Delete my comments, Chirol, and I’ll just post them on my own blog.
The discussion was about local or state approved volunteer self-organized militias for border control
Is not maintenance of the territorial integrity of the Republic an inherently governmental function?
The Federal Gov’t secures the border too well for lefties who want to grant amnesty to millions of illegals and register them to vote for Obama in 2012, while other Americans want their favorite Westphalian nation-state defended from invasion, and its sovereignty respected.
Border states could, if the failures of FedGov drove them to it, deploy State Defense Forces, State Guards, and Sheriff’s Posses to augment the Border Patrol, perhaps even Relieve In Place in some sectors. Such measures would be resisted by those who do not want the border secured, and the State and County volunteers derided as Dumbass amateurs
//
By: Cannoneer No. 4 on 12 March 2010
at 20:11
By: Cannoneer No. 4 on 12 March 2010
at 20:34
Israel controls its borders. They are willing to use deadly force against invaders and unwelcome border crossers at unauthorized border crossing points. An illegal border crosser of the United States border is guilty only of a misdemeanor.
//
By: Cannoneer No. 4 on 13 March 2010
at 11:04
Israel is also a tiny country with borders far easier to control. Moreover, there is no excuse for deadly force against peaceful immigrants who simply want a better life for themselves. That does not mean we should let them in. But deadly force is only justified for self defense and the only cases in which this would be legitimate on the border is against criminals and smugglers.
//
By: Chirol on 13 March 2010
at 12:11
To be sympathized with and aided, or to be defended against?
Illegal border crossing at unauthorized border crossing points is a crime, albeit only a misdemeanor at present, so whoever commits such acts are petty criminals and smugglers, smuggling themselves.
Israel is a small country, but their borders are no easier to control than ours. They are just much more serious about it than we are.
//
By: Cannoneer No. 4 on 13 March 2010
at 12:41
And if you believe shooting unarmed people is justified then you have no business either carrying a weapon or defending the border.
Moreover, it’s just absurd to think that Israel’s borders are no easier to secure than ours. Israel is about the size of New Jersey. To even suggest it is as difficult to patrol that versus the thousands of miles of US border shows a complete lack of common sense and logic.
I responded, but Chirol deleted my response. I went to ComingAnarchy and posted this:
invader
Main Entry: in·vadePronunciation: \in-ˈvād\Function: transitive verbInflected Form(s): in·vad·ed; in·vad·ingEtymology: Middle English, from Latin invadere, from in- + vadere to go — more at wadeDate: 15th century1 : to enter for conquest or plunder
2 : to encroach upon : infringe
3 a : to spread over or into as if invading : permeate <doubts invade his mind> b : to affect injuriously and progressively <gangrene invades healthy tissue>synonyms see trespass
— in·vad·er noun
He deleted that, too.
I’m reconstructing the comments deleted from Rethinking the United States from memory. The first deleted comment included the above definition of invader and continued thusly:
Should we really care what their motivations for entering the country illegally are? Does it matter that the first act these potential new Americans did was to violate our laws?
Try walking in to Area 51 sometime and see if they don’t shoot you because you were unarmed.
Is the United States of America worth defending?
If it is, unpleasant things will occassionally happen to vulnerable people who tug at our heartstrings. Shooting a beautiful Latina with a cherubic babe in her arms and another one in the oven is hard to do, but rules are rules, right?
I think that’s the part that got him.
Am I seriously advocating the cold-blooded murder of innocent Mexicans who merely want a better life? Chirol seems to think I am.
Is he seriously advocating forming militias to control the land frontiers of the United States? I thought so yesterday, when I took him seriously.
The other comment he deleted was a simple link to The Battle For America. Notice the map at that link. Where the red touches the border is where subnational paramilitary border protection elements might have a chance.
Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group 
Are you? One could certainly construe;
as such, couldn’t they?
You over here on Chirol’s behalf?
I thought better of you.
I’m advocating a serious discussion of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and how far the United States and We The People should go to truly control our borders.
Can’t do that at your site. You people delete comments you can’t debate.
Chirol’s a big boy and can defend himself. I’ve never deleted a comment for any reason so your “You people…” accusation is without warrant concerning me.
I get the over all context of what you’re discussing and I understand it’s nature but I don’t understand your position as I read and quoted above. More specifically;
“Shooting a beautiful Latina with a cherubic babe in her arms and another one in the oven is hard to do, but rules are rules, right?”
Is this a challenge? Sarcasm? Righteous assertion? It’s certainly not an advocation of “serious discussion” so far as I can tell, unless I’m missing something.
If he is such a big boy why are you over here attempting to continue a discussion that that he deleted from the blog you share with him?
You gentlemen squelched or allowed to be squelched a civil serious discussion at your own blog.
At this point I do not particularly care if you understand my position.
I have only deleted comments from a thread once at my blog (true, much less traffic then Coming Anarchy), but I did note I was doing so and why. I am surprised there is no mention of it at CA.
I’m not surprised.
The most valuable (and just about only) thing I learned from Charles Johnson was to create all of my comments in Word (or another offline editor) before posting them someplace where they could be edited for content or removed entirely.
===
The only ones that should need to be shot at the border are those that resist being rounded up and bussed back. Which might convince the Mexican government to do a better (or at least somewhat less corrrupt) job of policing its own southern border with Guatemala.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/02/mexicos-southern-border/cynthia-gorney-text.html
===
C4 check your blogroll, S4 at War has shut himself down, he’s home safe now.
ADOBE
WALLS,
R
Not worth commenting on a blog that requires such precautions.
Maybe nobody should be shot over something as insignificant as a border. Maybe it’s racist, sexist, homophobic and chauvinistic for Americans to think themselves so exceptional as to actually impede the free movement of nonviolent people across borders.
If the American people were serious about keeping unauthorized border crossers from crossing at unauthorized border crossings, the physical barriers would be much more substantial, technological surveillance would be much more comprehensive, Quick Reaction Forces would be much quicker to react and a whole lot scarier for illegals to encounter. Most of the American people aren’t serious, which is why the border is so porous. The same forces that want the border porous would delegitimize and strangle any “legitimate border militia” in the crib.
There is a Coast Guard Auxiliary. Why isn’t there a Border Patrol Auxiliary? Wait, there is.
S4 At War deleted, thanks.
>>And if you believe shooting unarmed people is justified then you have no business either carrying a weapon or defending the border.>>
Interesting comment. I guess cops shouldn’t carry weapons either – if you don’t surrender when they tell you to, but run away – they’re likely to shoot you – even if they have no idea if you’re guilty or innocent.
If you don’t intend to use a weapon when warning is ignored, then maybe you _shouldn’t_ carry a weapon…so if you _do_ carry a weapon, why is the offender justified in assuming that you _won’t_ shoot?
What is the point in having a law if it isn’t going to be enforced?
Without a weapon, you cannot be said to be “defending” the border – you’re just out there counting the illegals crossing it..
Personally… I could see the possibility of heavy artillery shelling in random but frequently used areas that have been cleared of all personnel – foreign or domestic – for a few weeks. Then start some shelling in areas that less carefully monitored…then start shooting people who try to cross. In other words…give fair warning, then shoot to kill. If any Latinas cross with a babe in arms and one in the oven under those conditions, they deserve to be shot.
That said…I’d rather have Mexicans than muslims.
Well hey, suek. Glad to see you over here.
Harrassment and Interdiction Fire missions entailed firing on known enemy trails, hang-outs, etc at random times to keep the enemy off balance. We The People would first have to agree that illegals are “the enemy.” H&I fires are unobserved, so only the unlucky ever get hit. Impact areas on the private property of American citizens would be a legal nightmare. Any rounds that landed in Mexico would be such catastrophic self-inflicted PR disasters that the whole idea would be given up.
Who deserves to be shot?
Liberals/Leftists/Progressives have an entirely different target list than the rest of us.
There is no National Consensus on how strict or how lax immigration and border control policies should be. That is why state and county border forces are even considered. Liberals/Leftists/Progressives see amnestied former illegals as a potential path to perpetual power and will hamstring all Federal efforts.
>>Who deserves to be shot? >>
Any mother who would endanger her children that way – unless she was in a situation where death was preferable to whatever life she was living. Something we aren’t likely to know, of course. Point, of course, is that most mothers aren’t likely to be casual about risking the lives of their children, even if they’ll risk their own.
Other than that – I agree with you.
I have mixed feelings about the illegals. I live in an area where we probably have many. We live in a fairly agricultural area, and most that I’m likely to encounter are hard workers. I consider them “keepers”. There is no question in my mind that the laws need to be revised, and one of those revisions needs to re-evaluate who is permitted to legally immigrate. Presently, individuals with low levels of education aren’t particularly eligible – but they’re a large % of those who are needed for work. That seems pretty short sighted on our part.
I also understand about the voting issue. Many of the immigrants – legal or illegal – are going to be drafted into the SEIU, and will vote as directed. On the other hand, many are RC and have strong feelings about abortion, marriage, homosexuality etc that make them open to information about what the Dems stand for. Does the GOP actively recruit??? If so, I’m not aware of it. Language is a problem, I think. In any case, I’m convinced that the amnesty thing is the next big push – in order to influence the vote in November. I’m not sure we haven’t had our last honest open election.
Shooting mothers is pretty rough on the shooters, if they have to do it in person with hand-held small arms. Maybe that’s why the Israelis have female operators on their border pillboxes.
>>Shooting mothers is pretty rough on the shooters>>
Understood. But…that’s a different issue.