The Minuteman Project

Illegal immigrants like to cross the Mexico-U.S. border through the harsh Arizona deserts. Something like several hundred hopeful people enter the United States each month with the simple hope of finding work. In the last week or so, though, a group of local American residents have taken it upon themselves to stem the flow of these immigrants, much to the chagrin of those Mexicans and U.S. officials.

It's called the Minuteman Project, and its aim is to simply observe anyone trying to cross the border illegally. There have been strict orders not to apprehend any illegal aliens themselves, but to report the incidents they uncover to border control authorities. Likewise, the Mexican government has cobbled together a group of volunteers to discourage crossing into the U.S. because of these people. It hasn't deterred many, for the most part, as most Mexicans are willing to wait until the project ends next month before attempting to cross.

Some American officials call it "vigilante justice" and worry these Minutemen could bring about violence between their ranks and the Mexicans. The results, however, can't be argued as the number of crossings in their watch area have dropped from 400 to just a few dozen. A couple of illegal aliens were even found at a community college in a town near the border, and they were rounded up just the same.

Has anyone else heard about this? It's proven effective, at least in the short term, but chances are it won't change anything once the project ends.

I wish we could all just be one world, one human race, and live. :(

I live in Arizona and I do not like this idea. These minutemen bastards are jsut racists.

There are two types of racists in this world: Ones who know it, and ones who don't. I find that the vast majority of people are racist, but because society looks down on racism so much these people have it hidden and do not realize it is there. The way I see it, the people who are so angry about immigration just don't like Mexicans. That's all there is to it.

I disagree.

Illegal aliens should not be entering the country in the first place, and as such, I see no problem with having a watch with which they are reported.

If violence stems from these watches, then I believe the intervention needs to happen, but if the watches are proving to be as effective as they are now, I have no problem with them.

Immigration is fine, if it's done in a legal manner.

I can see where these "Minuteman" are coming from. They're just trying to stop an illegal activity that the government obviously isn't handling themselves.

But my sympathies will always lie with the illegal immigrants. These people are trying to find a better life for themselves. I can't fault them for that.

I have mexican family. Not many, but some. They're all legal. The illegal immigration is an insult to their hard work and patience. Of course, they have a few children who were born here. Those children are just as american as I am. Heck, most of my heritage is immigrant, too. I have some native blood, so that negates a portion. And, as far as I'm concerned, these "minutemen" are (thus far) doing the right thing.

I can kinda see how they could be considered racist. There's a border to the north where it would be very easy for someone to march right across the border. Yet every time people talk about illegal immigrants, it's Mexico, the Mexican Border. If I was going to try to smuggle something or someone dangerous in this country, I'd go though Canada, because nobody seems worried about the porousness of the Canadian Border. Nobody ever suggests that troops be put on the Canadian Border. If this were truely just about illegals, then why not put minutemen on *both* borders?

Things concerning illegal immigration go much much much deeper than what the Minuteman Project is trying to accomplish here. Preventative measures concerning illegal immigration (hmm, I don't know, perhaps a stable economy and not being raped by NAFTA) are avaliable, easily applicable, and totally overlooked.

In short, I am just short of being apathetic towards the Minuteman Project. I say just short because I am concerned by the fact that the efforts being put forth by these citizens would be much more valuable in other places, as far as the long run is concerned.

Black Mage, I completely agree with you.

Legal immigration is fine, I have absolutely no problem with it. Hell, I would encourage it. Illegal immigration is a problem, period, and needs to be dealt with. Very few people have a problem with legal immigrants, it's just that the multitude of illegal immigrants give the legit ones a bad name. It's not "racism" that makes people not like illegal immigrants, it's the fact that they're illegal immigrants. If America was surged with thousands of illegals from Canada, or let's say England, every year, then yes, most of us would have a problem with them too, and it's not because they're Canadians or English.

I salute what these people are doing. Whatever their hidden motives are--whether they're racist or not doesn't matter (even though it's ridiculous to label them like that)--what they're doing is a good thing, and they should keep it up. As Black Mage said, if they get violent, then something needs to change, but right now they're effective, and there's no point in doing anything to hinder them.

By the way, the reason we don't have "Minutemen" on the Canadian border is, for one thing, it's three thousand miles long, and for another, there aren't thousands upon thousands of illegal Canadian immigrants coming into America every year. There aren't drug rings that smuggle cocaine and marijuana through the Canadian border near as much as the Mexican border.

i think that the minuteman project is doing good work, especially when an illegal gets into one of those "shelter" states or whatever there called, like texas. did anyone hear about how there was an illegal immigrant murderer/rapist, and since he was an illegal in texas, the police couldnt do anything about it? and then after the police knew where he was but couldnt do anything, he went and raped and killed some guys daughter. (and now that guy is like doing something, i dunno, i didnt really follow that up very much.) i think that we at least need to get rid of that "shelter" state crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon

I can kinda see how they could be considered racist. There's a border to the north where it would be very easy for someone to march right across the border. Yet every time people talk about illegal immigrants, it's Mexico, the Mexican Border. If I was going to try to smuggle something or someone dangerous in this country, I'd go though Canada, because nobody seems worried about the porousness of the Canadian Border. Nobody ever suggests that troops be put on the Canadian Border. If this were truely just about illegals, then why not put minutemen on *both* borders?

---

I can give you a reason. They dont care if Canadians cross over to the america side because:

A: canadians for the most part dont want to even stay here.
B: They dont have to go through the bull that Mexicans, and Dominicans, and hatians, etc, have to go through to get a green card. Besides, most canadians if they want to stay go about it the right way anyway.

I dont see wahts the big deal with illegal immagrants anyway. i mean, this is supposed to be the land of opportunity. why not let them in.

I have heard of this story and one of my main concerns is that I don't see why they are carrying shotguns while doing this. Are they planning on shooting these people should they find them?

Part of the problem is that we like to think that we're the greatest country ever in the existence of history and yet, we don't seem to understand that if people from other countries share this view (Which I'm not sure they should), they'll want to get here any which way they can get.

There is no easy solution or answer to these troubles, but I don't think people watching the borders with shotguns helps matters very much.

Take care all.

They're not shooting these people, but who would you be more likely to listen to, a couple guys standing around watching you, or a couple guys standing around watching you with shotguns? They might give warning shots or something, but I highly doubt they're authorized to fire upon the border-runners. And if they did, I'm sure they would be dealt with appropriately. It's already been shown that there's a drop in it since these Minutemen got out there, so obviously it does help.

Again, very few people have problems with legal immigration. I would even encourage it--I'd love to hear a story about how somebody came over from some third-world country and made a better life in America. But legally.

I like this idea because Immagration, isnt doing their job by keeping the borders safe. or preventing those who illegitatmently try to gain access to this country from succeeding. Seriously letting them stay here is a slap in the face to all those who went through the proper channels and possibly waited years to get in.

That said... I can see how this could suffer abuse from those who volunteer to carry it out.

Now turn on ur recorders and take a screen shot ladies and gentlemen, because im going to do something i have never done before: I am calling out the Hispanic Leaders opposed to this idea and who say these people are racist, on playing the race card. Ive never done it before, but seriously cant these people be genuinely concerned about the safety of their borders, jobs, and overall country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon

I'd go though Canada, because nobody seems worried about the porousness of the Canadian Border. Nobody ever suggests that troops be put on the Canadian Border. If this were truely just about illegals, then why not put minutemen on *both* borders?

---

Well to be put bluntly, there arent millions of Canadian illegals pouring over to our country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Captain

Are they planning on shooting these people should they find them?

---

A genuwine concern i shared when i first heard that part. But it was explained to me like this, smugglers also cross the border, and they dont even care if the people they are moving live or die, and probably have weapons. So i think its more for self-preservation, than shooting border crossers. Plus i imagine if they did shoot somebody, there would be hell to pay, from both governments.

I support illegal immigration, because I don't think there should be such a thing, and therefore hate these guys.

Last time I looked this world was round people. It's the animal instinct in the human that makes him tribalistic & territorial. It's also the animal instinct that makes him racist or xenophobic, the sooner we evolve enough to realise we are all one created by God, whoever that God may be, the better. I realise how comfortable it is for people in first world countries to frown upon illegal immigrents who have, basically, nothing but the clothes on their back, seeking a better life in a place that, according to that counties constant advertisments, is richer, but I urge you to sit back & think, what would you do?
It was only a few hundred years ago that the American's European ancestors did exactly the same damn thing. It wasn't too long ago that the British created an empire spanning the globe, not by sneeking in a country through a back door, but by storming it & killing all who opposed. Same goes for every other country. If you are opposed to immigration in America, you may pack up your suitcase & sail to Europe. If you're opposed to Immigration in Britain, you may first apologise, individually, to every country you have raped & pillaged THEN sail for Germany or Denmark.
Fact is, they are no different than us & our ancestors, it's just different times, different means & different reasons.

Well then i guess lets just open our borders, and let everyone across who wants in, and to make it like it was 400 years ago lets not document anyone either. I mean Al-Qaida still wants to destroy the U.S., but... hey we want to be fair...

Now did that sound stupid to anyone else? Because it did to me. We cant let anyone and everyone come here. Thats why we have a screening process, thats why it takes time for people to enter legally. Yeh no borders would be great, its just not possible to do that and still be safe, and allowing this illegal immagration to happen, is a slap in the face to every1 who came here legally, including ur ancestors.

The times have changes and so has the country, now its ruled, now it has laws, and now its has enemies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CloudSquallandZidane

Now did that sound stupid to anyone else?

---

Nope.

Firstly, America isn't alone in blame, infact, it's a country I admire greatly, my wife is infact American. Secondly, terrorism isn't a border or immigration issue at all, they may overlap at parts but they are seperate arguments, we have terrorism here in Belfast, by our own citizens. Lastly, I believe it is foreign policies, territorialism & xenophobia that has LED to terrorist acts against countries & peoples. If first world countries spent less on defence & united you could wipe out world poverty three times over, do you realise how powerful that is?

Cap'n, to answer your question, I read that these people are under strict orders not to take matters into their own hands. Therefore, the shotguns are probably there as an intimidation factor.

"Fact is, they are no different than us & our ancestors, it's just different times, different means & different reasons."

So...they're not different from us, except for everything different? ... What? There's a difference between expansion and what's happening now. If they're seeking a better life, sure, great, we're all for it, just DO IT LEGALLY. As has been said, illegal immigration is an insult to those immigrants who came in legally and now are upstanding citizens.

"Secondly, terrorism isn't a border or immigration issue at all, they may overlap at parts but they are seperate arguments, we have terrorism here in Belfast, by our own citizens"

America isn't worried about its own citizens becoming terrorists. It has happened, somewhat, but the threat now is from outside the country. And those people would have to get in, through...where? Our borders! Amazing ain't it? They are seperate arguments, of course, as everything else, but they coincide.

Here's an idea. Why don't we just make one big global government? Topple every country's government, make a one-world currency, make common laws, codes, etc. for every part of the earth, and we'd all be one big happy family and live happily ever after? That way there'd be no need for immigration, no borders, nothing to seperate everybody. And hey, wouldn't you know it, there wouldn't be an America to protect from the millions of people willing to give their life to take the life of one or more of us. Good plan, huh? (I'm not going to ask if everybody else thinks that's stupid, because there are some people that just ain't at that level.)

By the way. I was born in America. Haven't tried to move out. Didn't have to move in. I didn't come here, kill everybody who stood in my way, and build a house. You know what? Neither did my parents. And, wouldn't you know it, their parents didn't do that either! You see a pattern here? Nobody's trying to conquer a new land, they're trying to enter a place that's already become prosperous through the hard work of its people.

And three hundred years ago, there was no such thing as "legal/illegal immigration".

I will say again. I support legal immigration. If you're using the argument that "oh, these people are just trying to make a better life for themselves", then why don't they do it legally?

Quote:

---

So...they're not different from us, except for everything different? ... What? There's a difference between expansion and what's happening now. If they're seeking a better life, sure, great, we're all for it, just DO IT LEGALLY. As has been said, illegal immigration is an insult to those immigrants who came in legally and now are upstanding citizens.

---

No, they are no different. From the Human origins of Africa, moving on to the Middle East then seperating to the Caucasus & Far East, we've been doing it since we could scratch our own arse. The actual differences were pointed out by myself, but actual immigration, we are the same. With regards to the legality of the immigration, while I very much douvbt there was international law on the matter, I very much doubt your Founders were worried about that as they landed on the East Coast. Most if your country's leaders are descendants of these very people & indeed, upstanding citizens like you say.

Quote:

---

America isn't worried about its own citizens becoming terrorists. It has happened, somewhat, but the threat now is from outside the country. And those people would have to get in, through...where? Our borders! Amazing ain't it? They are seperate arguments, of course, as everything else, but they coincide.

---

Eh, again you are mixing Terrorism & Immigration, the two overlap at times, true, but they are not the same thing. In anycase, I believe America's biggest problems stem from it's own citizens, not from outside elements. When the house of cards that is the US Economy crumbles, and it will, I think you will bear the fruits of your lax gun laws.

Quote:

---

Here's an idea. Why don't we just make one big global government? Topple every country's government, make a one-world currency, make common laws, codes, etc. for every part of the earth, and we'd all be one big happy family and live happily ever after? That way there'd be no need for immigration, no borders, nothing to seperate everybody. And hey, wouldn't you know it, there wouldn't be an America to protect from the millions of people willing to give their life to take the life of one or more of us. Good plan, huh? (I'm not going to ask if everybody else thinks that's stupid, because there are some people that just ain't at that level.)
.

---

Sounds good to me, as long as it is democratically run & every nation has a say, uniting wouldn't be a bad idea. The most intelligent yankie-doodle-dandy-less thing you've said so far. As for America 'protecting' the world, first of all we wouldn't need protecting from the world if you hadn't of armed it first. Secondly, if we did unite as a people there would be no one to 'protect' us from. In saying that, I do recognise the good America has done, and I am thankful, it has done a LOT of good around the world, it's finding the right balance that's the problem.

Quote:

---

By the way. I was born in America. Haven't tried to move out. Didn't have to move in. I didn't come here, kill everybody who stood in my way, and build a house. You know what? Neither did my parents. And, wouldn't you know it, their parents didn't do that either! You see a pattern here? Nobody's trying to conquer a new land, they're trying to enter a place that's already become prosperous through the hard work of its people.

---

GO YOU! I never once said you or your parents did, so all that's left to say is well done! Keep it up!

Quote:

---

And three hundred years ago, there was no such thing as "legal/illegal immigration".

---

300 hundred years ago we were burning witches at the stake & lynching anybody with a slightly different skin tone, are you trying to tell me that because there wasn't any law against it, then it's fine? The Nazi's woulda LOVED you. You don't need Governmental or International Law to tell you what's right & wrong.

Quote:

---

I will say again. I support legal immigration. If you're using the argument that "oh, these people are just trying to make a better life for themselves", then why don't they do it legally?

---

I bet there are thousands of Mexicans kicking themselves saying 'Why didn't i think of that'

Not much to say besides the part about shotguns...who wouldnt put things in their own hands and "accidentally" shoot them? -_- I do not think they should weild shotguns at the very least intimidation or not. Its just too risky a thing.

So our ancestors immigrated. Different reasons, different places, different means, different times...but they're just the same, right? So a soldier who fights in war is just the same as a gangster who mugs and kills some guy on the street, because they both shoot people, right?

Terrorism and Immigration overlap quite a bit, quite often. Without border control, the War on Terror abroad would serve no purpose, because it would be extremely easy for a terrorist to enter the United States and attack from inside. And even if there was no War on Terror, Customs, INS, and Border Patrol are the only things standing in the way of some haji smuggling a dirty bomb into the country. Border issues are more important than you make them out to be.

America has "lax gun laws" because we have something called the Second Amendment. That, by the way, states that citizens have "the right to bare arms"--meaning, the right to have guns--and the government isn't supposed to infringe on those rights, any more than they already have. That's the beauty of something America calls freedom. We don't have "lax" gun laws, we have lax enforcement--the people that have their guns legally don't commit crimes with those guns. Not to mention, the Second Amendment specifically states that gun rights are to ensure the existence of a militia, should a revolution be necessary. Our gun rights ensure our own protection and freedom...I don't know if freedom is important to you, but it is in America. But away from firearms issues, that's another topic entirely.

If you didn't notice, the "one world government" comment was entirely sarcastic. That's right, why don't we make a one-world government and destroy everybody's freedom, and put everybody in poverty, great idea huh? And you make it seem like if we "united", then nobody would ever want more money, power, etc. than they work for, and there would be nobody to have to be protected against. Right. You go ahead and keep thinking that.

You blame Americans and English for the "rape and pillage" of other regions (which of course is a crock), but my point was that many generations of my family were born in America, so I wasn't one of those eeeeeeevil settlers that "raped and pillaged" the country.

And 300 years ago there weren't many immigration laws because immigration wasn't an issue. Back then, it didn't matter where you came from, you could find a secluded piece of land somewhere and make a living. And who said that burning witches and lynching colored people was in any way acceptable? Nobody mentioned that, I was talking about immigration. Big difference. But, back then, that kind of thing was considered acceptable. Not saying it was right, but it was legally acceptable. Now, immigration--whether you think it's right or wrong--has laws placed on it, and there is legal and illegal immigration. What happened 300 years ago doesn't matter, because the world is very different now. (By the way, I didn't burn any witches or lynch any black people, either.)

Most illegal immigrants don't even try to apply for legal immigration until they're already in America.

Quote:

---

So our ancestors immigrated. Different reasons, different places, different means, different times...but they're just the same, right? So a soldier who fights in war is just the same as a gangster who mugs and kills some guy on the street, because they both shoot people, right?

---

They aren't even related topics, you're equating violent crime with immigration? Your anology off topic, I see what you were trying to say but that's like saying murder is ok because everyone dies anyway. Sometimes war is inevitable, WWII par example. This recent war was COMPLETELY avoidable on every front. As to 'is a soldier the same as a mugger' it would very much depend on the circumstances that led to his mobilisation, a soldier in the German Army invading Poland & a mugger COULD be equated. A soldier fighting to secure foreign oil....I'll leave that up to your better judgement. I believe both parties can be called victims of their government's policies. I wish for the safe return of every US & British servicman.

Quote:

---

Terrorism and Immigration overlap quite a bit, quite often. Without border control, the War on Terror abroad would serve no purpose, because it would be extremely easy for a terrorist to enter the United States and attack from inside. And even if there was no War on Terror, Customs, INS, and Border Patrol are the only things standing in the way of some haji smuggling a dirty bomb into the country. Border issues are more important than you make them out to be.

---

Terrorism overlaps with amost every aspect of life, why are you stopping at Immigration, clamp down Trade Unions, the right to free speech & create Marshal Law while you're at it. Terrorism is overlapping a hell of a lot more with US foreign policy than Immigration right now, that should be your main concern.

Quote:

---

America has "lax gun laws" because we have something called the Second Amendment. That, by the way, states that citizens have "the right to bare arms"--meaning, the right to have guns--and the government isn't supposed to infringe on those rights, any more than they already have. That's the beauty of something America calls freedom. We don't have "lax" gun laws, we have lax enforcement--the people that have their guns legally don't commit crimes with those guns. Not to mention, the Second Amendment specifically states that gun rights are to ensure the existence of a militia, should a revolution be necessary. Our gun rights ensure our own protection and freedom...I don't know if freedom is important to you, but it is in America. But away from firearms issues, that's another topic entirely.

---

Why on EARTH do middle americans & rednecks feel the need to clutch their 9mm in order to feel 'free'? That, to me, is the single most idiotic argument in the whole Gun Law discussion. I'm sorry, I just don't get it. I was still on the island when that boat left.

Quote:

---

You blame Americans and English for the "rape and pillage" of other regions (which of course is a crock), but my point was that many generations of my family were born in America, so I wasn't one of those eeeeeeevil settlers that "raped and pillaged" the country.

---

I never said they were, and it wasn't JUST Americans & English, I used those to nations as an example merely because they are the two main protagonists in this recent War. I apologise if it came across that I was stating your family were to blame, that was not my intention.

Quote:

---

And 300 years ago there weren't many immigration laws because immigration wasn't an issue. Back then, it didn't matter where you came from, you could find a secluded piece of land somewhere and make a living. And who said that burning witches and lynching colored people was in any way acceptable? Nobody mentioned that, I was talking about immigration. Big difference. But, back then, that kind of thing was considered acceptable. Not saying it was right, but it was legally acceptable. Now, immigration--whether you think it's right or wrong--has laws placed on it, and there is legal and illegal immigration. What happened 300 years ago doesn't matter, because the world is very different now. (By the way, I didn't burn any witches or lynch any black people, either.)

---

LOL firstly, 'colored' people? What are you? Semity Sam? Dear God. Secondly, I drew the comparison from your very own statement, if my statement was off topic, maybe you missed the anology.

Lastly I don't want this to go round in circles, as it seems to be doing, or lead to a slanging match. We both have very different views on life & we both have shared them. Lets leave it at that.

I wish you luck in whatever you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Here's an idea. Why don't we just make one big global government? Topple every country's government, make a one-world currency, make common laws, codes, etc. for every part of the earth, and we'd all be one big happy family and live happily ever after? That way there'd be no need for immigration, no borders, nothing to seperate everybody. And hey, wouldn't you know it, there wouldn't be an America to protect from the millions of people willing to give their life to take the life of one or more of us. Good plan, huh?

---

Precisely.

For one government, to be totalitarian, to RULE THEM ALL MUHAHAHA!!..>_>

I dont understand the "freedome" thing for guns, but to me, if everyone had a gun, people wont break into houses that much. Guns statistically saved more lives than it actually had used on a crime. I am glad to have a gun in my house so no home invasion will occur without that guy being disabled because i dont want to die and/or lose my things because of that.

Yeah, I think everyone who wants a gun should have one so they can all shoot each other dead. That would save alot of lives.

Which is why we dont use them but for defense. -_- Not everyone is going to use them responsibly. We could say your kitchen knife can be a weapon that is used to kill your next door neighbor. Right..

A gun can be used for many things, why else do you think some storekeepers keep guns in their stores? To shoot their customers? No, to protect themselves from those that do misuse them. Should no one kill another with a gun, then there would be no use for them.

I just think it's a tad hypocritical for people to oppose murder but then say "OMFG DON'T TAKE AWAY MY GUNZ!!!11"

I'm in complete support of people who want guns owning guns, and I'm in complete support of them shooting each other dead. That's not misuse...that's what guns are for, right?

Guns are whatever that you make of them. You can use it as an assitance in a robbery of a bank, or you can use it as a defensive piece of metal. The intent of the item used is what is being discussed, you dont have to shoot the person dead, at the very least stop him from casuing more harm.

Murder has premeditated malice in it, when you are defending yourself you dont think ahead. You dont know theres going to be someone breaking in your house else you already call the police. Its not hypocritical at all, its just looking out for yourself when someone that does threaten you, so you arent using sticks and stones against a gun.

In that same analogy, why have an army when we are for peace?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lionx

In that same analogy, why have an army when we are for peace?

---

We're for peace? Who is? When the hell did that happen? o__O

Dimmkah, lighten up on the sarcasm, please.

I just think it's ridiculous that people are breaking laws and becoming vigilantes when they could be organizing protests, letter writing, and campaigning to make changes in immigration policy, and make changes in the way America deals with Mexico politically and economically to raise the Mexican standard of living.

I see all this effort being put forth very selfishly. If effort were put forth for more selfless things, everyone would benefit. Mexico would have a stable economy and Mexican families who are currently starving to death would have food and shelter, and they would stay in Mexico.

A lot of people seem to be saying they want to move to America for personal reasons, but I don't think that's true. They want to move to America for survival reasons. Make it easier to survive as a poor Mexican family, stop the exploitation of the poor of an entire nation, and focus on how WE can make our economy better instead of letting our businesses go to Mexico and destroy a way of life.

Why not try to do something useful like that, instead of sitting on some imaginary line waving a weapon at people who just want a chance to live?

A gun is made & designed to kill and mame. There is no use arguing over 'other uses'. It's a murder weapon.
With the exception of the intelligent post above mine, this thread seems to have gone the way i predicted. Ah well...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cuchulainn

A gun is made & designed to kill and mame. There is no use arguing over 'other uses'. It's a murder weapon.
With the exception of the intelligent post above mine, this thread seems to have gone the way i predicted. Ah well...

---

There for a knives should be outlawed... rocks out lawed, bows outlawed, sticks outlawed.

NO ITEM IS WRONG... Items are not good or evil, it is the poeple behind them that are responsible.. it isn't gun laws that should be the issue, rather the people behind the acts. People kill, NOT guns. A gun is a tool.. and can be used for more then murder... it can be used to hunt, to protect, to kill, and many other things depending on the situation and the type of gun.

Banning something just cause it can kill would have us all tied up in straight-jackets... afterall we CAN kill people with our barehands, or feet.

Now as for One World, One Nation.. it is a nice dream.. but first our community must globalize more then it currently is, people must be better educated and more open minded, etc.. America itself is almost too large of a country for democracy to work. Actually, technically, America isn't a true democracy anyways.

The minute-man project is at least a good way for them to show the government that things will be taken care of, even if the government is too lazy to do it themselves... Actually now that I think about the American government is extremely inactive in enforcing what it should.

To allow all immigrants in without any screening, would collapse the American Economy... Helping people is good and all, but if you destroy yourself while trying to help them, you don't really help anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShunNakamura

There for a knives should be outlawed... rocks out lawed, bows outlawed, sticks outlawed.

---

You obviously didn't comprehend the last post...read it again...nice and slowly.

Knives are used to cut things, including food prepping.

Rocks are merely pieces of the earth.

Bows...go ahead and outlaw them.

Sticks are like rocks, and also hold things up, are used for building, walking, ect.

A gun is for one and only one thing: killing. If you aren't intending to kill anyone, why would you want it? "OMFG SLEFZ DIFENSES!111!~!ONE!"...yeah, so everyone wants a gun to "defend" themselves, which is why so many people have them...and how much "defending" do you hear of with guns as oppossed to flat out murder.To most of the people I talk to who support guns, they consider shooting someone for stumbling onto their lawn "defense".

But I've already said it, and I'll say it again: I support people who want guns having them, and I support them shooting each other dead. I'm not telling you not to have them.

You quote me but fail to read what you have quoted....

Unless it is a combat knife or a knife designed for that purpose, they ARE NOT designed for murder. Read what I say before you quote it & make yourself look ignorant. Guns are a weapon solely designed for killing & maming, unlike a rock, or a knife or indeed a candlestick-holder, which are designed for other reasons completely, if someone choses to use these as a weapon, he will do a hell of a lot less harm in a school than if he was armed with a rapid-fire semi. Living where I live I know first hand what it is to lose someone close at the hands of a gun, you can't tell me that gunman would have done the same damage with a rock, that's insane.
The death-toll of thousands, if not millions would have been seriously reduced if we were still throwing rocks & knifing eachother, evidence of this is told in history. A gun, an instrument of murder, and a makeshift instrument are not equivical in the slightest.

And as regards to the US Economy, I shouldn't worry, you don't need immagrents to help that collapse, all you need is another 25 years & your present foreign policy.

Lastly, you seem a very intelligent individual, tell me why it's only a dream? Because we're told so? Because we are still, as humans, in our infancy & rely on Governments to make our decisions? It really doesn't HAVE to be a dream, wiping out world poverty is completely do-able if we came together & worked on it. You're right though...it won't happen, not in this lifetime, we're still too busy pissin on tree-bark to realise it's possible yet.

How many good things do we hear in the news? Not as much as bad because its not worth talking about. -_-

Most people you talk to DMKA, but really you need to know some better people. I do use them for defense and if someone is breaking in the house, i dont want to be in the news for next person murdered. Why do we have a baton and learn it in martial arts? Why do we even have martial arts? To beat people up? No to defend.

Are batons or staffs in martial art schools considered just so they can beat people up? Yeah but are they there just for attacking others? No they can also be used to defend yourself. It might sound cruel but would that have happened to your loved one if they also had a gun to defend themself with? Seriously muder must have that intent, i do not have that intent and i have a gun to defend myself with. Am i a murder suspect now? Does that automatically make me going to walk up to a clerk and shoot him in the face? No..

If there werent guns...well that doesnt matter, the thing is we DO have them, its like Knights vs Riflemen. You either keep up or advance....or you fall behind and get pounded. WWII already should be enough for everyone to see this.

Anyway wth we went way off topic..-.-

I support em as long as they arent actually using those shotguns...

Now I will admit I did purposely twist your quote, but that is because not all guns are ment to kill. You have tranquilizer guns, you have BB guns(ok they kill small game... but they don't really hurt people much).

Guns in self defense don't have to kill, if I remember right a good shot from a gun to a mans shoulder can sometimes lay them out flat, and or cause enough damage to render their "gun" arm useless... of course I only have a few selelcted readings that allude to the fact that a gun can do that, and I do imagine it is the bigger guns.

Point is though, outlawing guns will only take guns away from law abiding citizens. The ones who break the law will still get them.. and then, well your sticks and stones won't help much against my gun... semi-auto or not. It *MAY* lower the violent crimes. But I imagine they would just find other ways to do thier crimes.

As I said it is the person behind the object, not the object itself, and while I am certian all you understand that... I just like to repeat it to line my thoughts up.

Guns have been invented, we can't deinvent them, even if all guns were destroyed the knowledge neccesary to make one is know easy to obtain.. and even a badly built gun can cause damage. It wouldn't do much good to take it away, and you would be depriving one form of self-defense, Heaven forbid that I ever have to actually use it.


As for the dream part.. I really meant it in a cynical sense... for some reason I don't see people, in general, coming to enough sense to allow such an action done... but I am VERY cynical on human intelligence, we aren't nearly as smart as we think.

It may be possible in many lifetimes for it too come, but for my lifetime, I am positive it is only a dream.. unless a miracle happens.. and even then it doesn't have the largest chance of surviving.

Now... US foreign policy at this time, is utterly awful. A quote just from tonight from me is "Our president is a dickhead"... it caused alot of laughing, not cause I insulted the president... no one in my area truely likes Bush, they think of him as a lesser evil... but because I don't use that language. This is just so you all know I REALLY dislike Bush... he is an idiot when it comes to dealing with other countries, Clinton was much better in that aspect.. and I didn't even like Clinton's policies all that much.

Yes US foreign policy needs changed, we need to get better, renewable fuel sorces, and much, much more. This in my area is becoming more and more widely known.. we are starting to look more for those qualities then others in our canidates. Of course my area is very small, I just hope others are learning.

Poverty is also hard to get rid off... in a capitalistic society it is very difficult to get rid of, If the rich would give up more money to the impovershered we coudl get rid of it, but they like thier money. Even Filanthropists hang onto much of thier money.(BTW i know they help, but they coudl do more.)... so this is another thing I don't think will happen in my lifetime.

I appoligize for bad wording.. .most of my long term comments were meant to be "in my lifetime" comments. That was my bad. And I do apologize for twisting you quote so.. but many people against guns think it would stop all violent crime.... but you can commit violent crime with anything even if it is slightly less effecient. So I hold to the believe that while it may stop some violent crime, it will only hurt overall, since criminals will have guns and the common people won't. Perhaps they should research better tranqs.. and then have tranqs allowed but bullet guns disallowed. That would still allow some ability to defend onself.

(EDIT: Hahahaha. Remember, we're not calling people names in this thread. Don't want the forum gestapo to be upset, now do we? Hold your tongue! -Adam )

These people aren't breaking laws, and these people aren't becoming vigilantes. It's already been stated that they don't apprehend the illegals themselves. And if there was an incident, they'd catch hell from many different organizations, and both governments.

As for the one-world government, it's a pipe dream. If all people were saints and angels, then it would work perfectly. Even if everybody was happy being at just the same level as everybody else, it'd work fine. If everybody was comfortable with socialism, then it'd be alright. But, if some people wanted to actually be different, maybe make a little more money, have a little nicer house, be in a career field that they actually CHOSE to go into...(I think some people here would say that's "greedy" or "selfish"...some people would refer to it as "liberty")...then, there'd be problems. Then you have people that really are greedy, really are selfish, and there would be quite a few opportunities for those people to rise to power, with no militaries protecting anything.

This thread is going off topic quickly. If you want to talk about gun control, make a different thread for it. And again, please be respectful towards one another in your posts, even if you disagree.

First of all....

Quote:

---

Why on EARTH do middle americans & rednecks feel the need to clutch their 9mm in order to feel 'free'?

---

Maybe it's that whole "ability to defend ourselves" thing. Not all of us can afford body guards, after all, and if you think your government can defend you, then a) you need to stay away from the crack-mart, because they're obviously incapable of it, b) the vast majority of people murdered in the 20th century were killed by their own government, and c) (correlating with B), what do you do when it's the government coming to harm you? (Never happens? Tell that to Randy Weaver.) Or when the government simply doesn't care? (which is why in the early days of the 20th century some of the NRA's first chapters were among black folks; the government didn't care one way or the other if they were getting lynched, so they needed the means to protect themselves.) Besides that, we don't like 9-mms--they're city-guns. Gimme a .44 or a shotgun any day.

And on to the topic:

I know several immigrants. One of them I worked with had to spend a year seperated from her family before they could get the legalities taken care of so they could move here legally. It's not unusual to suffer such hardship, and not unusual to consider it worth the effort to become a part of the greatest nation in the world.

Every single illegal immigrant is a slap in the face to this woman, and to every person born in a different country who went through the time, the trouble, and sometimes the emotional pain to become an American citizen.

Just why are we supposed to respect someone whose very first act on American soil was to break the law?

Moreover, Sasquatch is entirely correct. While there are indeed terrorists who were born and raised right here in the USA, the vast majority (including all of the Sept. 11 hijackers) come in from somewhere else. To say that policing our borders is not a necessary part of protecting us from terrorists simply flies in the face of reality.

The Minuteman project is an excellent idea. I hope the ACLU doesn't manage to intimidate them from their cause (they're already filing lawsuits), and that it not only continues but spreads to other states. I also hope that we start cutting aid to Mexico until they stop encouraging and aiding their citizens to come and commit crimes in America.

Don't flame. -- foa

:D Could you at least have let me see what he said first?

Quote:

---

stop encouraging and aiding their citizens to come and commit crimes in America.

---

You will most likely find that the amount of crimes commited by illegal immigrants is proportional to the amount of crimes commited by Americans. (Aside from the one crime they commit by default - immigrating illegally. [Which, by the way, harms no one])

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

:D Could you at least have let me see what he said first?

---

I said that certain people are silly for certain reasons. :D

People, People... U've got to understand that this is also an issue of National Security, now ive been one of the most outspoken people against the war in Iraq and on the poor handling in the war on terrorism, but that doesnt change the fact that there are people out there who want to get into the United States and kill U.S. citizens. And what better way than the Mexican border where thousands successfully cross every day.

EVERYONE who enters this country must be throughly backround checked, and documented. We have many enemies. And someone from outside the country running around serially killing people, or stealing poses a serious problem for law enforcement.

Yeh when the pilgrims came they didnt have to do all that, but times have changed. Its a new game now, and if we want to make it to the next level with the maximum amount of lives, we have to take steps to ensure we arent going to be hit.

While i understand that there might be harmful people going through the borders, i would expect that Mexico being not as economically stable and good as the USA, most people would want to come over and start new lives for their children like most immigrants. I dont know why they dont do it legally though.

I would also expect that most "Terrorists" to not aim for civilians, since that is just stupid. I would expect them targeting government buildings and the sort since many of them do not agree with the way America is doing things(which may or may not affect them). And frankly, sometimes i feel America asks for enemies.

I went through the airport security thing when i went to Hawaii for my Senior trip and it was pretty tight i say security and all. But i feel that documentation and etc will just be an excuse for them to raise our taxes for protection fees. Which of course i bet isnt all used for that purpose. Plus there are tons of people that serially kill people and run around free domestically i dont feel its fair to just target and point at the illegal immigrants only.

I agree however that government officials should do their jobs and guard the border if they dont want illegal immigrants and if they are able to do that, this wouldnt even be a problem. I feel they arent doing their jobs and this is just a result...and if they are doing it maybe not well enough. It should have never IMO come to normal people dealing with this.

There are several replies, to Th Redneck especially, which I'm itching to post but are off topic & am forcing myself not to. I'm not ignoring or dodging this thread or your statements, please don't think I am. I just think it has strayed from the topic somewhat & we are hijacking the post. Acknowledging that you are hijacking it but still hijacking it is just as bad. As for the topic, I've said my piece, anymore would be repeating myself & preaching to the deaf.
Nevertheless it is a very big world and everyone has varied opinions, it's what I love (and sometimes loath) about the human race, and as long as your opinion does not infringe on another's freedom, safety or feelings & you can back it up with thought and consideration I hold it in the greatest respect, even if it opposes mine.

Quote:

---

I would also expect that most "Terrorists" to not aim for civilians, since that is just stupid. I would expect them targeting government buildings

---

By definition, if they were t do that, they would not be terrorists. In order to be a terrorist you must attack civilians or civilian infrastructure. The attacks on the World Trade Center were terrorist attacks, the attacks on the pentagon, technically were not terrorist attacks.

adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

Nothing about civilians specifically..=/ I still dont see why you want to attack pointless civilian homes. If you really are anti-american, you aim for something bigger, not my neighbor's house.

That truly is odd lionx. It wasn't even a year ago when the dictionary said that terrorism was only used on civilians. Now the dictionary says something completely different.

Actually, that definition of "terrorism" is correct, but you've got to use logic as well. What had more of an impact on America, the destruction of the World Trade Center towers or the attack on the Pentagon? (By the way, since they hijacked a plane full of innocent American civilians, yes, that was still terrorism.) Of course the WTC towers had more of an affect on the everyday American, not only because more people died, but because it was an attack on civilians, whereas the Pentagon at least runs some military operations. Soldiers in Iraq die all the time, but the only thing that makes the news is when a civilian contractor gets killed--why is that? It's because soldiers are military, and they volunteer for that job knowing that they are targets to any and all of our enemies.

If a country is your enemy, you attack their military, period. You don't attack their civilians, you attack their military--sometimes civilians are in the wrong place at the wrong time, that's war. In the War on Terror, the United States has not intentionally target a civilian area or building. Everything the U.S. has attacked has been a military/insurgent target. That's because we're a civilized military. Throughout history, most military leaders (I say "most", mind you) try to stay AWAY from civilians because, obviously, engaging civilians would serve no purpose but breed hate and harm the reputation. Four of the U.S. Army's seven "Army Values" are Loyalty, Respect, Honor, and Integrity--attacking the civilian populace would violate all of these values.

Simply put, civilians are more comfortable with soldiers dying than they are with other civilians dying. The best way to get the attention of the civilian populace is to, obviously, attack the civilian populace. As for terrorism being used to influence governments, we already saw it when the people of Spain got scared and tossed their election shortly after the Madrid train bombings of 11 March.

Attacking military targets is at least understandable. Attacking civilian targets is inexcusable.

Quote:

---

Soldiers in Iraq die all the time, but the only thing that makes the news is when a civilian contractor gets killed--why is that?

---

That is untrue. My local news station reports, albeit briefly, on every soldier that dies in Iraq. They don't go into great detail about every soldier, but that would be nearly impossible. The amount of dead soldiers to dead contractors is far greater. (And for obvious reasons)

Quote:

---

Attacking military targets is at least understandable. Attacking civilian targets is inexcusable.

---

Agreed.

I highly doubt American troops did not kill civilians. Wasnt there like over 100,000 civilians in Iraq that died like from somd kind of news i heard a year-ish ago? Forget, but i highly doubt American troops wont kill Iraq civilians (and may or may not give "oops" as an excuse ._.)

But yes if the definition has changed from a year ago then it is odd...i dont see why there should be a change.

Quote:

---

I highly doubt American troops did not kill civilians. Wasnt there like over 100,000 civilians in Iraq that died like from somd kind of news i heard a year-ish ago? Forget, but i highly doubt American troops wont kill Iraq civilians (and may or may not give "oops" as an excuse ._.)

---

He means that we do not directly target them for the hell of it. (And for good reason. Thats the quickest way to lose a war.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lionx

I highly doubt American troops did not kill civilians. Wasnt there like over 100,000 civilians in Iraq that died like from somd kind of news i heard a year-ish ago? Forget, but i highly doubt American troops wont kill Iraq civilians (and may or may not give "oops" as an excuse ._.)

---

Well, depending on who you ask, I'm sure some people will tell you that those eeevil Americans and their cohorts slaughtered millions of innocent civilians. As far as I know, the number of civilian deaths in Iraq from Coalition activity is FAR below 100,000. In the beginning of the war, some people (mainly liberals who were against the war, mind you) "predicted" tens of thousands of American troops dead, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead. You may be thinking of that. As for Iraqi civilians, though, I would doubt anything beyond, say, 20,000.

American troops do not target civilians. Just as nik0tine said. (Wait a minute. We agree AGAIN?!? Damn. ;) ) If civilians get in the way, or happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, every possible countermeasure is used to ensure their safety--but, again, it's war, and bad things do happen, obviously. If a civilian picks up a rifle and starts shooting at Coalition Forces, he is no longer a civilian, and we are fully allowed to shoot him.

Quote:

---

Well, depending on who you ask, I'm sure some people will tell you that those eeevil Americans and their cohorts slaughtered millions of innocent civilians. As far as I know, the number of civilian deaths in Iraq from Coalition activity is FAR below 100,000. In the beginning of the war, some people (mainly liberals who were against the war, mind you) "predicted" tens of thousands of American troops dead, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead. You may be thinking of that. As for Iraqi civilians, though, I would doubt anything beyond, say, 20,000.

---

Many believe that up to 100,000 civilians have been killed due to the war. (As far as I know, that doesn't only mean bombs, but the after effects as well. [What those after effects would be I don't know]

As far as I know, the amount that has actually been "counted" physically is somewhere between 17 and 19 thousand. However, this ONLY includes being killed by coalition forces themselves. Bombs, bullets, shrapnel, etc. However, anything other than this is not counted. I guess, for instance, if a bomb shut off the water supply to a town, and people died from dehydration, they would not be included in the body count.

Ahhh i see UP TO...@_@ It makes sense now. I agree that many do not purposefully aim at civilians..at least i certainetly hope not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

Many believe that up to 100,000 civilians have been killed due to the war. (As far as I know, that doesn't only mean bombs, but the after effects as well. [What those after effects would be I don't know]

---

That's why we don't target infrastructure like water lines unless it's against a strictly enemy target, not going to a civilian neighborhood. And "up to" 100,000 have been killed due to the war, including "after effects"? More people have water, electricity, phones, and sewers than have for the past thirty years, how could that be the cause of more deaths of the Iraqi civilians?