Empty Words or Inching Closer to Tyranny?

[Opoponax]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-threatens-send-military-against-immigrant-onslaught-142822665.html

Referring to a so-called caravan of several thousand Hondurans that has departed in hopes of reaching the United States, Trump claimed Democrats were to blame for an "assault on our country by Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador" with a caravan "INCLUDING MANY CRIMINALS."

Trump tweeted that he would stop aid to the Central American states and said: "I must, in the strongest of terms, ask Mexico to stop this onslaught - and if unable to do so I will call up the U.S. Military and CLOSE OUR SOUTHERN BORDER!"

This stuff is fodder for his intellectually deficient base. However, the constant threat to use the American military to perform tasks it's not meant for, particularly on American soil, is an ongoing theme for Trump. See, he can't use a given state's national guard without the approval of that state's governor. However, whether he can deploy federal troops on U.S. soil for this purpose is really not known. Suffice it to say that it's complicated and cases can be made on both sides (blech).

Even if his words are empty, they're only empty until they're not. Is there any doubt the GOP would support whatever action he decided to take? Read the comments in the comment section; his supporters would support murdering people who tried to cross the border, and it doesn't matter if it was done lawfully or not.

The whole thing reeks of lack of compassion, racism, violence, and has the potential to put the U.S. Army in our backyards for any imagined/advertised threat. I'm all over the place with this. Sorry. This is one of those things that scares the shit out of me.

 

[Derec]

Why should we not stop an organized group of thousands of people entering our country illegally. Why are Democrats so hell-bent on mass migration?

P.S.: Isn't preventing a foreign invasion one of the chief responsibilities of a military?

 

[laughing dog]

Why should we not stop an organized group of thousands of people entering our country illegally. Why are Democrats so hell-bent on mass migration?

They have not reached the US. Nor is there any reason to assume they necessarily are going to enter our country illegally.

P.S.: Isn't preventing a foreign invasion one of the chief responsibilities of a military?

It is intellectually dishonest to equate this with military invasion.

 

[Gun Nut]

Hi Everybody! This is my first message here. I hope I do it right.

If America is paying Mexico to help support their poor, then they can either have that money OR send us their welfare folks. Not both. If I pay you for babysitting, then you can't just drop off the kids at my place and keep the money.

 

[phands]

It is intellectually dishonest to equate this with military invasion.

Correct. but the fact that it's not an invasion, but a humanitarian crisis is conveniently overlooked by the local fascists.

These are the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of a teeming shore. We should be holding up that lamp beside the golden door...higher than ever. That's what America is (or was until the orange fascist bastard soiled it), and what it is based on.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why should we not stop an organized group of thousands of people entering our country illegally. Why are Democrats so hell-bent on mass migration?

The previous caravan saw many disperse in Mexico. In general, these caravans exist for the purpose of safety in numbers, to prevent kidnapping, murder. Some of the areas have some "bad hombres". And once they reach the US, most will likely be turned away.

Personally, in my life, I have more things that matter more than people that may or may not be trying to enter the US. I mean we already allowed a *self-moderated* from *self-moderated* in, and all hell didn't break loose.

P.S.: Isn't preventing a foreign invasion one of the chief responsibilities of a military?

Yes. As soon as it can be shown that the Caravan are driving tanks, let me know.

 

[laughing dog]

Hi Everybody! This is my first message here. I hope I do it right.

If America is paying Mexico to help support their poor, then they can either have that money OR send us their welfare folks. Not both. If I pay you for babysitting, then you can't just drop off the kids at my place and keep the money.

Since these people are allegedly coming from Honduras, not Mexico, your analogy does not really fit.

 

[Opoponax]

Hi Everybody! This is my first message here. I hope I do it right.

If America is paying Mexico to help support their poor, then they can either have that money OR send us their welfare folks. Not both. If I pay you for babysitting, then you can't just drop off the kids at my place and keep the money.

Welcome good sir!

I'm a gun owning liberal and RSO at my local range from time to time. (see post-script for my awesome list of guns).

Anyway, my post was more about Trump's willingness to use the American military on U.S. soil than anything else. But it's also about the rhetoric that accompanies that threatened use. And what would it cost us to deploy the military along our southern border as well as shutting it down completely? Mexico is one of our largest trading partners and they wouldn't be coming here if U.S. businesses didn't have a need for them.

So not only would we have literal domestic militarization (maybe Trump could finally find a way to make the 3rd Amendment relevant again), we'd experience a tough hit to our economy and a lot of American businesses would fail. To me that smacks of someone willing to abuse power in order to keep it regardless of the consequences to the nation. Not to mention the disgusting lack of compassion for the most vulnerable human beings in our hemisphere.

Wouldn't a better solution be to provide aid to these people? Wouldn't that be more humanitarian and dignified. And what of the effect of such callous disregard to such vulnerable people? Aren't we supposed to be the land that gives shelter to huddled masses? Or should that plaque be removed from the Statue of Liberty and the torch replaced with a middle finger shooting out of an angry fist?

IOW, how about a non-violent, humanitarian solution?

P.S. Because Imma 'bout to head to the range and shoot some trap.

Handguns
S&W Shield (9mm)
CZ 75B (9mm)
Ruger GP100 (357 mag)
S&W Model 69 (44 mag)

Rifles
Ruger 10-22 (everyone has to own one)
Browning 30-06
Savage 30-06
Browning 375 H&H Magnum (A-bolt II)
Marlin 45-70 (Guide Gun)
RAS-47 (AK-47)

Shotgun
Mossberg 930

I want a better shotgun, but it works for now. I'd like some type of Benelli over-under model break action, but $ is always a thing. Hell, I want 6.5 Creedmoor caliber too, but that means a nice scope, and well, $$$.

 

[Elixir]

Hi Everybody! This is my first message here. I hope I do it right.

If America is paying Mexico to help support their poor, then they can either have that money OR send us their welfare folks. Not both. If I pay you for babysitting, then you can't just drop off the kids at my place and keep the money.

"If Saudi Arabia makes Donald Trump hundreds of millions of dollars, he can either support kidnapping, murdering and dismemberment of journalists, or keep making money."
(Offered as an example of false dichotomy... if it is.)

Please show us how - and how much - America is paying Mexico "to support their poor".

 

[TV and credit cards]

Perhaps this mass of people are just coming up to the boarder to hold their children out at arm's length.

 

[ZiprHead]

Hi Everybody! This is my first message here. I hope I do it right.

If America is paying Mexico to help support their poor, then they can either have that money OR send us their welfare folks. Not both. If I pay you for babysitting, then you can't just drop off the kids at my place and keep the money.

Welcome to the board, Gun Nut. Glad to have you here.

Why don't you stop by the Lounge and tell us a little about yourself.

 

[bilby]

Hi Everybody! This is my first message here. I hope I do it right.

If America is paying Mexico to help support their poor, then they can either have that money OR send us their welfare folks. Not both. If I pay you for babysitting, then you can't just drop off the kids at my place and keep the money.

Welcome good sir!

I'm a gun owning liberal and RSO at my local range from time to time. (see post-script for my awesome list of guns).

Anyway, my post was more about Trump's willingness to use the American military on U.S. soil than anything else. But it's also about the rhetoric that accompanies that threatened use. And what would it cost us to deploy the military along our southern border as well as shutting it down completely? Mexico is one of our largest trading partners and they wouldn't be coming here if U.S. businesses didn't have a need for them.

So not only would we have literal domestic militarization (maybe Trump could finally find a way to make the 3rd Amendment relevant again), we'd experience a tough hit to our economy and a lot of American businesses would fail. To me that smacks of someone willing to abuse power in order to keep it regardless of the consequences to the nation. Not to mention the disgusting lack of compassion for the most vulnerable human beings in our hemisphere.

Wouldn't a better solution be to provide aid to these people? Wouldn't that be more humanitarian and dignified. And what of the effect of such callous disregard to such vulnerable people? Aren't we supposed to be the land that gives shelter to huddled masses? Or should that plaque be removed from the Statue of Liberty and the torch replaced with a middle finger shooting out of an angry fist?

IOW, how about a non-violent, humanitarian solution?

P.S. Because Imma 'bout to head to the range and shoot some trap.

Handguns
S&W Shield (9mm)
CZ 75B (9mm)
Ruger GP100 (357 mag)
S&W Model 69 (44 mag)

Rifles
Ruger 10-22 (everyone has to own one)
Browning 30-06
Savage 30-06
Browning 375 H&H Magnum (A-bolt II)
Marlin 45-70 (Guide Gun)
RAS-47 (AK-47)

Shotgun
Mossberg 930

I want a better shotgun, but it works for now. I'd like some type of Benelli over-under model break action, but $ is always a thing. Hell, I want 6.5 Creedmoor caliber too, but that means a nice scope, and well, $$$.

Over-unders suck from a structural perspective. A side-by-side needs more skill, but its a much better design, lasts longer, and is fundamentally safer. But I am probably biased, because it was my job to repair the bloody things. A single barrel self-loader (semi auto in American speak) is better structurally, but rather unsporting (and unlawful in the UK, where I did my gunsmithing).

Oh, and a word to the wise - lead shot is used for a reason. It's better than steel ball bearings, no matter how 'obvious' it is that steel, being harder, will be more effective. It doesn't fuck up the bores; It dumps ALL of the energy into the target, giving a better kill rate; And it sticks to a barn wall, rather than bouncing off into your face. /PSA

(You would be amazed how many people who should know better chose to load shotgun shells with steel ball bearings).

Sorry, this is a major derail. Mods, feel free to split the discussion of guns into another thread

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

In some states now, hunting using lead shot gun pellets is illegal because they spread through the enivironment and are eaten by birds that cause chronic lead poisoning.

For example, California.
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/hunting/nonlead-ammunition

Though the Trump administration is rolling back these regulations now on federal lands.

 

[Axulus]

Why should we not stop an organized group of thousands of people entering our country illegally. Why are Democrats so hell-bent on mass migration?

P.S.: Isn't preventing a foreign invasion one of the chief responsibilities of a military?

If they go through a port of entry and request asylum, then it is not illegal entry. You should really stop using Brietbart as a source for your news about immigration.

 

[Opoponax]

Over-unders suck from a structural perspective. A side-by-side needs more skill, but its a much better design, lasts longer, and is fundamentally safer. But I am probably biased, because it was my job to repair the bloody things. A single barrel self-loader (semi auto in American speak) is better structurally, but rather unsporting (and unlawful in the UK, where I did my gunsmithing).

Oh, and a word to the wise - lead shot is used for a reason. It's better than steel ball bearings, no matter how 'obvious' it is that steel, being harder, will be more effective. It doesn't fuck up the bores; It dumps ALL of the energy into the target, giving a better kill rate; And it sticks to a barn wall, rather than bouncing off into your face. /PSA

(You would be amazed how many people who should know better chose to load shotgun shells with steel ball bearings).

Sorry, this is a major derail. Mods, feel free to split the discussion of guns into another thread

I just like the look of the over-unders (old timey and classic looking to my eye). As for semi-autos being non-sporting, in California, you're not allowed to have more than 3 shells loaded at a time while hunting, and as long as one doesn't short stroke a pump action, there's not a lot of difference. Also, we can use lead shot at the range, but are only allowed to use steel while hunting, which shooters believe is part of the grand conspiracy take our guns. Also, we can't use lead in hunting rifles either, so copper is generally used in the field.

 

[Elixir]

Why should we not stop an organized group of thousands of people entering our country illegally. Why are Democrats so hell-bent on mass migration?

P.S.: Isn't preventing a foreign invasion one of the chief responsibilities of a military?

If they go through a port of entry and request asylum, then it is not illegal entry.

Fact. And like so many facts, it is anathema to the alt-white talking point.

 

[Gun Nut]

Well thank you all kindly for the warm welcome.

I'll try to answer everyone...

OK, theyre not originally from Mexico but from places yet souther than that. Still they are crossing from Mexico and I think that makes that country responsible for them while they are using Mexico as a platform to reach the US. If what the media says is true that we give aid to those countries (not just Mexico, but places south of Mexico too) then that is our assistance... not babysitting for them to work here for cash jobs, not pay taxes, and then send the money back to their family. That's what I think about that.


Imma all for humanitarian aid. Just not quite as much for self-inflicted wounds... like if their country is a shithole because of their government, then those poeple need to stay there and fix it. How many Americans did Canada let in last year? ALL of the ones that wnated to get in for whatever stupid reason they had? Doubt it. Are Canadians all like, "but, but, but let them all in to enjoy our free health care they never payed into because they don't like how their president eats his steak".

So, anyway, yes, I am definately a gun nut as the lable advertises. which is to say, I am a fan of guns, not a nut with a gun. We have more than our fair share of those, me thinks. A bigger problem are all the nuts with cars on the road and computers on the internet spreading lies about basically everything. The toothpaste is out of the tube. I can argue all day about the second ammendment and what it supposed to mean. Don't matter. The fact is that America is a gun friendly nation, a profit friendly nation, and freedom is the end all. So, guns. If ya can't beat um (you can't), then join um (or get shot yerself).

Someone said somehting about a lounge... is there one near Denver? Didn't know there was a place to go. Save me some typing... haw.

So, I ain't rich by any stretch of the mind, and my collection ain't nothing like people who trade and collect.. but I got me a S&W Shield 9mm for concealed carry (friggin Denver - its open carry everywhere but there, so I got me my permit to conceal), a S&W model 686 4" chambered in .357 Magnum for killing paper (and I love that gun... it is a work of art). a Glock 41 (thatsa .45 APC) which was a mistake. gonna sell that block of plastic. good to rent but gets boring fast.
I gotta bunch of rifles. 3 .22s from when I was young. And ya, everyones first gun was my first gun, the good ol Ruger 10-22. But I haven't used any of my rifles in years. Been loving the shoties. Most versatile tool in the box. I reclaim lead and reload slugs. My shoties are a Mossberg Maveric which I have 3 barrels for, and do all my load testing and messing around with. But my baby... a Benelli SS 12 gauge. I carry a picture of it around with me like people do for their kids.. but mine is much prettier than any of your kids, I know for a fact. That's my compitition trap gun. Imma big fan of sporting clays. And now that ya'll made me talk about, Imma heading to the range right now.

wow, didn't think I would ever type this much since school.

Hey, how ya'll draw that box around what ya type.. "originally posted by.."?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well thank you all kindly for the warm welcome.

I'll try to answer everyone...

OK, theyre not originally from Mexico but from places yet souther than that. Still they are crossing from Mexico and I think that makes that country responsible for them while they are using Mexico as a platform to reach the US. If what the media says is true that we give aid to those countries (not just Mexico, but places south of Mexico too) then that is our assistance... not babysitting for them to work here for cash jobs, not pay taxes, and then send the money back to their family. That's what I think about that.


Imma all for humanitarian aid. Just not quite as much for self-inflicted wounds... like if their country is a shithole because of their government, then those poeple need to stay there and fix it. How many Americans did Canada let in last year? ALL of the ones that wnated to get in for whatever stupid reason they had? Doubt it. Are Canadians all like, "but, but, but let them all in to enjoy our free health care they never payed into because they don't like how their president eats his steak".

OK, so what does that have to do with a group of people coming up to the border and asking politely to be let in via the legal process?

 

[Elixir]

Well thank you all kindly for the warm welcome.

I'll try to answer everyone...

OK, theyre not originally from Mexico but from places yet souther than that. Still they are crossing from Mexico and I think that makes that country responsible for them while they are using Mexico as a platform to reach the US. If what the media says is true that we give aid to those countries (not just Mexico, but places south of Mexico too) then that is our assistance... not babysitting for them to work here for cash jobs, not pay taxes, and then send the money back to their family. That's what I think about that.


Imma all for humanitarian aid. Just not quite as much for self-inflicted wounds... like if their country is a shithole because of their government, then those poeple need to stay there and fix it. How many Americans did Canada let in last year? ALL of the ones that wnated to get in for whatever stupid reason they had? Doubt it. Are Canadians all like, "but, but, but let them all in to enjoy our free health care they never payed into because they don't like how their president eats his steak".

OK, so what does that have to do with a group of people coming up to the border and asking politely to be let in via the legal process?

Nothing. But the US has considerable culpability for the conditions in Central America that force thousands of people to choose between the certainty of servitude to (or murder by) violent gangs, or risking their lives to make a dangerous journey north. Anyone who thinks those people (mostly women and children) have any power to "stay home and fix it" is deluded and/or indulging in wishful thinking.

 

[Gun Nut]

Well thank you all kindly for the warm welcome.

I'll try to answer everyone...

OK, theyre not originally from Mexico but from places yet souther than that. Still they are crossing from Mexico and I think that makes that country responsible for them while they are using Mexico as a platform to reach the US. If what the media says is true that we give aid to those countries (not just Mexico, but places south of Mexico too) then that is our assistance... not babysitting for them to work here for cash jobs, not pay taxes, and then send the money back to their family. That's what I think about that.


Imma all for humanitarian aid. Just not quite as much for self-inflicted wounds... like if their country is a shithole because of their government, then those poeple need to stay there and fix it. How many Americans did Canada let in last year? ALL of the ones that wnated to get in for whatever stupid reason they had? Doubt it. Are Canadians all like, "but, but, but let them all in to enjoy our free health care they never payed into because they don't like how their president eats his steak".

OK, so what does that have to do with a group of people coming up to the border and asking politely to be let in via the legal process?

Nothing. But the US has considerable culpability for the conditions in Central America that force thousands of people to choose between the certainty of servitude to (or murder by) violent gangs, or risking their lives to make a dangerous journey north. Anyone who thinks those people (mostly women and children) have any power to "stay home and fix it" is deluded and/or indulging in wishful thinking.

OK, I get it (the "quote" thing). cool.

I wouldn't call it wishful thinking... mostly because I have no particular wishes for them... and I never really thought I was deluded, but how would I know that unless someone on the internet told me. Or a head doctor.

What this is with people crossing mexico is that at some point a group becomes a mob, and a mob becomes a platoon... Not fair calling the caravan "a group of people", like it was normal. Its a platoon of randos that could have forced many hands back home. So I don't buy the looking for asylum story. They are force to be reckoned with... ya reckon?

If all them Dems that ran away from America to Canada with their buts hurt actually stayed and voted, then the Reps wouldn't be winning every election here on out (like they are gonna, cause they know how).