Posted on 08/07/2003 8:27:02 PM PDT by AZ GRAMMY
The Second Amendment of the Constitution, in all but its most basic form of interpretation (that being that the citizens should be armed as a defense against tyranny from their own government) is also moot.
Which shifts the issue to what, duck hunting?
Aside from that, one of the Constitutionally MANDATED functions of the Federal Government is to provide for the common defense. Invasion need not be conducted with a military force, merely saturating the infrastructure with non-citizens will suffice.
There are methods by which those who wish to enter The United States of America can do so, legally. If these people wish to come here and be Americans, speak the language of our culture (English, more or less), and become American citizens, fine. But many of these people do not wish to 'join up', just milk the great tit. I have no sympathy for this. Send 'em home.
That said, for years, the INS whined about insufficient manpower, etc. Now people are voluntarily apprehending (without bloodshed) the invaders, and the response is to arrest the volunteers. Just another reminder of the vast number of entrenched Clintonite 'true believers' lurking in the halls of bureaucracy.
Whaddya want to bet someone in the local sherrif's department is fattening their retirement fund by looking the other way? After all, these meddling civillians could be bad for bidness.
Oh relax, don't let it bother you too much that I don't ping all my buddies to fight my battles for me.
Nor did I...your "point" is meaningless.
236 posted on 08/07/2003 11:29 PM PDT by PRND21
I didn't say you did, and I didn't expect you to comprehend this issue any more than you have the others we've been discussing.
No problem. There are others who can read here.
Wrong, as usual. Handcuffs are not a deadly weapon. Two suspects were charged with six counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and five of unlawful imprisonment. The third man was with the two suspects but won't be charged because he was not armed and did not take part in the handcuffing of the illegal immigrants.
Those who detained them should be paid a bounty. IOW the FedGuv should acknowledge it can't do a complete job on the border and hire citizens who are willing to help. A partial privatization of our Border Patrol. Deputization just like in the Western movies when citizens are needed for the posse. Since times are tight some would welcome the extra income.
And they are telling you you're wrong, too. Look.
Surely you can do better than that.
Putting the handcuffs on has been charged as an assault. The fact that guns were present brings the additional charge of aggravated.
Wrong, as usual. Handcuffs are not a deadly weapon. Two suspects were charged with six counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and five of unlawful
imprisonment. The third man was with the two suspects but won't be charged because he was not armed and did not take part in the handcuffing of the illegal
immigrants.
243 posted on 08/07/2003 11:50 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
LMAO, assault with a deadly weapon? Yes, you are correct. I had thought the charge was aggrivated assault. So anotherwords what the DA is saying is that these men should have been unarmed so that if they came into contact with drug runners they could have been shot and left for dead. What a great idea. Well at least they would be dead right. Sorry, I don't buy into that nonsense. I believe I've read a number of articles discussing drug running in that area.
The mere carrying of a gun does not constitute assault with a deadly weapon by my standard. What the hell is the second ammendment for. Although the reporter states the men pointed the guns at the illegals, we don't know that for a fact. Oh let me guess, the illegal alien's word was more trustworthy than US citizen's word.
These guys are being jobed.
Trumped up charges designed to run off other citizen protectors of our border. The FedGuv has shown itself incapable of enforcing our borders. In a jealous rage it comes down on those who demonstrate Federal incompetence. Many in the Border Patrol want to do a better job but are held back by their superiors on orders from Washington
LOL! Thanks for the chuckle, Chuckie.
What flights of fancy. You have no knowledge of guns being shoved in anyone's face.
But I do know the Border Patrol is well armed because they have been assaulted and killed by illegal alien Mexicans. Illegal aliens are not the peaceniks you make them out to be. Many properties are ransacked by them, rancher's cattle killed, cooked in the field and eaten. Mountains of trash are left by border jumpers making one National Park into a dump
Needless to say you are wrong again. The men were not charged with having holstered pistols, but assaulting these women and children by pointing their weapons at them. Such big, brave men they were, too, to shove guns into the faces of unarmed women and children. If they had smaller handcuffs I don't doubt there would have been 6 charges of false imprisonment instead of 5.
254 posted on 08/08/2003 12:12 AM PDT by Cultural Jihad
They are charged with pointing their guns at them. What that is based on neither you or I know. As for shoving guns into the faces of unarmed women and children, that continual charge on your part is groundless.
I assume this is so that they may be given a limousine ride to their ultimate destination to deliver drugs, pick tomatoes, or whatever.
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.