Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 2/14/2006 9:12:26 PM EDT
I saw on Fox this evening that AZ is contemplating placing the Army on its border. I know this idea has been floating around lately. I believe its a political move by the AZ gov. since elections are coming in November. Just speculation!!

What are your thoughts on the matter?
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 9:26:23 PM EDT

Striker Brigades are on the border.

Link to info
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 9:34:53 PM EDT
About time

20
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 10:01:44 PM EDT
Where are the AH-64 gunships, ya gotta have air support.
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 10:03:19 PM EDT
Strykers... most excellent.
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 10:07:29 PM EDT
Awesome (in the sense that it will put more pressure to pass legislation).

Although it's pretty sad when things are so bad that the United States of America is beginning to need the military and even armed bands of volunteer citizens to patrol it's border.
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 10:11:54 PM EDT
Practicing insurgent interception?

ktm500
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 10:13:07 PM EDT
I say do it!



Link Posted: 2/14/2006 10:15:07 PM EDT
Why not
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 10:16:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/14/2006 10:18:38 PM EDT by LawTalkingGuy]
The Arizona Govenor was referring to the Arizona National Guard.

The Stryker Brigade from Ft. Lewis was in NM in October/November for a month of desert training where they worked with the Border Patrol. They spotted illegals crossing and drug smugglers for the Border Patrol, who they called in to make arrests (being prohibited from engaging in police activities within the US by federal law).

They provided communications, scouting, logistical and other support for the Border Patrol and other Federal agents, but, I believe, did not personally engage in any direct interdiction contact/action.

The Stryker Brigade is back at Lewis preparing for redeployment to Iraq later this Spring/Summer.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 5:40:48 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 6:28:31 AM EDT
My thoughts on this matter is HELL YA!
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 6:31:28 AM EDT
Something DEFINANTLY needs to get done
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 6:31:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 6:32:10 AM EDT by rjroberts]
Great idea, even if it is to force an issue. Let the Mexican army come across now. Geez, and I thought when I get to move to AZ that I'd get some practice with the .45-70.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 6:34:24 AM EDT
Can I vote for this govenor?


Hell, I want the Army on the border to Illinois! I don't want those savages taking over my beautiful state!
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 7:04:59 AM EDT
The army should have been there all along. Any delay or obstruction to placing them there now or in the future by any member of government involved in the process, should be met with charges of sedition and they should be punished accordingly.

Invasion is an act of war, tolerated nowhere in the world but here in the US and it should be met with whatever military force necessary to stop it.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 8:11:45 AM EDT
I also heard a few weeks ago that an armed transport was spotted in almost a convoy matter helping vehicles cross the border. This too was reported on Fox; however, cannot remember the exact circumstances. I only know that a humvee with a .50 cal was on the U.S. side, and the vehicle was not American.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 8:14:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
i10.photobucket.com/albums/a103/thedoctors308/StrykerWaveL.jpg
Striker Brigades are on the border.

Link to info




I would like to see that every 2 miles along the entire mexican and canadian lines
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 8:19:12 AM EDT
Also, I remember the tunnel they discovered in San Diego a couple weeks ago that was filled with tons of drugs.

WHAT ANGERED ME THE MOST WAS THE OFFICERS WHO WERE DOWN THERE HAD TO WHERE SKI MASKS FOR FEAR HAVING THEIR IDENTITIES REVEALED AND SUBSEQUENTLY HAVING THEIR FAMILIES PUT IN DANGER

FOR GOD'S SAKE, THIS IS AMERICA AND WE SHOULD BE AFRAID OF "NO ONE"
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 8:24:58 AM EDT
It would be far cheaper than the $10.5B spent by California each year to pay for schooling, health and prison cells for illegals.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 8:28:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By efpeter:
Can I vote for this govenor?


Hell, I want the Army on the border to Illinois! I don't want those savages taking over my beautiful state!



dude, this "governor" is a carpet eating bull dyke. he is only doing it because he knows he's going to get his ass handed to him come november. he has been stalling lots of anti-illegal alien bills in the state legislature and this is just some feel good appeasment bullshit that isn't going to get him re-elected.
this is our "governor"

Link Posted: 2/15/2006 8:54:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rjroberts:
Great idea, even if it is to force an issue. Let the Mexican army come across now. Geez, and I thought when I get to move to AZ that I'd get some practice with the .45-70.



The only 2 things I want to do with my new Sharps is kill a buffalo and see what a 45-70 will do to the engine block of a smuggler's vehicle LOL
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 8:57:06 AM EDT
Border states should have their Natl Guards on the border, 24/7. This is what I like to see, maybe I can get deployed to Mexico instead of Iraq this summer.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 8:58:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pang1179:
I saw on Fox this evening that AZ is contemplating placing the Army on its border. I know this idea has been floating around lately. I believe its a political move by the AZ gov. since elections are coming in November. Just speculation!!

What are your thoughts on the matter?


That's the US Border Patrol's job.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 9:02:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TimJ:
they did extensive live fires too, which I'm sure helped keep smuggling down.


heh, keep them barrels pointed south and turn the entire border into a free-fire zone!
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 9:04:16 AM EDT
Your governer does suck, but listen. If the republicans are too damn dumb to take an issue that should be theirs in the first place, "national security", and actually secure our nation, then I guess for the first time ever I will have to vote democrat if they are willing to do what is neccessary. Of course it is a political move. Its a smart political move. The border should be shut down just as Mexico shuts down its own southern border with its military. Its very sad that Bush refuses to do anything to protect the border, too much damage is done in the southern states alone to forget the issue. Someone needs to roll with this issue, and if its some democratic southern governer with hopes of getting reelected/running for senate/running for president, then i guess more power to him/her.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 9:18:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thphilli:
Your governer does suck, but listen. If the republicans are too damn dumb to take an issue that should be theirs in the first place, "national security", and actually secure our nation, then I guess for the first time ever I will have to vote democrat if they are willing to do what is neccessary. Of course it is a political move. Its a smart political move. The border should be shut down just as Mexico shuts down its own southern border with its military. Its very sad that Bush refuses to do anything to protect the border, too much damage is done in the southern states alone to forget the issue. Someone needs to roll with this issue, and if its some democratic southern governer with hopes of getting reelected/running for senate/running for president, then i guess more power to him/her.



I agree with your logic. I am CONSERVATIVE "FIRST" then REPUBLICAN. However, even if the dems run with the security issue before the election will they waffle the moment the results come in.

The only Dem governor that actually seems like he cares is Bill Richardson on NM.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 9:24:59 AM EDT
We have all kinds of second-tier military equipment that would greatly improve the effectiveness of the border patrol.

I'd like to see some Cadillac-Gage armored cars, M-113s and a few dozen Cobras along the border.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 9:43:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sWs2:
Strykers... most excellent.



I figured all the Strykers were in deployed theaters... but then again... I also heard a while back that they were scared to leave the compounds in them because they were such a huge target.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 7:37:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 7:55:39 PM EDT by OBird]

Originally Posted By pang1179:
Also, I remember the tunnel they discovered in San Diego a couple weeks ago that was filled with tons of drugs.

WHAT ANGERED ME THE MOST WAS THE OFFICERS WHO WERE DOWN THERE HAD TO WHERE SKI MASKS FOR FEAR HAVING THEIR IDENTITIES REVEALED AND SUBSEQUENTLY HAVING THEIR FAMILIES PUT IN DANGER

FOR GOD'S SAKE, THIS IS AMERICA AND WE SHOULD BE AFRAID OF "NO ONE"






Teh Oh noez!!1! They concealed their identities from possible drug lords!

Hate to break it to you, but those in the drug business are not exactly the kindest of people. That tunnel they shut down probably put a world of hurt on a powerful drug lord or two, and there IS a history of law enforcement officers being retaliated upon by drug dealers when off duty. Why WOULDN'T they take such a stupidly simple precaution?!? It's not like putting a ski mask on is the same as surrendering - as long as the job gets done just as well, why do you care?

I guess by your "logic", nobody in America should take any precautions against criminal activity. Guess we shouldn't ever lock our doors or carry firearms for self-defense, and I guess cops shouldn't wear kevlar vests. If you were a witness in a crime that shut down a major drug ring, I suppose this means you would refuse any sort of identity protection? After all, "WE SHOULD BE AFRAID OF NO ONE"....



You fail to realize that there is a difference between cowardice and foresight. Having a fire extinguisher in your house doesn't mean you live in constant fear of a fire, carrying a concealed weapon doesn't mean you're a paranoid psycho, and putting on a mask during a major drug bust does not mean you're a coward. All of the above simply mean you're smart enough to be prepared.

Link Posted: 2/15/2006 7:42:26 PM EDT
I would prefer armed bands of organized citizens over a standing army.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 7:45:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thphilli:
Your governer does suck, but listen. If the republicans are too damn dumb to take an issue that should be theirs in the first place, "national security", and actually secure our nation, then I guess for the first time ever I will have to vote democrat if they are willing to do what is neccessary. Of course it is a political move. Its a smart political move. The border should be shut down just as Mexico shuts down its own southern border with its military. Its very sad that Bush refuses to do anything to protect the border, too much damage is done in the southern states alone to forget the issue. Someone needs to roll with this issue, and if its some democratic southern governer with hopes of getting reelected/running for senate/running for president, then i guess more power to him/her.



I would rather have RKBA and an open border than a closed border and no RKBA. Its NEVER a good idea to vote democrat.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 7:52:06 PM EDT
Looks like they have had some Troops on the border, I hope we\they get a LOT more

AZ lawmakers vote to fund troops on border
JACQUES BILLEAUD
The Associated Press
Feb. 13, 2006
www.tucsoncitizen.com/breakingnews/021306natl_guard_border
PHOENIX - The Arizona House voted Monday to require Gov. Janet Napolitano to follow through on her proposal to increase the number of National Guard troops who are helping crack down on illegal immigration at the state's border with Mexico.

The lawmakers also agreed to provide $5 million in state money for the plan by the governor, who has asked the Pentagon to pick up the costs and said her ideas for using border troops would be impossible without complete federal funding.

Republican Rep. John Allen of Scottsdale said his state funding proposal would either let the Democratic governor carry out her plan - or force her to explain why she did not.

"She planted an idea that she knows the public supports, but she also did it to where she knew she wouldn't have to do it," Allen said.

Napolitano spokeswoman Pati Urias declined to comment on Allen's proposal and criticism. The measure, which was approved 36-20, now moves to the state Senate.

Arizona, the busiest illegal entry point on the U.S.-Mexico border, already has about 170 National Guard troops stationed at the border assisting federal and state officers with communications, fence construction and anti-drug efforts.

Napolitano wants to extend the National Guard's border efforts to have an unspecified number of troops work at border crossing points, assist with cargo inspection and operate mobile observation points so they can report suspicious activity.

Some Republican lawmakers have criticized Napolitano as trying to paper over a weak record on immigration, citing vetoes of bills that the governor said wouldn't lessen Arizona's border problems.

Last year, Napolitano signed a law creating the state crime of migrant smuggling and declared a state of emergency in the state's four border counties, a move that freed up more than $1 million to help authorities confront illegal crossings.

Public pressure is mounting for state politicians up for re-election this year to confront the problem, even though immigration has long been considered the sole province of the federal government.

Supporters of Allen's proposal said the state needs to take action because Arizonans are frustrated with the federal government's failure to adequately confront illegal immigration.


Opponents said putting troops at the border will not prevent immigrants who are seeking better paying jobs from sneaking into the country and that the state should instead crack down on employers who violate federal law by hiring illegal workers.

Democratic Rep. Pete Rios of Hayden, an opponent of the bill, said the federal government has chosen not to stop illegal immigration.

"Businesses and corporations on this side of the border are very powerful, and they need that labor in order to make the profits that they are making," Rios said. "That's why this issue has not been resolved."
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 7:56:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 7:57:59 PM EDT by 22bad]

Originally Posted By pang1179:
I also heard a few weeks ago that an armed transport was spotted in almost a convoy matter helping vehicles cross the border. This too was reported on Fox; however, cannot remember the exact circumstances. I only know that a humvee with a .50 cal was on the U.S. side, and the vehicle was not American.



www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=433532


Originally Posted By pang1179:
Also, I remember the tunnel they discovered in San Diego a couple weeks ago that was filled with tons of drugs.

WHAT ANGERED ME THE MOST WAS THE OFFICERS WHO WERE DOWN THERE HAD TO WHERE SKI MASKS FOR FEAR HAVING THEIR IDENTITIES REVEALED AND SUBSEQUENTLY HAVING THEIR FAMILIES PUT IN DANGER

FOR GOD'S SAKE, THIS IS AMERICA AND WE SHOULD BE AFRAID OF "NO ONE"



Deputy: Things "getting personal" after Border Incursion; Families, Officers Threatened
2-2-06
www.kvia.com/Global/story.asp?S=4449500
EL PASO, TX. - According to law enforcement officials directly involved in the border incursion two weeks ago, the cross-border confrontations are "getting personal."

The confrontation started ten days ago with drug smugglers trying to bring illegal drugs across the border in SUV's east of El Paso. Mexican authorities have now removed the SUV that got stuck in the Rio Grande and was torched by men in military uniforms on January 23rd.

While there are few signs remaining of last week's standoff, matters are anything but calm in Hudspeth County. According to law enforcement officials, things are escalating on the border in Hudspeth County.

During a ride-along Thursday with the Hudspeth County Sheriff's Department, one deputy, who has been with the department since the 1960's, told ABC-7 that this is the most tense matters have ever been along this area of the border.

In the past few days, Hudspeth County Sheriff's Department deputies and their families have received threats to stay off the Rio Grande. Sheriff Arvin West told ABC-7 Thursday morning, before departing for Houston that the Mexican military is behind all of this.

Sheriff West said, "There is no doubt in my mind -- from the first time going back to a couple of years ago and every time in between --- it's the Mexican military. In a nutshell, everybody's been trying to tell everybody that they were here...they've been here ...[and] they come here quite often, regularly."

Now Sheriff West is having to deal with threats being made against his deputies and their families. One Sheriff's Deputy, who refused to appear on camera out of fear, described the situation today in Hudspeth County as "very dangerous." and now, he said, "it's getting personal."

The deputy added that "he is very leery of a firefight erupting on the border just east of El Paso."
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 8:10:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OBird:

Originally Posted By pang1179:
Also, I remember the tunnel they discovered in San Diego a couple weeks ago that was filled with tons of drugs.

WHAT ANGERED ME THE MOST WAS THE OFFICERS WHO WERE DOWN THERE HAD TO WHERE SKI MASKS FOR FEAR HAVING THEIR IDENTITIES REVEALED AND SUBSEQUENTLY HAVING THEIR FAMILIES PUT IN DANGER

FOR GOD'S SAKE, THIS IS AMERICA AND WE SHOULD BE AFRAID OF "NO ONE"




Teh Oh noez!!1! They concealed their identities from possible drug lords!

Hate to break it to you, but those in the drug business are not exactly the kindest of people. That tunnel they shut down probably put a world of hurt on a powerful drug lord or two, and there IS a history of law enforcement officers being retaliated upon by drug dealers when off duty. Why WOULDN'T they take such a stupidly simple precaution?!? It's not like putting a ski mask on is the same as surrendering - as long as the job gets done just as well, why do you care?

I guess by your "logic", nobody in America should take any precautions against criminal activity. Guess we shouldn't ever lock our doors or carry firearms for self-defense, and I guess cops shouldn't wear kevlar vests. If you were a witness in a crime that shut down a major drug ring, I suppose this means you would refuse any sort of identity protection? After all, "WE SHOULD BE AFRAID OF NO ONE"....



You fail to realize that there is a difference between cowardice and foresight. Having a fire extinguisher in your house doesn't mean you live in constant fear of a fire, carrying a concealed weapon doesn't mean you're a paranoid psycho, and putting on a mask during a major drug bust does not mean you're a coward. All of the above simply mean you're smart enough to be prepared.




A little bit testy huh!!

Seems as if you are missing the point of my reply. I find it almost repulsive the way you try to degrade me because I am stating my opinion. Your logic seems fallible. I was merely venting frustration about the problem of drug trafficking.

It is a shame that our officers in our country have to hide their identities; however, I fully understand the reasons why. I believe your reply was inappropriate.

What concerns me is the way you want to suppress my "Freedom to Speak." I don't mind criticism; just try to using without attacking someone's character. That seems like ......


Link Posted: 2/15/2006 8:28:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pang1179:

Originally Posted By OBird:

Originally Posted By pang1179:
Also, I remember the tunnel they discovered in San Diego a couple weeks ago that was filled with tons of drugs.

WHAT ANGERED ME THE MOST WAS THE OFFICERS WHO WERE DOWN THERE HAD TO WHERE SKI MASKS FOR FEAR HAVING THEIR IDENTITIES REVEALED AND SUBSEQUENTLY HAVING THEIR FAMILIES PUT IN DANGER

FOR GOD'S SAKE, THIS IS AMERICA AND WE SHOULD BE AFRAID OF "NO ONE"




Teh Oh noez!!1! They concealed their identities from possible drug lords!

Hate to break it to you, but those in the drug business are not exactly the kindest of people. That tunnel they shut down probably put a world of hurt on a powerful drug lord or two, and there IS a history of law enforcement officers being retaliated upon by drug dealers when off duty. Why WOULDN'T they take such a stupidly simple precaution?!? It's not like putting a ski mask on is the same as surrendering - as long as the job gets done just as well, why do you care?

I guess by your "logic", nobody in America should take any precautions against criminal activity. Guess we shouldn't ever lock our doors or carry firearms for self-defense, and I guess cops shouldn't wear kevlar vests. If you were a witness in a crime that shut down a major drug ring, I suppose this means you would refuse any sort of identity protection? After all, "WE SHOULD BE AFRAID OF NO ONE"....



You fail to realize that there is a difference between cowardice and foresight. Having a fire extinguisher in your house doesn't mean you live in constant fear of a fire, carrying a concealed weapon doesn't mean you're a paranoid psycho, and putting on a mask during a major drug bust does not mean you're a coward. All of the above simply mean you're smart enough to be prepared.




A little bit testy huh!!

Seems as if you are missing the point of my reply. I find it almost repulsive the way you try to degrade me because I am stating my opinion. Your logic seems fallible. I was merely venting frustration about the problem of drug trafficking.

It is a shame that our officers in our country have to hide their identities; however, I fully understand the reasons why. I believe your reply was inappropriate.

What concerns me is the way you want to suppress my "Freedom to Speak." I don't mind criticism; just try to using without attacking someone's character. That seems like ......





If the above statement is truly your actual original intent, then most of what I posted no longer applies. I (apparently erroneously) interpreted your original post as a criticism of drug enforcement procedures. Apologies for the misinterpretation.

However, I fail to see exactly how I am "suppressing your Freedom to Speak". I never attempted to somehow revoke your posting privileges or send you a debilitating computer virus, did I? I also did not attack your character. All I did was show the fallacies in your logic and presented you with hypothetical situations that supported my argument. That's how discussion boards function. A character attack would be me doing something like calling you Mr. Poopy-head, but rest assured that isn't happening. Finally, it is usually customary to provide a counter-argument when calling someone's logic "fallible". Granted, my misinterpretation has voided the entire argument to begin with, but if one analyzes my arguments under the assumption that you were indeed criticizing law enforcement tactics in the first place, I do not see where such logical fallacies would lie.

That said, since there is actually nothing to really argue about after all, I'll stop now at leave it at that. Yes, the drug problems in America are sad, and it is depressing that those who fight against this evil must fear for their personal welfare and that of their loved ones. Hopefully we can both agree on at least this point.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 8:40:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OBird:

Originally Posted By pang1179:

Originally Posted By OBird:

Originally Posted By pang1179:
Also, I remember the tunnel they discovered in San Diego a couple weeks ago that was filled with tons of drugs.

WHAT ANGERED ME THE MOST WAS THE OFFICERS WHO WERE DOWN THERE HAD TO WHERE SKI MASKS FOR FEAR HAVING THEIR IDENTITIES REVEALED AND SUBSEQUENTLY HAVING THEIR FAMILIES PUT IN DANGER

FOR GOD'S SAKE, THIS IS AMERICA AND WE SHOULD BE AFRAID OF "NO ONE"




Teh Oh noez!!1! They concealed their identities from possible drug lords!

Hate to break it to you, but those in the drug business are not exactly the kindest of people. That tunnel they shut down probably put a world of hurt on a powerful drug lord or two, and there IS a history of law enforcement officers being retaliated upon by drug dealers when off duty. Why WOULDN'T they take such a stupidly simple precaution?!? It's not like putting a ski mask on is the same as surrendering - as long as the job gets done just as well, why do you care?

I guess by your "logic", nobody in America should take any precautions against criminal activity. Guess we shouldn't ever lock our doors or carry firearms for self-defense, and I guess cops shouldn't wear kevlar vests. If you were a witness in a crime that shut down a major drug ring, I suppose this means you would refuse any sort of identity protection? After all, "WE SHOULD BE AFRAID OF NO ONE"....



You fail to realize that there is a difference between cowardice and foresight. Having a fire extinguisher in your house doesn't mean you live in constant fear of a fire, carrying a concealed weapon doesn't mean you're a paranoid psycho, and putting on a mask during a major drug bust does not mean you're a coward. All of the above simply mean you're smart enough to be prepared.




A little bit testy huh!!

Seems as if you are missing the point of my reply. I find it almost repulsive the way you try to degrade me because I am stating my opinion. Your logic seems fallible. I was merely venting frustration about the problem of drug trafficking.

It is a shame that our officers in our country have to hide their identities; however, I fully understand the reasons why. I believe your reply was inappropriate.

What concerns me is the way you want to suppress my "Freedom to Speak." I don't mind criticism; just try to using without attacking someone's character. That seems like ......





If the above statement is truly your actual original intent, then most of what I posted no longer applies. I (apparently erroneously) interpreted your original post as a criticism of drug enforcement procedures. Apologies for the misinterpretation.

However, I fail to see exactly how I am "suppressing your Freedom to Speak". I never attempted to somehow revoke your posting privileges or send you a debilitating computer virus, did I? I also did not attack your character. All I did was show the fallacies in your logic and presented you with hypothetical situations that supported my argument. That's how discussion boards function. A character attack would be me doing something like calling you Mr. Poopy-head, but rest assured that isn't happening. Finally, it is usually customary to provide a counter-argument when calling someone's logic "fallible". Granted, my misinterpretation has voided the entire argument to begin with, but if one analyzes my arguments under the assumption that you were indeed criticizing law enforcement tactics in the first place, I do not see where such logical fallacies would lie.

That said, since there is actually nothing to really argue about after all, I'll stop now at leave it at that. Yes, the drug problems in America are sad, and it is depressing that those who fight against this evil must fear for their personal welfare and that of their loved ones. Hopefully we can both agree on at least this point.



I agree we should leave it at its present discourse; however, I must address the middle paragraph of which I have issue. When I stated that your argument was fallible, I was addressing the fallicious conclusion you drew to my statement about the "wearing of ski masks." That does not infer that we should therefore not carry concealed weapons or lock our doors. That premise does not conclude what you inferred.

I have no problem with you personally nor do I wish to. You seemed derogatory in your initial response, and I acted with ill-intent in response to which I apologize.

Yes, I do agree with your last paragraph.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 9:03:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 9:06:10 PM EDT by OBird]

Originally Posted By pang1179:

I agree we should leave it at its present discourse; however, I must address the middle paragraph of which I have issue. When I stated that your argument was fallible, I was addressing the fallicious conclusion you drew to my statement about the "wearing of ski masks." That does not infer that we should therefore not carry concealed weapons or lock our doors. That premise does not conclude what you inferred.

I have no problem with you personally nor do I wish to. You seemed derogatory in your initial response, and I acted with ill-intent in response to which I apologize.

Yes, I do agree with your last paragraph.



Please excuse the sense of hostility I undoubtedly conveyed. The only reasoning behind my harshness was the fact that I (again, apparently erroneously) thought you were criticizing law enforcement for concealing their identities. Outcrying at such a trivial matter struck me as inexcusably unrealistic, hence my lack of regard for manners. However, since this hostility was based on incorrect assumptions, please note that none of it was actually directed at "you" per se....only at the artificial "you" I had created in my mind.

And yes, I agree that my logic was fallible in the sense that it was entirely misdirected to begin with. Had I correctly interpreted your intentions, however, I feel it would have be a relatively sound (albeit not airtight) argument. Of course, this is a moot point...my logic was still originally misdirected and therefore flawed.

Thank you for your understanding, and again, my apologies for my misinterpretations.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 9:10:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By readytorock556:
Where are the AH-64 gunships, ya gotta have air support.



... We're working on them as fast as we can

Link Posted: 2/15/2006 9:19:42 PM EDT

(being prohibited from engaging in police activities within the US by federal law).



So why don't we permanently deploy them on the Mexican side? Then they can engage targets at will.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:14:57 PM EDT
EXCELLENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:41:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OBird:


Teh Oh noez!!1!



Hey. If you want the rest of the board to disregard everything you type, then say "Teh Oh noez!1!" again.

And I think you're missing his point. The way I see it, he's pissed that we've let it get so bad that familes of law enforcement are threatened. And I can see exactly where he's coming from.
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 12:16:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/16/2006 12:16:50 AM EDT by OBird]

Originally Posted By steve-oh:

Originally Posted By OBird:


Teh Oh noez!!1!



Hey. If you want the rest of the board to disregard everything you type, then say "Teh Oh noez!1!" again.



Precisely the desired effect that my sarcasm was meant to bring about.


And I think you're missing his point. The way I see it, he's pissed that we've let it get so bad that familes of law enforcement are threatened. And I can see exactly where he's coming from.


Read my last few posts, there was a misinterpretation, and it's been resolved.
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 5:55:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PSYWAR1-0:

Originally Posted By rjroberts:
Great idea, even if it is to force an issue. Let the Mexican army come across now. Geez, and I thought when I get to move to AZ that I'd get some practice with the .45-70.



The only 2 things I want to do with my new Sharps is kill a buffalo and see what a 45-70 will do to the engine block of a smuggler's vehicle LOL



When you have a chance, look at the boxoftruth.com , the section where he tests the ballistic resistant glass. See what 5.56 and .308/7.62x51 do. Then he tests .45 - 70. HAHA! One of his comments was along the lines of "...don't get into firefights with buffalo hunters ....while behind glass...etc."
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 5:56:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/16/2006 5:58:16 AM EDT by rjroberts]

Originally Posted By WildBoar:
I would prefer armed bands of organized citizens over a standing army.



So did Washington and Jefferson, et.al.
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 3:56:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OBird:

Originally Posted By steve-oh:

Originally Posted By OBird:


Teh Oh noez!!1!



Hey. If you want the rest of the board to disregard everything you type, then say "Teh Oh noez!1!" again.



Precisely the desired effect that my sarcasm was meant to bring about.


And I think you're missing his point. The way I see it, he's pissed that we've let it get so bad that familes of law enforcement are threatened. And I can see exactly where he's coming from.


Read my last few posts, there was a misinterpretation, and it's been resolved.



I should've cautiously forethought prior to writing my reply about the issue of illegal drug smuggling. My intention was not to cause any dissention amongst Arfcomers. And, for this I sincerely apologize.

I merely was venting frustration over the affair in San Diego, and subsequently fantasizing about a nation in which we would not have to shield our identities when we merely are enforcing our own laws.
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 4:20:12 PM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 8:38:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OBird:

Originally Posted By pang1179:

I agree we should leave it at its present discourse; however, I must address the middle paragraph of which I have issue. When I stated that your argument was fallible, I was addressing the fallicious conclusion you drew to my statement about the "wearing of ski masks." That does not infer that we should therefore not carry concealed weapons or lock our doors. That premise does not conclude what you inferred.

I have no problem with you personally nor do I wish to. You seemed derogatory in your initial response, and I acted with ill-intent in response to which I apologize.

Yes, I do agree with your last paragraph.



Please excuse the sense of hostility I undoubtedly conveyed. The only reasoning behind my harshness was the fact that I (again, apparently erroneously) thought you were criticizing law enforcement for concealing their identities. Outcrying at such a trivial matter struck me as inexcusably unrealistic, hence my lack of regard for manners. However, since this hostility was based on incorrect assumptions, please note that none of it was actually directed at "you" per se....only at the artificial "you" I had created in my mind.

And yes, I agree that my logic was fallible in the sense that it was entirely misdirected to begin with. Had I correctly interpreted your intentions, however, I feel it would have be a relatively sound (albeit not airtight) argument. Of course, this is a moot point...my logic was still originally misdirected and therefore flawed.

Thank you for your understanding, and again, my apologies for my misinterpretations.



OH would you two just get a room already??????
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 8:44:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DrFrige:

Originally Posted By OBird:

Originally Posted By pang1179:

I agree we should leave it at its present discourse; however, I must address the middle paragraph of which I have issue. When I stated that your argument was fallible, I was addressing the fallicious conclusion you drew to my statement about the "wearing of ski masks." That does not infer that we should therefore not carry concealed weapons or lock our doors. That premise does not conclude what you inferred.

I have no problem with you personally nor do I wish to. You seemed derogatory in your initial response, and I acted with ill-intent in response to which I apologize.

Yes, I do agree with your last paragraph.



Please excuse the sense of hostility I undoubtedly conveyed. The only reasoning behind my harshness was the fact that I (again, apparently erroneously) thought you were criticizing law enforcement for concealing their identities. Outcrying at such a trivial matter struck me as inexcusably unrealistic, hence my lack of regard for manners. However, since this hostility was based on incorrect assumptions, please note that none of it was actually directed at "you" per se....only at the artificial "you" I had created in my mind.

And yes, I agree that my logic was fallible in the sense that it was entirely misdirected to begin with. Had I correctly interpreted your intentions, however, I feel it would have be a relatively sound (albeit not airtight) argument. Of course, this is a moot point...my logic was still originally misdirected and therefore flawed.

Thank you for your understanding, and again, my apologies for my misinterpretations.



OH would you two just get a room already??????



OK, so it was a bit PC...

I'll try to remember to be more of a dick in the future
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 8:55:56 PM EDT
Doesn't this goof know he is spelling Fri"D"ge wrong?

Oh, yeah check out the picture of him in his own post about Arfcommers!
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 11:47:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/16/2006 11:51:31 PM EDT by PaDanby]
Oh gawd another newbie out to change the world by bringing us up to date on all the dead horses that we've killed several times before. Weeks late on the border discussion and months late on noticing that Frige can't spell the way most of us do. Being from NY, he doesn''t talk like most of us either.

BTW, if your using 45-70 get one of the jacketed 405s, the lead 500 grain bullets do a job on glass but their penetration on engineblocks is marginal. Course they bust everything in the way all to shit getting there. And they definitely have a much longer effective range than a 5.56mm.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top