Our friendly Government is armed to the teeth ...

[Vern Humphrey]

[QUOTE=p246;547630]

On the other hand, killing people like they did at Waco and Ruby Ridge DOES work?

I submit to you that when you factor in the value of human lives, it would be FAR cheaper to disarm about 90% of federal cops and let locals do the job.[/QUOTE

Oh, sorry I didn’t know the IRS were lead at WACO and Ruby Ridge.

Federal agents were the ones who did the killing.

[Allen]

Federal agents were the ones who did the killing.

Typical such actions are why our founding fathers saw fit we needed the 2nd amendment.

[clintonhater]

[QUOTE=Allen;547642]

Typical such actions are why our founding fathers saw fit we needed the 2nd amendment.

Unfortunately, they failed to make it quite clear that citizens should be able to posses the same weapons--tanks, machine guns, etc.--now used by our gov't to enforce its edicts. Not talking only about fed gov't, though it is the most dangerous; most city police depts. have now been provided with battlefield eqpt. at little or no cost by the feds.

Don't drag out the red herring of a need for combat weapons to fight "terrorists." Terrorist attacks in this country have been carried about by no more than one or two individuals, & all the firepower in fed arsenal didn't prevent them. Citizens have far more to fear from their own gov't than from foreign terrorists.

[dogtag]

Some years back there was a big give away of military equipment
to any police dept that requested it. One precinct from a small town
with just a handful of cops had an armoured vehicle and a helicopter
although no one could fly it. When asked by a reporter why ? he
said because it was free.

[togor]

Citizens have far more to fear from their own gov't than from foreign terrorists.

For some citizens, and some agencies, that is true. Most of us for example live within the CBP's declared 100 mile enforcement zone, where respecting Constitutional rights is considered optional and subject to the needs of the individual operation. And there are the anti-social types, forever simmering with resentment, who regard any sort of organized force as a potential threat to their sense of personal liberty. All that said, most people still buy into Lincoln's lofty ideas about government as stated in the Gettysburg Address.

[clintonhater]

All that said, most people still buy into Lincoln's lofty ideas about government as stated in the Gettysburg Address.

"Most people" are mindless fools, as proven beyond question by 8 yrs of Obama. And as Hillary's ass-kissers never tire of pointing out, she DID win the popular vote. If all that evidence isn't convincing, there the incredible fact that a titanic argument is now going on over controlling the invasion of foreigners; how can control of such an invasion even be controversial, except among a population of mindless, self-absorbed, fools?

[S.A. Boggs]

For some citizens, and some agencies, that is true. Most of us for example live within the CBP's declared 100 mile enforcement zone, where respecting Constitutional rights is considered optional and subject to the needs of the individual operation. And there are the anti-social types, forever simmering with resentment, who regard any sort of organized force as a potential threat to their sense of personal liberty. All that said, most people still buy into Lincoln's lofty ideas about government as stated in the Gettysburg Address.

CBP didn't declare the zone, it is law as written and passed by the legislative branch. Coming from a Nazi mentality how can you speak of personal liberty? As for President Lincoln he locked up those who opposed maintaining the Republic, how do you think you would have fared under his administration of the Civil War?
Sam

[togor]

Boggs show me the statute that says "100 miles" if you can, or admit your error. What I found says this:

The regulations establishing the 100-mile border zone were adopted by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1953—without any public comments or debate. At the time, there were fewer than 1,100 Border Patrol agents nationwide; today, there are over 21,000.

Gun owners understand the difference between regulations and statutes.

[togor]

"Most people" are mindless fools, as proven beyond question by 8 yrs of Obama. And as Hillary's ass-kissers never tire of pointing out, she DID win the popular vote. If all that evidence isn't convincing, there the incredible fact that a titanic argument is now going on over controlling the invasion of foreigners; how can control of such an invasion even be controversial, except among a population of mindless, self-absorbed, fools?

Even the most liberal people I talk to here in the Midwest think that unrestricted economic migration is a non-starter. You're rational enough to admit that Trump has not exactly been a steady negotiating partner. If you remember last March there was a wall-for-DACA deal in the works, but Trump shot that down out of fear of taunts for giving "amnesty!" Deals are something that sometimes require giving up something of value to get something of value. Your complaint is what...that people who disagree with Trump's half-baked policy are insisting on getting something in return?

[clintonhater]

Your complaint is what...that people who disagree with Trump's half-baked policy are insisting on getting something in return?

Trump should have to "give up something" for enforcing existing laws? For protecting our national sovereignty? If you don't have a border, you don't have a country.

[togor]

Trump should have to "give up something" for enforcing existing laws? For protecting our national sovereignty? If you don't have a border, you don't have a country.

C'mon, you know the score, that business loves the illegals as a source of labor. Trump's own industry, hospitality, depends on them. So if you're going to talk about solutions, first talk about the right problems. A giant-ass wall won't deter people if once they get past it they're home-free. If your attitude is that you want the wall but won't trade anything for it, like DACA, then someone who values DACA will conclude that you fear an amnesty more than you fear not having a wall. Endlessly bitching about opposing political views, though a source of entertainment for many, doesn't really get anything done. Neither does hopelessly distorting them--another favorite activity around here.