Gun control is our gravest national security threat
 

cross border firefight

Your government forces will NOT protect you. If/WHEN this invasion occurs, it will be swift, sudden, and brutal and you will be on your own. What chance will you have against the invading drug gangs against their automatic weapons when your government has capitulated to the anti gun socialists and denied you your right to bear arms?

I'm confused. Are you saying that when the mexican drug cartels inevitably invade texas our government won't lift a finger at all?

Maybe this belongs in Tilited Paranoia instead. The statement that the US Armed Forces won't protect the United States against the first armed incursion of our soil in over a century is pretty out there.

Dk, are you off your meds again? :p Seriously, are you saying that we need to have the armed forces sitting on the Mexican border ready to respond instantly to someone shooting at a couple of morons? If you remove the border aspect, this is virtually identical to something that happened in the mountains of East TN about 3 months ago, where a couple of drug dealers ran into the arms of the cops with other drug dealers in hot pursuit. This was a 10-minute exchange of fire - how close would the military have to be to respond in time?

you people scare the crap out of me. millions of people a year, who we don't know are violent or not, cross our border and the government is barely lifting a finger to do anything about it. I bring this up because it doesn't have to be an armed and armored convoy trucking across the US in full invasion, yet you always bring it to that and I think you do that to avoid the logical aspects of the argument.

How many illegals COULD have crossed the border in the last 5 years?
How many of those MIGHT have carried several guns, like machine guns, with them?
How many of those COULD be conspiring to bring about the kind of mass carnage like what happened on 9/11?
IF a large gang of people intend on launching shootups across some of the southern cities, with machine guns, how long do you think it would take ANY government agency to respond with any kind of effectiveness? (think LA riots)

Better watch out for those goobacks dude...
http://images.southparkstudios.com/m...6_image_12.jpg

dk this incident doesn't say anything about gun control in the US. it happend in mexico not the US, there is no mention of if these Americans had guns and if they used them (if they had they'd be dead now i'm sure), more than likely these men living in mexico were doing something shady that got the attention of these other guys (perhaps moving in on their drug territory?)

How is this a threat to national security?

And you scare the crap out of me. Why do you assume that these people are armed and dangerous? What evidence do you have that the illegals crossing the border are after anything other than a higher standard of living?

If a group large enough to shoot up a city launched an attack large enough to warrant a military response, it would almost certainly take a day or two for an appropriate response in almost every Southern city besides Atlanta due to the proximity of the military. If you have a complaint about that, I suggest you start working on a device to instantly transport men and material from one place to another since its a logistics problem, not a political one.

And for the record, I do NOT want you or any of your armed neighbors acting as vigilanties on my behalf.

Right back atcha. I can't believe this is the foremost worry on your mind.
A big bunch. Someone could probably research that. I'm not going to.
100%. How many DID carry several guns? Well less than 1%, I'd guess.
Again, 100%, and I COULD be doing that as well. However, I'd call the ones who ARE conspiring a vanishingly-small percentage.

Your original story appears to be about a fight amongst rival drug factions. Note that the American citizens with a ranch on the Mexican side "are suspects in other criminal investigations". I don't think you can draw any conclusions from this story, especially the conclusions that you are drawing.

did we assume that nobody would fly airplanes in to buildings? assumption is the mother of all fuckups. Assuming that the millions a year crossing the border are ONLY looking for a higher standard of living is naive, foolhardy, and potentially devestating.

so we should be at the mercy of a gang of killers with automatic weapons until the military shows up?
how about MY behalf? Why should MY family have to be defenseless because You're afraid of guns or don't like guns? What gives YOU the right to keep me defenseless? I'm sure that if you just put a sign up in front of your house that says "I don't want you vigilantes protecting me or my family", we can certainly leave you to your own devices.

If only 1% of a million carried guns, that would be 10,000. Does that put your mind at ease? Lets say that only .1% brought automatic weapons and bombs...that would only be 1,000 people. Are you even more at ease?

The conclusions that i'm drawing stem from many things besides this story.
1) The border patrol is stretched too thin
2) the military is barely there
3) local law enforcement can't do much about it either

conclusion #1 - we are dangerously vulnerable to any criminal/terrorist element that chooses to come in from the south

conclusion #2 - because it takes more than two days to organize any national guard/military/law enforcement that would have any chance at all of stopping a mass shooting, should that happen, the people in whichever towns are targeted are going to pay a heavy price because they would not be able to defend themselves or their town.

conclusion #3 - Because people like jazz think that police and military are the 'only ones' trained and competent enough to handle a gun and that us lowly serfs should just hide in a locked room and wait for the proper authorities to handle anyone 'evil', we'll stay in dire straits and immense danger because of it.

That is why I am saying that gun control is our gravest threat to national security. WE, the people, are the main AND last line of defense of our towns/cities/country....it's a shame that some people consider themselves unworthy of the responsibility

Our world views are very different. Different enough that I'm not going to attempt to debate this any further.

meaning that your world view is one of non violent utopia where we are safe and secure with our heads in the sand and my view is one where we should be always watchful of danger and be prepared for anything?

you're right, there is no debate with those not in touch with reality.

I'm pretty sure that's a matter of perspective - many may feel that you are out of touch with their reality.

Hey, I'm being civil about this. What one can see as vigilance, another can see as paranoia. I see similarity between your argument and the Bush administration's "1% doctrine".

I'm confused. Are you not allowed to bear arms, DK? I don't believe I've seen ANYone on this board say that we should take 100% of your guns away. What's to stop everyone on the border from having whatever you see as an appropriate number of guns?

Seems like you're getting all riled up about something that isn't even an issue. If your intent is to convince people that are against guns to go get 'em, you might tone down the rhetoric and doomsday scenarios. Pretty counter-productive for me. For whatever it's worth, I read the OP and become MORE inclinced to try to take guns away from people. :D

The gravest? I doubt that. One of the threats, maybe, but hardly the gravest. The biggest threat right now is probably another republican president in 2008. Aisde from that, the budget is pretty serious. I'd like to know how we plan on paying that back. another would be the consolidation of power in the executive branch. While the right to bear arms may be on the top 100, or maybe top 50, it's not #1.

Besides, the Mexicans are a clean, industrious people who are an important part of our economy. While drug dealers aren't always fun, they do know that their biggest source of money is the American people. If they want to make money off us, they need to appear to be a far away threat, at the very least. Killing people here will shock us from apathy and into action. They don't want that. Sales would fall, and we could send a lot of military their way.

you're correct and I apologize for any appearance of incivility.

Dksuddeth, while I do not agree with your interpretation of gun laws, I do recognise the importance of an armed populace. If I really felt that that level of power shift was taking place, the power to defend one's self from threats foreign and doestic, I'd be right there with you. In the mein time, I still think *some* of your gun control threads are alarmist ... and consider that this is coming from someone who thinks that the government orchestrated and carried out the attacks on 9/11 and thinks that we should start a new government (or at least replace most of the people leading our current government).

Goign back to the OP, I read it to mean that the US police would not enter into a cross border fire-fight.

I'd have thought that the jurisdiction of US police doesn't extend into Mexico, even if they are being shot at - it would certainly spark an international incident if an Irish policeman fired across the border at a British citizen on our onyl land border.

Had the Mexicans set foot in the US, I expect the police would have responded more vigorously.

I'm not seeing how this is in any way related to US gun control laws, or how such laws could possibly have had any negative effect on this situation. The gunfight originated in Mexico and the people firing were apparently still in Mexico at the time.

Gilda

If the guys doing the firing didn't have guns then this incident wouldn't have happened, so it's equally justifiable to say that the state of gun control in Mexico is a risk to US national security. You could even say that keeping the drug trade illegal is a threat!

For me, the "anti gun socialists" comment removes what little credibility the post may have had. Gun control isn't an economics issue, it's a libertarian/authoritarian issue. If you let your bigotry haze your judgement then you'll end up fighting the wrong group. Your enemies, DK, are the anti-gun free-marketeers, as they're the only ones with a chance of forming a government.

While I don't quite understand your Mexican border analogy, I do agree that we must have the means to protect ourselves when the system breaks down. It seems that sometimes in the past when there have been riots that the police will not go into harms way to protect us but instead will stay on perimeter and try to contain the anarchy. Inside the riot zone it's every man for himself.

*walks into room, looks around, creeps back out quietly ...*

Jesus freaking Christ man, what is it that you expect? Should all citizens of border towns be skilled in combay weaponry, tactics, and have 50-cal machine gun nests in their front yards?

close.
shouldn't limit it to border towns.
all citizens should be skilled in firearms and their usage/maintenance.
tactics wouldn't hurt, but at least don't be afraid of them and learn to handle/shoot them.
50 cals are great, the nest would look cheesy though(half serious on that)

I think if we're going to specify things all citizens should be skilled in, first aid might go at the top of the list, because accidental injuries are a lot more common than firefights in the America of this universe.

That is way too logical for this thread.

first aid should most certainly be a learned skill....the top of the list is an issue though. You can't give anyone first aid if you've been shot.

I think back on the ocean life guard lessons I received a long time ago. If impact with an object is imminent, always put the person you're rescuing between you and the object because you can't save anyone if you're unconcious yourself.

Many people, such as me, are ill suited to the use of firearms. Requiring that everyone have them is going to be putting them into the hands of a great many more people who shouldn't have them than already do.

Gilda

My sister thought she was ill suited to use a firearm. We kept one in the house growing up and she was told to not touch it at all. She was taught rudimentary gun handling of "it's dangerous, don't point it at anyone ever, and don't touch it."

She was always afraid of guns, and one day I took her to the shooting range, rented some guns and bought some ammo. A couple hours later she was informed enough to handle a gun if need be, meaning she's familiar with the way it operates, how to handle it, aim it, and pull the trigger. She's familiar with the recoil, the smell of gunpowder, the sound of the blast.

She's not a large girl, she's small 5'4 102lbs, and she fired a .44. She did quite well at aiming at the paper targets on both targets and body form.

What about pacifists? Should we have guns duct taped to our hands because some people think everyone should be armed?

The right to bear arms is a right of choice, not a requirement. Even though I 'think' everyone should be armed, it certainly doesn't mean that everyone HAS to be armed. If one chooses not to be armed, that is their choice, it should NOT, however, give them the option of choosing to have anyone ELSE go unarmed. That is the beauty of rights. We can choose to exercise them or not.

Fair enough.

Seems a reasonable thing to teach children in those homes that have firearms. It will never be an issue in ours.

Good for her. It turns out she wasn't ill suited to using guns.

Neither aiming at targets nor at people appeals to me, I don't like them, and I won't have a gun in my home, so I think I'd rather just stick with avoiding them altogether. It's worked for me so far.

Gilda

I have to agree that you might be a little paranoid, or you might just be showing support for your strange political party. The republicans believe in being all up in arms, which is unusual since they control the administration, congress, etc.... in regarrds to your comments about the government. They do not want to do away with personal "weapons". Defending yourself against the drug cartel is O.K. under strange circumstances, such as drug lords threatening the lives of your children or yourself, but of course, we should not be given the "right" of going on a killing spree. The right to bear arms is not a right to unmercifully murder!

Sounds to me like illegal immigration is the biggest threat to national security, if one were to respond logically to your arguments (which I'm kind of struggling to do.....with a straight face, anyway).

BTW, I will now be using you as one of my arguments for stricter gun control.

please explain.

I'm more afraid of delusional paranoid people getting drunk and shooting someone in a heated argument or a child shooting a sibling or friend by accident, than some mythical invading army.

I agree with others, maybe this blongs in Tilted Paranoia.

dksuddeth, you don't work for postal service do you?

yeah, because people always get drunk, get in arguments, start shooting up the place, and kill people a hell of alot more often than people being mugged, raped, and murdered by gangbangers and drug crazed murderers. :rolleyes:

maybe all of those 'reconquista' and illegal immigration protest marches were just a figment of my imagination.

no, but I do recognize the standard tactic of using claims of paranoia and delusions to discredit something/someone people aren't comfortable in approaching realistically. :thumbsup:

All right, I have two questions I'd like you to answer honestly.

1. How many situations have you experienced which required the use of a gun to resolve? I'm asking in your civilian life, and I'll acept your judgement on whether it was required or not. I also recognize "that's not the point"; I'm just curious.

2. You live in the Dallas/Ft Worth area, approximately, what, 300 miles from the Mexican border? Your major metropolitan area has a substantial police force. Fort Hood, Fort Sam Houston, and several other military bases are between you and the oncoming horde of reconquistas. Are you actually afraid of them, or is your behavior just posturing?

I think you are the one not approaching this realistically, but I think you are doing it deliberately.