reply to post by middleclasssoldier
The problem with Patriots taking up arms against the illegals is twofold, vis: Moral and Political.
Moral: Is it really your intent that a human being guilty of simple trespass is of so little value in your humble estimation that the merit being
slaughtered because the Powers that be on both sides of the fence have so little regard for the Patriot American and the refugee Mexican as it is.
Hence, it is easier for you to kill someone who is so scared to death they would flee the home of their ancestors to enter a strange world which is
increasingly hostile to them, because, it is less hostile than the alternative of remaing in their home, the place of their birth. Are you so
ingrained with Media Propoganda that you can't see this is an immoral supposition you are making?
How do you determine just who is the bad guy exactly? The one with the gun? Which one with the gun? You? Them? Me?
Political: Unity during a time of great division is the truest recourse. Think of Gladiator, ficticious a work though it may be: No matter what comes
through that GATE we all have a greater chance of survival if we all stick together. It would be politically advantageous for the Citizen's to unite
on both sides of the fence, so what if we join the US, Mexico, and Canada as one Country for our own mutual defense, isn't that why we have
governments in the first place? If not? Why are we governed? If they all want to rush to America so badly, doesn't it make sense to just let them all
in, so, a few bad apples get in, we deal with it in unity and we can all overcome it. If your constitution and laws are as strong as you believe, it
will work, and one ideaology will not trump another. And, as the need for more land and resources increase, we take possession of more and more of the
land they fled to accomodate for this. Immoral? No. Such is life. If the land were worth being held by the other Country, we wouldn't have an influx
of their people in the first place, that alone is prima facie (on it's face) evidence that it is a righteous and justifiable land grab.
Now, as to the political concerns facing our country, the real reason we fear a demographic change will alter our history of law and transfer power to
the new class of citizen, is grounded in the realities we see before us in our own political parties. Our government was designed to be neither a
Monarchy (as none are above the law); nor an Oligarchy (as heredity and nepotism were cast aside for lottery and limited influence equal to that of
all others opportunities) were also rebuked by the founders, nor a Republic, contrary to popular Propoganda, (that is, the few were not to dictate to
the many); and as for democracy, it was intended to be just that. It would appear to the mislead that by reading the founding documents, such as, the
Federalist, the Elliot hearings, the Declaration of Independance, the upheld Laws and Treaties, and later work's by Curtis and Blackstone, et al (and
others), that democracy was held in a negative light and referenced little. That it would appear as though we were founded on Liberty and a Republic,
however, that would be to entertain half truths.
The founders frowned on pure democracy, realizing that rule of the masses would favor the interests of the majority and trample the minority (as
Slavery has thus proven, despite the 13th Ammendment allowing for in in cases of crime, still, to this day). You have to read past snake oil lawyers
and their Propoganda to see the writing on the wall. They wanted neither a pure democracy, nor a true republic. It was determined by checks and
balances, tendered with limits, that an everchanging political landscape would satisfy democracy, functioning as a republic. That is, America is first
and foremost a Democracy (of the People by the People) and Government is democracy functioning in a style like a republic for ease and efficiency
ONLY. But, whereas one party may limit the abuses of another, where common interests lie, they will not use the tools available to them to do so. That
is a republic's weaknes, the one the founding father's feared most. To alleviate this condition, the Citizen's were presumed to be as well armed as
the military, if not better, as the Militia and military were to be conscriptions of the People. One for a permanately standing, with fresh rotations
of the Citizen's, the other drawn up and maintained at a moment's notice for support, or, to hold the military at bay. They weren't meant to have
their own budget, beyond an administrative one. All the arms were assumed to have been provided by the individual soldiers. With budget arming them in
the event they were ill equipped. That the army can buy a tank or the air force a jet or the Navy a carrier or sub, yet, the common individual cannot
shows the weakness inherant in the system of today vs. the intentions of the framers.
That there is not a flat tax were all, regardless of station or finances pay an equitable percentage and that that percentage go not to private
business but directly to the treasury for Congress to apportion for nothing more than the essential fees of Government to function administratively,
and if it go broke, therefore downsize until it can recoup it's loss and continue, shows that none have a clue how to govern properly as the framers
intended. I can do this all day, but, if you don't overthrow your government and set it straight as the founder's intended, it won't add up to a
hill of beans whether you assault someone else, because deliberate or true incompetance, you will be under oppressive rule soon enough, the repulic,
the democracy, will fall.
One of the biggest signs of it's demise, it's guaranteed doom is the matter over Liberty. Most only understand that it means that within reason you
are free to do as you please. That is Civil Liberty, and, most understand it well. Where they falter is their failure to understand political Liberty.
It is in that sense that Communist Russia and China, etc. have our populace beat, hands down. Political Liberty is the measure of how much influence
the World has on your own political freedom of movement within those politics. In Russia, the citizen's excel at political Liberty, in that, while
they are oppressed of their civil Liberties, they are in no way influencable or answerable to Non Russian Politics.