Armed Civilians Posture for Possible Border Clash

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

You that assure us that our sovereign nation is no longer possible, so we should be willing to throw in the towel - please step right up and admit you hate the U.S. and think all other countries superior - put down the weed and try being strong instead of hipster weakling-like msm lackies..

 

[Kar98]

As stated, it's a media circus. They aren't going to sneak across anywhere. They're paid to be in front of the cameras.

They'll stick to the highways.

That's the thing. It IS a media circus, to be played out in front of cameras. The same circus Europe had in 2015 when suddenly an onslaught of "migrants" from Africa went on the march, and it HAD to be Germany because that's the country with the most generous welfare system, and the German government did nothing to stop them because it would have looked bad on TV. Lots of idiots cheering, yaaaaaay, refugees welcome, hooray! and for their efforts, they're getting gang-raped, murdered, and bled dry and anybody who speaks up against that is being called a nazi.
And if these caravans from the South aren't being prevented from entering/remaining, more will be encouraged to come and we'll wish it was only 20,000 a week like in the good ole days, and that's nothing anybody sane can want.

 

[craigntx]

I’m with Rob.
Armed people running around is a recipe for legal nightmares.
God help you if some loon shoots some “innocent migrant” on your property.
It is going to be a cluster any way you slice it.

They got backhoes

 

[roadkill]

I wonder if disparity of force would apply as an affirmative defense......

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

I believe it could. What about criminal mischief at night? And which prepaid legal to utilize?

 

[HKShooter65]

Good grief.

We should open our gates and detain every one.
Then:

Keep the true verifiable asylum seekers.
Keep some temporarily as employed tax-paying workers and send them back when their time is up. We need the workforce and taxes.
Allow an appropriate number to take a path to citizenship which is how most of our ancestors got here.
Send most back immediately.

This is consistent with the design, the laws and the morals of our immigrant nation.

Compared to an average month's crossings there are not that many of them to begin with.
Calling it an invasion is fool-baiting hyperbole.

So, where is the debate?
What is the question?

 

[BRD@66]

Ha! I get it! The title of this thread is with reference to us -TGT!

 

[avvidclif]

How about a little completely legal target practice on your property. Put up targets randomly and randomly shoot at them, not the marchers. Gunfire has an effect, even when not aimed at you.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

So, I'm shooting at targets on my property, and somebody trespassing walked into my line of fire....

 

[V-Tach]

Yes, 20-30 million total illegals in our Country is not an invasion.......

(sarcasm)

 

[easy rider]

I like this question.
The short answer is you do not have that right to shoot at them simply for walking across your property.....(currently).

I say this because two things come to mind:
- First, the use of Lethal Force or deadly force: "In most jurisdictions in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, the use of deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity as a last resort, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed." That means, that unless you or another person's life or well being is in imminent danger, you better not pull that trigger if you don't want to be prosecuted in a court of law. That is how it is right now, and hopefully it stays that way.

However...

- Second, many US citizens feel this is an invasion, and the act of a foreign mob forcefully pushing through the border could be interpreted as an act of war as this will cause instability at the border and a burden to our local economy. That is why some militia is heading down there. Although not formally stated, if the State of Texas or the USA formally declares that we are under attack I can assure all of you that all bets are off and the first topic may no longer apply.

I sincerely hope the latter does not happen.
These people coming up from the south are unarmed, and it will be an ugly situation any way you cut it if it does fall apart.

I'm not sure of the validity of it, but I thought I heard that some of them had shot at Mexican police.

 

[Army 1911]

Tear gas and lots of it. Pray for wind from the north.

 

[avvidclif]

So, I'm shooting at targets on my property, and somebody trespassing walked into my line of fire....

I have a feeling if you were target practicing they would find another piece of land to be on.

 

[Frank59]

They got backhoes

So does your avatar sir!!

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I have a feeling if you were target practicing they would find another piece of land to be on.

That would be acceptable as well...

 

[Younggun]

Good grief.

We should open our gates and detain every one.

Why should we open our gates?

Then:

Keep the true verifiable asylum seekers.

They can apply for asylum from Mexico. No need to do so from inside the country.

Keep some temporarily as employed tax-paying workers and send them back when their time is up.

Do you know the one of the most common forms of illegal immigration involves overstaying work visas. Aside from that how will we “keep them employed? Government program? That costs money and the cost will be he far greater than any tax revenue generated. That’s a net loss.

We need the workforce and taxes.

We have a workforce. If we need more people there is a long list of people who have been waiting to legally immigrate in to the country. Why give these people a pass to the front of the line?

Allow an appropriate number to take a path to citizenship which is how most of our ancestors got here.

Yes, the US would bring in immigrants when it needed a labor force to do things like build a railroad across the country or work in factories during the industrial revolution. We don’t need a flood of laborers right now. Importing them would only hurt demand and decrease wages.

Send most back immediately.

Or (as mentioned above) don’t let them in and avoid the hassle of sending them back.

This is consistent with the design, the laws and the morals of our immigrant nation.

So is everything I have said. But my way is better for Americans. The only people our government has a responsibility to.

Compared to an average month's crossings there are not that many of them to begin with.

You’re right. We need to get the border under control before we consider letting anyone else in.

Calling it an invasion is fool-baiting hyperbole.

Maybe. But it is not just a random group who just happened to decide to start moving north at the same time either. And allowing this group any leniency will only encourage more of the same.

So, where is the debate?
What is the question?

The question is why would we allow these people in when they can apply for asylum in Mexico or apply for Asylum in the US from Mexico. Why bring them in, spend money feeding, sheltering, and tracking them, spend money employing them, and then spend money deporting the vast majority of them again, as well as the cost of tracking down all those who don’t want to go back. The question is, how on earth is anything that you have laid out better than just keeping them from entering until they have proven their case for asylum?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CyberWolf]

So if 3,000 people on foot are at your property, how would you stop them from crossing your land? Call the authorities and claim trespassing? At that point would they stop them? I'm just trying to see how this would play out as a private land owner who doesn't want them crossing his land.

And this is precisely why the NFA34, GCA68, etc. are absolute abominations on our Republic and in diametric opposition to the intent of the Founders.


I feel pretty strongly about this, and the answer to the question quoted above should be (may not be popular/pc, but in accordance with & compliant under the highest Law of the land): with a Minimi and a metric shit-ton of linked belts, option for 60mm HE (I'm ok with the idea of requiring comptency-based permits for HE shells)

Also, current understanding is that historical precedent exists which supports that position.

 

[MTA]

A high speed low pass from a B1 bomber out of Dyess AFB would not be leathal, but could change some minds

I think if we sent one JDAM about 1000 feet in front of the caravan, they would make it back to Guatemala in half the time it took them to get to here.

 

[MTA]

Not without an environmental study first to see whether that might harm the breeding grounds of the South Texas Three-Dicked Lizard.

 

[sharkey]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/border-p...armed-civilians-in-area-due-to-caravan-report

I think you chose the title poorly. I am sure their are some there to posture but if you are a landowner the problem is very real and I would think they would welcome legitimate help especially considering the failure of the govt. To actually do one of the things they are tasked with, secure the border. Like moths to a flame, posers are drawn to legitimate issues.

I am reminded of the lawful citizens that came out to guard military recruiting stations because the recruiters were unarmed. The posers are found out soon enough

Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk

 

[HKShooter65]

Why should we open our gates?



They can apply for asylum from Mexico. No need to do so from inside the country.



Do you know the one of the most common forms of illegal immigration involves overstaying work visas. Aside from that how will we “keep them employed? Government program? That costs money and the cost will be he far greater than any tax revenue generated. That’s a net loss.




We have a workforce. If we need more people there is a long list of people who have been waiting to legally immigrate in to the country. Why give these people a pass to the front of the line?



Yes, the US would bring in immigrants when it needed a labor force to do things like build a railroad across the country or work in factories during the industrial revolution. We don’t need a flood of laborers right now. Importing them would only hurt demand and decrease wages.



Or (as mentioned above) don’t let them in and avoid the hassle of sending them back.



So is everything I have said. But my way is better for Americans. The only people our government has a responsibility to.



You’re right. We need to get the border under control before we consider letting anyone else in.



Maybe. But it is not just a random group who just happened to decide to start moving north at the same time either. And allowing this group any leniency will only encourage more of the same.



The question is why would we allow these people in when they can apply for asylum in Mexico or apply for Asylum in the US from Mexico. Why bring them in, spend money feeding, sheltering, and tracking them, spend money employing them, and then spend money deporting the vast majority of them again, as well as the cost of tracking down all those who don’t want to go back. The question is, how on earth is anything that you have laid out better than just keeping them from entering until they have proven their case for asylum?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah.
So you agree. Good.



I just read that the October apprehensions on our soil are around 20,000 illegals.

My real point that you did comment on is that we need reform in the way we allow an appropriate number to cross, let them work, pay their taxes and then go back home.

The "caravans" of "invaders" are getting an absurd and excessive amount of attention, solely for the political effect.