Posted on 01/14/2003 8:01:56 AM PST by JackelopeBreeder
They are not being responsive to the voting public - a majority favors at least some effort to bring illegal immigration under control. And for all your blathering to the contrary, it was duly elected representatives who drafted the current laws that are not being enforced. But both the Dems and the GOP like illegal aliens - the Dems see them as future voters, and many business supporters of the GOP (and to a lesser extent, the Dems) see illegal labor as a cheap labor pool. So the laws are subverted to seek political gain, against the existing laws and the will of a majority of American voters.
You still have yet to demonstrate how the border groups are a violation of due process, as they almost exclusively simply report crossings of illegal aliens across private property to the Border Patrol, something little different than your average Neighborhood Watch. And you have a lot of gall even mentioning the 2nd Amendment, as you have tried to slime their legal carrying of firearms. I've seem some disgusting displays of hypocrisy on FR, but yours definitely makes my top 10 list for such.
2. I thought you said that they were merely reporting burglaries in progress not mere trespasses on private property. Was that what those four guys were doing who got arrested by the actual government in the previous post by FITZ?
3. I am very favorable to the strict right of every American under the 2nd Amendment to keep and bear arms, including firearms. I do not favor the use of firearms in the commission of crimes by anyone whether they are drug dealers, bank robbers or violators of the racketeeering statutes or civil rights statutes of the post-Civil War era known as the Ku Klux Klan Acts. OTOH, in what specific post did I say that any of them ought not have the RTKBA?
4. Disgust is in the eye of the beholder. Apparently it disgusts you that people disagree with you. Too bad.
So, in other words, once again you have no intention of supporting your contentions here. Your righteous indignation routine is getting rather stale, you really need to come up with some fresh, er, material. Check your local cow pasture, in this cold you can readily spot the fresh ones.
2. I thought you said that they were merely reporting burglaries in progress not mere trespasses on private property.
Once again, you demonstrate that your reading comprehension is even worse than your logic, if such a thing is possible.
Was that what those four guys were doing who got arrested by the actual government in the previous post by FITZ?
For some reason, you think we won't bother following a link. Here's the opening paragraph of that article:
LAS CRUCES -- Two New Mexico State University students and two El Paso men already facing charges for impersonating law enforcement officers were indicted by a grand jury Thursday on additional charges.
So please explain to me how the four men in question have ANYTHING in common with the border groups. But I doubt you will, because you have displayed a noticeable tendency to raise an issue and then indignantly whine when we ask you to explain the relevance of said issue.
3. I am very favorable to the strict right of every American under the 2nd Amendment to keep and bear arms, including firearms. I do not favor the use of firearms in the commission of crimes by anyone whether they are drug dealers, bank robbers or violators of the racketeeering statutes or civil rights statutes of the post-Civil War era known as the Ku Klux Klan Acts. OTOH, in what specific post did I say that any of them ought not have the RTKBA?
By implying that the border groups, because they are carrying arms for self-protection, are somehow therefore engaging in wrongdoing. You're more than willing to trash the legal right to carry arms when it suits your purpose, which means your support of the 2nd A is paper-thin.
4. Disgust is in the eye of the beholder. Apparently it disgusts you that people disagree with you. Too bad.
I have no problem with disagreement. I initially disagreed with many of the posters on this thread with whom I am now in agreement. Honest debates over disagreement are the best part of this forum. What truly disgusts me is a lying, sniveling weasel who uses just about all of the standard liberal propaganda techniques to slime those HE disagrees with. Look in the mirror, jack, to see the focus of my scorn.
Nah, they just find it easier to give lip service to the Constitution and the law, and then simply not act on either once the election is over. I find it truly ironic that you lambaste Roe v. Wade, the ultimate expression of disregard of the Constitution, but have no problem with the government abdicating its clear Constitutional responsibilities to regulate the borders and immigration. The laws for such are in place, are within the proper realm of powers granted to the federal government, but they are ignored while the government instead regulates the amount of water your toilet flushes. But to you, I'm the whackjob. However, coming from a lyin' propagandist weasel like you, I'll take that as an indication that I'm on the right track.
You are just too funny. You've managed to enter the realm of self-parody with your non-response responses.
So you demand that others back up their claims, but you refuse to back up your own? Hilarious.
Oh imperious blowhard, we must obey your every edict. The FR guidelines say nothing about responding to replies to others on a thread, but YOU set the rules here, not JimRob.
You have had plenty of answers but enjoy pretending otherwise.
The only person you've managed to fool on this thread is yourself.
Preamble:
We the people of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general walfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
That declaration seals the United States as a sovereign country with sovereign borders, and a sovereign populace. Justice is not established when the working citizen is made a slave of the welfare state, and a slave to the well being of illegal invaders. The people is clearly defined as being legal citizens, or invited guests of the United States, not "people" outside of our borders. And the blessings of liberty are at risk when people of different cultures with marxist backgrounds invade unhindered.
Article 1
Section 8
Number 15:To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
Websters Dictionary definition of invasion: to enter forcibly, as to conquer. 2. to crowd into, throng. 3. to intrude upon; violate. 4. To spread through with harmful effects.
Invaders are not covered under "people" or "person" under the Constitution. Only the most insane, activist, liberal, socialist, justice, and those with criminal intent against the tranquilty of the citizens of the United States would interpret it differently. That, my dear, is how a conservative interprets the Constitution. And it is my hope that soon we will have an activist conservative Supreme Court. tadaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.