You have zero evidence we crossed their border.
2 days later when their security was trying to collect evidence? No.Let me ask you, if it was reversed. Lets say that a Mexican border agent shot an American Citizen who was standing on American soil who was throwing rocks at them, and then these armed Mexican Border agents were trying to cross the border, would you say that the US border agents shouldn't point their weapons at them? I know my thoughts. I would be pissed if the US border agents failed to point their weapons at them as they were trying to cross.
And once again, you have zero evidence our people crossed the border.
Yet you accept it as truth. Thats the problem right there.Now, it seems there is some doubt as to whether the US border agents actually tried to cross the border.
Yet you assume they did. Why is that?If they didn't attempt to cross the border, then I don't condone the Mexican authorities pointing weapons at them.
No you were very clear. You based your argument on a non proven assumption. That is the problem.Now, if you were simply confused and failed to comprehend the situational specificity of my comments, then perhaps I wasn't clear enough when I explicitly stated these things in my first post in this thread, and I apologize.
Of course it does. You pretended this was a one time event and I gave you a link to multiple murderers by illegals flying in the face of your false assumptions.Are you saying this 15-year old boy killed all of these people?!?!?!?!
If not, then it doesn't relate to my situation-specific statements, now does it? Irrational and emotional arguments have no sway with me. I don't care. If you are thinking about using an emotionally-based argument with me, rethink things.
And actually you do nothing but live on emotion for your arguments or you never would have assumed that our people crossed the border without evidence.
Are you kidding? You use the fact he was killed as justification for pointing weapons at our citizens.None of my arguments here have been about the fact that the boy was killed.
Exactly what are you smoking?
That doesn't change the fact his death is what you are using for justification for pointing weapons at our people days later and it doesn't change the fact you are excusing his use of rocks as a weapon.They've always been about where he was when he was killed. If the little ****er had been on US soil at the time, I wouldn't care that he's doing a spot on impression of Swiss cheese right now.
Which means nothing if he is engaged in hositility from his side of the border.But he wasn't on US soil.
This is about a lot of things but logic in your argument if far from being one of them. You justify attacks from one side of the border then use that justification to excuse pointing weapons at people days later.Thus, I have a problem with it. It's all about logic.
That has nothing to do with logic.
Our people would never be pointing weapons at investigators across the border days later.I look at how I would wish our people to act if the situations were reversed, and I apply that same reasoning to this situation.
If things were reversed, I'd hold the same position.
There goes your lack of logic again.
If one of our citizens were throwing rocks at their military, I wouldn't excuse it like you are doing.Would you support Mexican authorities shooting American citizens on American soil in these circumstances?!?!??!?
Which makes zero sense. We're back to the lack of logic on your part. How is it logical to pretend someone isn't directly attacking you with a deadly object?They have no authority here, nor should they have any authority here.
Because of that, I believe our authorities should not have any authority there.
Nice dance. Care to answer the question? Which has more bulk density? A rock or a newspaper?Density?!?!?!
Obviously you have to brush up on physics. Denisty does not equal hardness.
For example, ice is less dense than water. Which one is harder?
A wooden baseball bat is less dense than liquid water. Which one is a better weapon?
Whereas, in order to use a millhouse brick, I must be within striking range of the person. I must also have skill at using this weapon and be able to target the right areas. It's not likely to crush a person's skull unless wielded by an exceptionally strong person, but it would collapse a larynx with little effort.
For all your dancing you can't get around the fact your laughably compared the two substances as having the same killing power. Again, if you really fancy yourself as understanding anything about psychics you need to get your money back for making such a laughable comparison.
Yet you can't point to a single point in time in history where that has been done.My statement was that I can kill someone with a newspaper.
Another dishonest comparison. You compared a rock to a newspaper. If you had to kill someone, which one would you use? Are you even honest enough to admit it would be the rock?If I were given a choice between throwing rocks at someone or using a millhouse brick on them, and told that my goal was to kill that person, I'd opt for the millhouse brick. I'm far more likely to be able to kill a person with the millhouse brick.
Far better odds than a newspaper.If the goal was to irritate them from a moderate distance, I'd throw stones. The odds of killing someone like this are extremely small.
Once again logic just flies out the window with you. You're assuming the target is looking.If I was 2-4 ft away from them and they were immobilized, as is the case in stoning executions, I'd probably say that the rocks would be more effective. But just because a rock can be highly effective at four feet away when the target is immobilized doesn't mean **** when compared to a target 25 ft away and capable of dodging.
and you are ducking your original comparison of a newspaper to a rock. You are never going to get around that F up dude until you admit it was a huge mistake.
15 is not a child. Its a teenager. He's got plenty of power in his arm to kill with a well placed rock.But a newspaper in my hands is going to be a way deadlier weapon than a rock that is thrown by a child.
I can't believe you are holding onto this fantasy of a newspaper as a deadly weapon over a rock.
Since you are continuing this fiasco, which would you be more deadly with? a rock or a newspaper? You seem to love to dishonestly compare items then change the target or change the person trying to kill. Can't you ever come clean and admit the comparison was a giant mistake on your part?My comparison was about relative danger of certain things. In my hands, a newspaper can be used as a weapon. A dangerous one at that.
And you're basing this off what? Personal opinion or do you actually have any facts to defend all these assumptions of yours?Hand-thrown rocks are not particularly dangerous, especially when one increases the distance from the thrower. They can be completely benign if someone acts intelligently.
quote]How about this. I'll get a refund for my education after you hunt down and shoot whoever taught you that density would be a factor in weapon efficacy.
I never said it was. I said a rock has more density than a newspaper which is 100% correct. You can start digging up those receipts now.
They are NOT equal comparisons in deadly force which was and is the point.I'm not saying a rock has equal power to kill as a newspaper in general. I said I could kill someone with a newspaper. I could also kill someone with a rock.
And a gun is more effective than a brick. Are you done stating the obvious or is this going to continue?If both are being used as blunt weapons, the rock is going to be much more effective than the millhouse brick. But if I'm using the millhouse brick as a blunt weapon, and the rock as a projectile weapon at a distance, then the millhouse brick would be more effective.
What does this have anything to do with your comparison of a newspaper to a rock as a deadly weapon at all?Let me ask you this, would you rather face off with someone who is trained in martial arts and has a newspaper that he folded into a millhouse brick, or a small child who is throwing rocks at you?
Even better, what if the person throwing rocks is your average person, but the dude with the millhouse brick is trained in hand-to-hand combat?
The danger posed by a particular weapon is entirely dependent on the skill of the person who wields it. Just because something can kill someone under certain conditions doesn't mean it is very likely to do so.
I've seen some spin but you my friend take the cake. I have never seen someone spew more offtopic nonsense instead of admitting their comparison was a laughable mistake. Well done.
How far were people from the target in stoning? The point if you are ever honest enough to admit it is that rocks are dangerous and deadly if thrown at people so you cannot justify their use to infict harm no matter what side of the border you are on.How many people have been killed by hand thrown rocks that were at a distance? Remember, the only reason I'm saying this is wrong is because the rock throwers were on the Mexican side of the border, which means hat there is distance. That also means that they cannot pass a certain point and still throw rocks without getting shot. The Border agent can increase the distance between him and the rock thrower very, very easily in order to protect himself.
If the rock thrower steps over the border, whether he's still throwing rocks or not, then the border agent is fully able to shoot said rock thrower.
That is the fatal flaw in your argument.
Nice monday morning quarterbacking on your part but once again you are assuming only one person was throwing rocks when that is not true and you weren't there. You have no idea how large the rocks were or how easily he could have run even if that were justification to run from defending the very border he was there for.Absolutely. They have every right to protect themselves in the most rational manner possible. In this case, he should have simply walked a few feet away to get out of danger.
Do you even understand it was his job to be on that border not to run away? Does that even compute with you?
Once again, you do not know that. You are assuming again.It's the irrational approach to the situation that is the problem. He didn't even try to remove himself from harms way. even though it would have been easy.
Its amazing how you can excuse Mexicans for attacking our guards just because they are standing on their side of the border.Instead he shot someone who wasn't on US soil, which is something he is not authorized to do unless he has no other option (i.e. there is a legitimate weapon being used where he cannot reasonably walk a few feet away at a leisurely saunter in order to avoid danger. Rocks being thrown at you by hand from a distance are fairly easy to avoid when you know they are coming. I've done it hundreds of times in my life)
You weren't there. You have no idea what the situation is yet you chastise the border agent from his use of deadly force siding with Mexico.
Until you can admit you are using assumption to justify your argument not logic you will never learn.
Last edited by texmaster; 06-11-10 at 12:59 PM.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
Originally Posted by Cochise
Non-military veterans and non-infantry military veterans, are you planning on strapping on your assault rifles and leading platoons down to engage the "Mes-kins" yourselves? Or are you a lot of chickenhawks and POGs taking credit for the actions of others?
Be glad to. If a unit of the SC Militia wants to go down to the border and help deal with the Mexican problem, I'll go serve a tour on the border.... IF we're going to do it right and not frack around.
No need to issue me weapons, ammo or gear, I prefer my own anyway. Mine are better than standard military issue.
Incidentally, while I was denied service due to a hearing problem when I attempted to enlist in the Army for Desert Storm, I went on to serve my community as a police officer, and yes I've been on the wrong end of various weapons before. Doing it again for the sake of our border security and national sovereignty would not bother me one bit.
Let the bullets fly, Pedro, I'm yer huckleberry.
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
My up-bringing is the reason I can't stand Liberals. They have done more to harm the Black Community that anything else in the history of the United States.
One day, black folks in this country are going to wake up and realize how they have been used by the Liberals and there's going to be hell to pay. I pray, everyday, that I wake up in the morning and that day is here.