are the most overturned Circuit Court in the land (over 70% of their decisions that are appealed).

Now factor in the possibility that there is not an appeal, then a 30% chance of a bad ruling even if it is appealed, and we're looking at a considerable possibility of a very bad precedent eventually being set and virtually tying our hands on the border, just because the government didn't feel like living up to its responsibilities.


The direction I'm coming from on the broader issue is just that I'm a person who likes to see things done the right way. I don't believe that the legislative process should have to be circumvented. It should do what the majority wants it to do, and then that should be followed. Voters need to press this issue, try to force this responsibility on the government for decision one way or another, and then when the government that the majority puts in either starts enforcing the law or does away with the law, let's respect the will of the majority and move on.

I'm generally a pragmatist and I can be fairly shrewd on how things could theoretically be achieved, but once in a while I like to indulge in the reasonable expectation that the democracy should work and that responsive government should deliver results.


I cannot disagree more. You are proposing anticipatory legislation. Forbidding the legal carrying of weapons because they might be used in the commission of a crime.

I understand how you would interpret it that way, but that is definately not my intention. In growing up around guns, I've always been taught that if you handle a weapon responsibly, it won't hurt anyone, and that if you handle it irresponsibly, you are very likely to kill someone. I generally believe that and as such I believe that weapons themselves should not be targeted, but agravating circumstances should.

It's OK to point a rifle at a target. It's not OK to point a rifle at a target that is across a public highway from you.

Similarly I believe that while in Arizona it is OK to carry a weapon in public, it should be illegal to take any action with that weapon which escalates the potential for violence.

I'm not arguing that Arizona should banish guns from public. I'm saying that they should insist that the bearing of those guns continue to respect certain codes of conduct, and that people who engage in behaviors where being armed greatly increases the potential for otherwise unlikely violence should be asked to just have the common sense not to carry it on them while they're at that. I assume that Arizona expects people to leave their guns outside when they go into court, am I correct? That's my point.



So, if I am investigating a noise in my house that I suspect is a break-in, I must leave my weapon beside my bed?

Not at all. I have accidentally demonstrated the universal nature of the problem with language. There would naturally have to be very very careful testing of the phrasing to make sure that situation and others are protected, because you're in harms way there.

Now on the other hand if you go down to the border in a conscious effort to be in the presence of a crime that you can't stop and carries a fairly small chance of becoming immediately violent in most cases, carrying a gun is going to hurt more than it helps. Leave it in the car at the very least, and if you see armed men coming by all means keep your weapon handy as you remove yourself from harms way.

Going out there and carrying a weapon around is inviting a confrontation. People do this goofy macho thing. There were threats of violence just in reaction to the minute men taking lawn chairs and binoculars. When weapons come into the picture, it only escalates things.

The state is within its authority to regulate dangerous conduct. There is NOTHING discriminatory about restricting dangerous conduct engaged in by the minute men, although I agree that there would be constitutional questions to passing a law specifically against the group.

Our democratic process should take responsibility for this so that the assistance of private individuals is not necessary- whether or not they are making arrests is not the issue- they're putting themselves in the midst of criminal activity in an effort to bring about an end to it, and in the process they are co-contributors to a dangerous situation.

The government can and should restrict that danger and address the problem as it is capable of doing.




posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 08:57 AM
link   
I read this bill, and the first thought to my mind was that the Minutemen should just toss away their guns. Then they'd probably be fine.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   
If you were born and raised in Arizona, as I have, and watched the evolvement of the border, you would indeed have quite a different perspective on this bill, and what has and hasn't been done down south.
Years ago, the KKK was run out, when they proposed their own plan of patrolling the border. But that was when most people here were native Arizonan's, not these suburbanite a-holes from Illinois and California who want to "civilize" us desert rats, to say nothing of destroy our open ranges and build as many developments as they can slip by planning and zoning.

The illegals crossing our southern border represent over 180 countries.

If you were current on the "Minute Men" ie., their website, you would see they encompass all walks of life, races, creeds, and religious beliefs. They are responsible gun owners. They are there as a deterent, as an extra set of eyes. They are not to draw their weapons, or use deadly force. They donate their time, money, and resources. Their presence in the last couple of years have brought to the forefront our lack of security and need for intense funding and manpower.

I have yet to hear of one incident where an illegal was shot by a Minute Man.

Most crimes by illegals are against illegals, because when they are victimized by their own, they will not contact the authorities.

In Arizona, you have the right to have a CCW. You also have the right to carry a weapon as long as it is in plain view without a CCW. That, in my opinion, will never change.This bill doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of passing.

My sister-in-law came from Mexico and went through the legal channels, as did her siblings. She is furious that so many illegals come to this country and put a burden on her, as a tax payer, to pay for their medical, foodstamps, section 8 housing, education, etc. Both she and my brother, with 4 children, struggle to keep afloat, hoping that their neighborhood won't be consumed by illegals steadily moving in to Mesa.

And what about the illegals driving our streets with no auto insurance or driver's licenses? Both my son and one of our neighbors have been in accidents involving uninsured illegals. And guess whose premiums went up while the illegals just disapeared?

And as far as jobs, Arizona is a "Right to Work" state. You can work your ass off for 39 hours a week and get below minimum wage and absolutly no benefits. No workers comp. Not all jobs are like that, but lets face it, if you have a family, you won't apply for a job like that. And there, is the draw for the illegals. So don't give me this crap about illegals taking jobs from legals. Do something about the minimum wage, fine and/or imprison employers who repeatedly hire undocumented workers.

Wasn't NAFTA supposed to help stem the tide? Looks like instead of the illegals coming here for jobs, big corporations went to them. But that didn't stop the flow.

Arizona has the well known "Cocaine Alley", numerous drug tunnels, and only 10% of the drugs coming over the border are ever found. There is a lucrutive business in the transportation of stolen vehicles back into Mexico. And now drug cartels are setting up shop in our larger cities, with Meth labs. Yavapai county, according to the DEA, has the largest meth use per capita in the entire USA. In this county in the last year, we have had several huge marijuanna busts on National Forest property being grown and cultivated by illegals.

So don't give me sob stories about the poor illegal immigrants, and the "Minute Men" are just a bunch of macho, gun toting, racist red necks, and I don't have the right to carry a gun and protect myself or a third party.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   


Arizona has the well known "Cocaine Alley", numerous drug tunnels, and only 10% of the drugs coming over the border are ever found. There is a lucrutive business in the transportation of stolen vehicles back into Mexico. And now drug cartels are setting up shop in our larger cities, with Meth labs. Yavapai county, according to the DEA, has the largest meth use per capita in the entire USA. In this county in the last year, we have had several huge marijuanna busts on National Forest property being grown and cultivated by illegals.

This is very sad. But the police should go after Meth labs instead of marijuana... Meth is a real disease, marijuana, not so much.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   

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

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.


1. Your average citizen (especially those who live on or near the borders in the US SW) does have the right to defend there property and family against those illegals coming across. Robbings, beatings, and rapes of those who live in that area is common, but not often published. Many ranchers (on there own land) stay armed when out tending to there land or herds for this very reason. This law could applie to them.

2. Versus all the "damned fool' brutha's out there with guns????

3. Most (but certainly not all) of the private citizens I know who own firearms are as well, (if not often better) trained and knowledgable about their firearm and firearm safety then many police I have seen.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   
I never said an individual didn't have the right to protect their home and family... I was specifically talking about vigilante groups.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Vitchilo,
I agree with you on that point. The problem is the sheriffs are afraid of the meth cookers/dealers and it usually takes the DEA to get out here to make any type of bust. The marijuanna busts just make the sheriff's department look good. And usually it's a bunch of campers that run across the "Pot Farms" and report it to the Forest Service. And then again, sometimes they don't
, but that's another subject.......



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I never said an individual didn't have the right to protect their home and family... I was specifically talking about vigilante groups.

So, tell us what the difference is?



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 05:12 AM
link   
Wow, this is hot!


What it comes down to is not race or culture. It is about immigration by the numbers!

Yeah. Take that back to the Hive Borg!

And for those who would question my loyalties, just to get it over with, yes I vote Dem and yes I keep a firearm and I will use it even if I have to go to jail to protect my family. So come one, come all, I have lead enough!



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas
Wow, this is hot!


What it comes down to is not race or culture. It is about immigration by the numbers!

Yeah. Take that back to the Hive Borg!

And for those who would question my loyalties, just to get it over with, yes I vote Dem and yes I keep a firearm and I will use it even if I have to go to jail to protect my family. So come one, come all, I have lead enough!


The Hive has expressed a huge interest in this, and will take a closer look at it when it finds time. We're currently in the middle of some serious research, that while related, isn't tightly connected to this. Links can be made to what the Hive is working on, and will be, rest assured.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

TheBorg - Hive Leader



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by grover
I never said an individual didn't have the right to protect their home and family... I was specifically talking about vigilante groups.

So, tell us what the difference is?


Really now... an individual is an individual.... and a group is a group.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join