Dan wrote on Mar 14^th, 2012 at 8:51am:

"Immigration" (legal or otherwise) is not the same thing as a "foreign invasion," despite what the various Empires (Roman, British, American, whatever) have to say.

The government refuses to guard the borders. Not saying we need to get a bunch of armed citizens down there, but a law not enforced is not a law at all. Things need to change. Legal Immigration= good. Illegal, unchecked mass immigration= not good.

I agree with you both, Fletch and Morph. I also believe that you have a God-given right to protect your life and livelihood from whoever is trying to take it whether it's aliens or their handlers or just some punk. It's sickening that both sides of the political aisle use the influx of people across our southern boarder as yet another means to manipulate the masses.

Rebellion is acceptable when 1/3 of any given populace is disenfranchised with the political system, 1/3 is loyal to the system, and 1/3 doesn't care or hasn't decided. Those were the odds when the Red Army took over Russia, when the Red Coats were driven from America, and when the Khmer Rouge swept Cambodia. (High 5 to whomever can find the pun.) That's the minimum ratio for a revolution to happen without being crushed by loyalists. Morality is a nonissue in these matters, as is the legality, and the origin of the government. If you have no guns, no bother. Pick up farm implements. There's a reason that the sickle was on the flag of the USSR. I have to say, I think it's philosophically amusing when morality and legality are used to talk about revolution. Revolutionaries are called revolutionaries because they are throwing out a body of laws which they no longer care for. What law is there when you choose to abandon the law?

As an aside, only Texas had a defined legal right of secession granted by treaty with the United States and Abraham Lincoln's actions during the civil war set the precedent that treaties made by the US government with predecessors to any of the states became void upon joining the Union. So no, there is no "legal" way to secede from the US. The founding fathers may have included an implied right of secession in the Constitution or Declaration of independence, but the quashing of the Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783 set legal precedent that there is no legal right for an individual to secede and the US Civil War set the precedent that the states have no right to secede.

CHowitzer wrote on Mar 14^th, 2012 at 9:48pm:


As unjust as that is, the old axiom "2 wrongs don't make a right" comes to mind. Besides this has gone far past just the rich getting preferential treatment over the poor immigrants who want legal immigration. The rich always get preferential treatment. Look at Fletch's post.

Fletch's statment was right on. The part where the illegal immagrants take a lot of jobs and encourage our country into bankruptcy by making the wealthy pay for their welfare (which also means higher taxes and fewer buisness and less induststry and improvement), is very small compared to the damage the gangs are doing down south.

Pretty much all of the weapons restrictions are almost comical, if they weren't taken so seriously by the governement. Fletch, you would probably appreciate this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8K9oqhaXTo ;  

You (as a law abiding citezen) can get almost any kind of weapon in the U.S. with enough money and more importantly enough time to let the government drones sign off all of the paperwork. So that's nice I guess. I think next to Israel -who is surronded by people that want to annihilate them- we are one of the most armed societies, and I like it that way.

Mauro Fiorentini wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 9:24am:
Yep. Same here in the US. Without our Mexican field workers we'd have real food issues here in the states.

I agree with your argument masia, but I'd add that you also need outside support and/or long supply lines for the current administration.