No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer

[+DieChecker]

The Great Wall of America!

It did wonders in China, think of the employment opportunities and the only way in is through the approved border crossing stations built into it.

You drive spikes so deep into the ground tunneling is impossible and you stop the nonsense.

Fences do nothing. Massive brick and mortar structures on the other hand.....

Landmines. And signs warning of landmines. After a couple dozen people go BOOM! after ignoring the signs, crossings in that area will cease. Once the crossings have ceased in an area, the signs alone (fear) will prevent crossings.

[RavenHawk]

What Ninja is refering to is his earlier links (Maybe not in this thread?) that point out that the BALANCE of immigration is down to near a zero change. Meaning as many people are taking their earnings/savings and heading back to Mexico as are coming into the US. If we had 1 million people coming north last year, we could have 1.5 million coming north this year... as long as the number of people going back south is also increasing. Means very little toward the security and prevention of illegal Border Crossings. It is just a statistic number used for arguements sake.

Now that you say that, that sounds familiar. Sounds like the tripe he would push. Some *balance*. I think that this kind of scale needs to be skewed so that no one crosses either way.

People are still crossing North, it is just that many are crossing South also. You know, sort of like how people travel between New York and Pennsylvania. How people would travel over an Open Border.

This should not be an open border. The last time I looked, Chihuahua and Coahuila are not like NY or PA.

[RavenHawk]

The Great Wall of America!

It did wonders in China, think of the employment opportunities and the only way in is through the approved border crossing stations built into it.

You drive spikes so deep into the ground tunneling is impossible and you stop the nonsense.

Fences do nothing. Massive brick and mortar structures on the other hand.....

Something like that. But you are correct in that fences do nothing. They are a single point of defense (a single point of failure). Anything Man-made can easily be defeated. But a wall would be too expensive. It would be better to have a line in the sand.

Landmines. And signs warning of landmines. After a couple dozen people go BOOM! after ignoring the signs, crossings in that area will cease. Once the crossings have ceased in an area, the signs alone (fear) will prevent crossings.

As much as landmines would be fun, it wouldn't persuade the crossings to stop. You need to dishearten them trying to cross a barrier as I had described earlier would do wonders in discouraging them. Have helicopters fly overhead harassing them until they either turn around or give up.

[+DieChecker]

Now that you say that, that sounds familiar. Sounds like the tripe he would push. Some *balance*. I think that this kind of scale needs to be skewed so that no one crosses either way.

This should not be an open border. The last time I looked, Chihuahua and Coahuila are not like NY or PA.

Agree. The border should be Closed except where we have checkpoints.

[+DieChecker]

Something like that. But you are correct in that fences do nothing. They are a single point of defense (a single point of failure). Anything Man-made can easily be defeated. But a wall would be too expensive. It would be better to have a line in the sand.

As much as landmines would be fun, it wouldn't persuade the crossings to stop. You need to dishearten them trying to cross a barrier as I had described earlier would do wonders in discouraging them. Have helicopters fly overhead harassing them until they either turn around or give up.

I don't think the fences do nothing. They certainly prevented illegals from large scale convoys of trucks just driving across. But they do little to prevent foot traffic.

I think the landmines would be pretty disheartening. It seemed to help keep the people of North Korea from crossing the DMZ. One of the main ingredients there is landmines. And they are cheap and passive. No patrolling necessary.

I think that the US would never do that however, so probably guardposts, with more active patrolling is what is going to have to happen.

[regeneratia]

Hunting is NOT why I want a gun. It is NOT why I have a gun. Hunting is NOT why I am seeking to buy more guns.

I buy guns because I refuse to be enslaved.

If you want to protest something, protest the armed forces use of depleted uranium, that have killed our own and strangers.

Those who don't understand the need to own and stock guns must well be extremely domesticated unaware and living in invisable but gilded enslavement.

Edited February 5, 2013 by regeneratia

[+DieChecker]

Hunting is NOT why I want a gun. It is NOT why I have a gun. Hunting is NOT why I am seeking to buy more guns.

I buy guns because I refuse to be enslaved.

If you want to protest something, protest the armed forces use of depleted uranium, that have killed our own and strangers.

Those who don't understand the need to own and stock guns must well be extremely domesticated unaware and living in invisable but gilded enslavement.

Damn. I don't agree with you on much, but I do on this post!!

[Jinxdom]

Why bother closing the border when you can open it up. Allow the employment of illegal citizens and do not enforce minimum wage laws for them, just add paperwork to track them and allow them to get citizenship later on where the standard wages would apply so we can start bringing manufacturing jobs back to the US(Sorry China not a fan). It may sound cruel but it isn't gives them an opportunity to actually prove their self worth and usefulness to our country. Invite them in and let them do the work we don't want to do. Seriously landmines?!?.

[mysticwerewolf]

here's one reason i wany ten thousand rounds of ammo twelve laws rockets, fifty Wp grenades and all the other ship that the army gets to have

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite

[+DieChecker]

Seriously landmines?!?.

Not seriously....

[+joc]

Not seriously....

Seriously...why the hell not? Mark the area Caution: Land Mines...in Esapnol and every other language...might kind of put a stop to the Drug Cartel traffic which is what I'm most concerned about. How can anyone really seperate the Terrorists from the Drug Cartels?

[Frank Merton]

You make my point for me,he had a gun you didnt.If he wanted to he could have done anything he wanted to and there would have been nothing either one of you could have done but died.If a criminal has a gun pointed at you,it is better to fight fire with fire and hope you are the better shot.It is atleast 50/50 then.

Yea -- he had a gun (properly so) and I didn't, so we stayed off property that was very dangerous for us to enter (mines). If we had had a gun things could have gotten truly ugly. As it was with guns under proper control things went well.

[Beckys_Mom]

You had better care. Knowing what their [the Administration's] plan is determines what your course of action is.

Why does that effect me and everyone in my country? I do not care what a group of religious people in the USA plan on..

I guess you didn't catch the focus. The Bible and Jesus speak of many things but the message of the Bible is Salvation.

When I said he also preached peace and forgiveness, your answer was - Not really..

You're non clever comment proves that you didn't.

Really? Tell me how this statement is not clever or even fact --> Smoking doesn't kill anyone, but people can die from smoking.. It is no different from the statement you previously, which was Violence doesn't kill people, but people can die from violence.. Both statements are true..

Luke 22:36

He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. – some will say that this was meant as a setup so that Jesus could rebuke the use of weapons but others will say only for the purpose of his Crucifixion.

Matthew 10:34

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. – Some versions say that the word is not sword but division, but it is still violence. From time to time, I make an equivalence between Judaism and Hinduism by stating that Yahweh = Brahma, Jesus = Shiva, & Holy Ghost = Vishnu. Now Shiva is the destructor of the Triad (or Trinity).

Context is said to be important... So as this does lean away from your OP I make a new thread, http://www.unexplain...howtopic=242416 asking Christians about the context of these two verses, and see what they have to say.. I have looked at the full context of the two and from what I have read, it seems you have not taken context into full consideration..Especially when it was Jesus that told Peter to put his sword away ( after Peter cut someones ear off ) he said - "There is no need for this"..There is a lot more to those bible quotes than you like to think..It is easy to copy and paste a random bible verse to suit what you want, but many will tell you context is important.. If you wish to continue this over the bible quotes and context, go to the thread I created and take it from there, that's IF you don't wish to derail your topic any further

Matthew 21:12-13

12 Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13 "It is written," he said to them, "'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it 'a den of robbers.'"

These are examples of violence used by Jesus. Now people like you and Phelps would see these as examples of using violence to get your way. I see it as standing your ground. As a last resort.

But aren't we getting away from the OP? If you want to reply further then create a new thread in the appropriate forum. Let me know and I may respond.

So again you have not been able to show proof that Jesus said to use violence to get their way....If you do not wish to get all into this, then do not copy and paste the odd line from a bible that you take completely out of context thinking you are making a point, when in fact you have not been able to ..

Sigh!... I'll try it again. I didn't bring GOD into this.

When I say - In this thread, I mean only mentioned by you in this thread.. You of course where the one to post a comment you read elsewhere about god.. This is what I meant.. As for your OP then nothing is to stop you from getting back to talking about how many bullets you think are needed to take down your government...

Edited February 5, 2013 by Beckys_Mom

[AsteroidX]

Cant we just all get along like these guys

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/05/world/asia/north-korea-nuclear-test-explainer/index.html

[Capt Amerika]

Yea -- he had a gun (properly so) and I didn't, so we stayed off property that was very dangerous for us to enter (mines). If we had had a gun things could have gotten truly ugly. As it was with guns under proper control things went well.

If i am following your premise correctly, the landowner was in the right because it was his land he was protecting.

Had you had a gun it would have only gotten ugly if you chose for it to get ugly, in any case you were the one in the wrong.

His having a gun was a way to protect himself from the unknown, in this case..you.

What if you had a gun and he didn't? Would you still have went all the way around or would you have crossed his property anyway just because you were armed and he wasn't?

In the end it seems simple, a guy wanted people to stay off his property and he had armed himself to ensure his rights were not violated.

Sounds reasonable to me.

[Frank Merton]

The "guy" was a soldier of the Army of Vietnam, apparently posted there to keep people off a mine field. Soldiers have guns in Vietnam, civilians don't. That is to my mind the way it should be.

[Capt Amerika]

The "guy" was a soldier of the Army of Vietnam, apparently posted there to keep people off a mine field. Soldiers have guns in Vietnam, civilians don't. That is to my mind the way it should be.

Good News, In America, we don't require citizens to own guns.

Its a choice, Freedom is a wonderful thing.

and in my mind, that's the way it should be.

[Frank Merton]

Good News, In America, we don't require citizens to own guns.

Its a choice, Freedom is a wonderful thing.

and in my mind, that's the way it should be.

I agree, freedom is a wonderful thing. I go to the States quite often, although I'm kinda lucky that way -- most Vietnamese don't have the freedom to do so (because the US doesn't give them the freedom). I really don't notice much difference between the two countries when it comes to freedom, except I feel safe walking down the streets of Ho Chi Minh City at night, something I don't really have the freedom to do in the States.

Not that crime doesn't exist in Vietnam -- no matter where you are you need some common sense.

I think Americans have been fed this line about how free they are that they don't notice that they really aren't so free. All freedom has to have limits and I do notice policemen doing things like enforcing speed limits there.