# News & Current Events > World News & Affairs >  Arizona - American Citizens Arm and Unite Against Illegal Aliens

## FrankRep

*American Citizens Arm and Unite Against Illegal Aliens*


Human Events | Amelia Foxwell (Guns & Patriots)
Oct 12, 2010


The pre-dawn stillness was broken by the low rumble of a rugged four-wheel drive vehicle as it topped the crest of a hill and stopped. Seven camouflaged riders emerged and silently began removing gear and weapons from the vehicle. The group had only recently met and consisted of two men and one woman from Arizona, one man from Georgia, one from Texas and two from Florida. All were military veterans from various branches of service and all knew the seriousness of the situation. 

After donning wildly varying forms of tactical gear purchased with their own money and customized to their liking, five members of the group set off on foot in the direction of the U.S. border with Mexico. One man and the woman remained behind to operate communications relay equipment from the hilltop. 

The five man patrol was a hodge-podge of American patriots from three different states. Only the two from Florida had worked together before and, because of their previous experience, were placed in charge with one taking point and the other operating as fire-team leader. The air remained still and the full darkness covered their movement along the hills as they traveled the two miles to the border. 

Twenty minutes after sunrise the point man observed two distinct trails in the dew along the scrub on the ground. After notifying the fire-team leader with silent hand signals, the patrol switched to tracking mode with 360 degree security in order to avoid a possible ambush. The hunt was on. 

Over rough and rocky terrain more suited for goats than men, the hunt pursuit continued. The fire-team knew that they were closing on Mexican drug runners that made their living by working for powerful cartels on the other side of the border. This was the runners domain. They had traveled these hills and mountains many times as they carried and delivered their cargo. The drug runners knew that if the Americans caught them they would be held at gun point and arrested by law enforcement summoned by the communications and relay team far above. If the runners managed to escape but lost the cargo, they would face death at the hands of the cartel. They were armed and decided that it would be better to return temporarily to Mexico or kill the Americans than to risk arrest or losing the cargo. 

At the base of the final rise just on the northern side of the border, the Florida operatives briefed the others on what to expect at the top. The Mexicans would have the high ground and likely be ready. It was a moment of grim reality  

This is a true account from a man from Florida who went to Arizona in September and will be returning with nine more men in October, in hopes of helping the residents of Arizona secure their border and their homes. 

Few people in America know of, or understand the extent of the chaos and distress in Arizona. The facts have been purposely downplayed and distorted in the mainstream media. There are 370 miles of unsecured international border between Arizona and Mexico which have become overrun by drug smuggling, human trafficking, and extreme violence.

Eighty miles north of the border into Arizona, the evidence of foreign illegal activity is startling: the mounds of trash and empty drug packs in pristine wilderness areas, the constant flow of illegal immigrants, and a sharp increase in murder and kidnappings. The violence targeting any American or law enforcement is common, and now runs rampant in what used to be a safe part of Arizona - a part that many Americans still call home.

Phoenix has been called the kidnapping capital of the U.S. In most cases the abductions are tied to human smuggling, which has become the new more lucrative illegal business. The scenario is, more often than not Central American people who have paid others to smuggle them into the U.S. illegally, but instead, upon arrival they are sold as human cargo to members of the drug cartel who then use the men as smuggling mules and use the women for forced prostitution. Many of these people are held for ransom, and in most cases their families simply cannot pay the money, so they are tortured and murdered, or sold as slaves. In the last few years the city has had averaged a kidnapping a day, many resulting in torture and death. These are brutally violent deaths with the victims being found with their arms tied to ceilings, their fingers smashed by bricks and their skin burned with hot iron.

In comparison to human trafficking the drug trade is nowhere near as profitable, you can sell a human hundreds of times, and drugs can only be sold once. However, the amount of drugs coming into our country over the border is still quite large. Last year, in marijuana alone they seized an average of one and a half tons per day.  

The murder of Arizona rancher Robert Krentz in late March is only one of many. The subsequent investigation revealed a story of a much loved and charitable man who was simply out on his ATV mending fences on his ranch when he and his dog were shot. The scent of his murderer was followed by dogs fifteen miles back to the Mexican border. Mr Krentz was armed but never got a chance to reach for his weapon. Friends believe he must have come across someone he believed needed help and was therefore caught off guard.  

Local citizens, border patrol, and local law enforcement are overwhelmed. Their cries for help have been ignored by the federal government for reasons this writer will not speculate on. The border is simply too long, and in many cases the barrier is made of three strands of barbed wire. Arizona does not have nearly the manpower or resources needed to even begin to address or solve this problem. They are simply outnumbered and unequipped. 

Arizona governor Jan Brewer has made many appeals to President Obama for help from the federal government. She was eventually allocated a little over five hundred national guardsmen with no powers of arrest and instructions not to interfere with the illegals. As of this writing a grand total of thirty guardsmen have actually been sent to Arizona. The federal government's final response to the situation has been to post signs stating that the area is a known drug trafficking area and is unsafe for Americans. Additionally, the Justice Department has filed suit against Arizona for trying to solve the border problems plaguing its citizens through SB-1070. There are ranchers, families, and individuals who live in or near these areas who have been left defenseless. 

Some time ago, a group of Arizona residents sent out a request for help. A small contingent of Florida patriots and veterans answered. This group has been to Arizona to assess the problems, and work with the local law enforcement, border patrol, and citizens to stop the illegal and dangerous activity in this area. Their primary concern was to provide our brothers and sisters in Arizona with safety and security.

The Florida group is now preparing to return in a few weeks to help secure the border. They are calling this mission OPERATION HARVEST. This is the time of the year when the poppy crop as well as others are harvested in Mexico and the drug trafficking picks up considerably. That's why the mission was planned for this time of year, with the goal to make a powerful impact in securing the border.

The men who have volunteered for this dangerous mission are patriots, and are going to help their fellow Americans in a time of need. These men hope to give help and support where the federal government has refused to do so. One of the men leading the group has posted a page for donations to help with travel expenses. For those who would like to make a donation or for more information, the link is below.

http://realworldsurvival.webs.com/recondonations.htm 

Also, here are some clips of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer challenging President Obama:

YouTube - President Obama, No One in Arizona is Laughing

YouTube - Brewer to Obama: Warning Signs Are Not Enough

For Arizona and all of America the enemy is no longer at the gates. The enemy has invaded our home and will not leave without drastic action, vigilance and the determination of all who care.


*SOURCE:*
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39329

----------


## Republicanguy

Since this topic was made, I thought I'd mention Texas state.  A number of people would know about Kathie Glass she has said if she were elected she would have the Texas national guard be used to enforce the border by presence.

----------


## bowen161

This is something that I used to agree with but now realize it is targeting the wrong area. I used to believe in "securing the border" and "stopping the illegals" until I sat down and thought about it.

The problem is those the want to stop the illegal immigration are attacking the wrong people. While yes it is illegal to move here without government sanction, what is it that really makes you angry about this? For me its these people getting to use the system that we are paying for, i.e. social programs, while not paying for them. So what is the real liberty issue here, is it these people trying to move or the social programs that incentivizes them?

We should instead of demonizing people, be demonizing these social programs that immorally redistribute wealth. We need to end the minimum wage so we can actually compete internationally, we need to end welfare/medicare/medicad that encourage people to stay unemployed instead of seeking employment (even if it is at mcdonald's). With these social programs gone what harm do Mexican's coming over the border really perpetuate? They can't bankrupt a system that doesn't exist.

While I agree that illegal immigration is a problem, the problem comes from government intervention to begin with. As the old saying goes, you can't have open boarders and a welfare system. For me I choose the one that promotes liberty which would be open boarders, which is just another term for a free trade labor market.

----------


## Maximilian American

> This is something that I used to agree with but now realize it is targeting the wrong area. I used to believe in "securing the border" and "stopping the illegals" until I sat down and thought about it.
> 
> The problem is those the want to stop the illegal immigration are attacking the wrong people. While yes it is illegal to move here without government sanction, what is it that really makes you angry about this? For me its these people getting to use the system that we are paying for, i.e. social programs, while not paying for them. So what is the real liberty issue here, is it these people trying to move or the social programs that incentivizes them?
> 
> We should instead of demonizing people, be demonizing these social programs that immorally redistribute wealth. We need to end the minimum wage so we can actually compete internationally, we need to end welfare/medicare/medicad that encourage people to stay unemployed instead of seeking employment (even if it is at mcdonald's). With these social programs gone what harm do Mexican's coming over the border really perpetuate? They can't bankrupt a system that doesn't exist.
> 
> While I agree that illegal immigration is a problem, the problem comes from government intervention to begin with. As the old saying goes, you can't have open boarders and a welfare system. For me I choose the one that promotes liberty which would be open boarders, which is just another term for a free trade labor market.


This sums up why there is a problem and how to fix it. Don't give them incentives to break our laws, end subsidization of corn in our own country so the Mexican farmers can compete again, and end the drug war that helps the terror of crime in Mexico.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

What power over immigration has the federal political subdivision been delegated in the enumerated powers listed in article i section 8?

----------


## FrankRep

> What power over immigration has the federal political subdivision been delegated in the enumerated powers listed in article i section 8?


Arizona is a State, not the Federal Government. 10th Amendment Rights.

----------


## Modern_Matthew

Defending a horrible law in the name of "state's rights" doesn't make it any less horrible.

End the welfare state and leave the border wide open.

----------


## FrankRep

> Defending a horrible law in the name of "state's rights" doesn't make it any less horrible.
> 
> End the welfare state and leave the border wide open.


Ron Paul: "A nation without borders is no nation at all."


*Ron Paul on Border Security*
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/

----------


## bowen161

> Ron Paul: "A nation without borders is no nation at all."
> 
> 
> *Ron Paul on Border Security*
> http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/


I agree with that but having borders does not mean keeping people out, its about setting political boundaries and enforcing private property.

Though again I believe that arbitrary lines drawn on a map somewhere don't really mean anything, especially if we understand private property. If private property were supreme we would have our own borders created by the market instead of political force. 

Think of illegal immigration like illegal drugs, you can try to smash it, make it illegal and put people in cages for doing it, but in the end its a losing battle. By making it prohibited it only creates a black market that typically creates more violence. Plus it creates a police state in which we will all be required to carry ID and present them upon questioning from an "official." For all the foaming at the mouth over Real ID, I find it surprising that people are basically turning a blind eye to Chuck Schumers push for work place ID's. What is the difference?

Not only politically is it a problem but socially it creates a dialectic relationship between people that inspires hate and bigotry like the one between law and order types and pot smokers. You need to get the root of the problem instead of trimming its branches. That root is state incentives, not some poor person looking to provide for their family.

You'll see that when we clamp down on the border it will do little to prevent whats coming in, and instead be used to keep us from getting out. Ask the people of Berlin how well their wall worked.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Last year, in marijuana alone they seized an average of one and a half tons per day.


There's a really easy fix to that, too.

----------


## torchbearer

> Arizona is a State, not the Federal Government. 10th Amendment Rights.


I hope a bunch of Arizona natives kill a bunch of mexicans coming here for work so that we can see who the real $#@!s are in this scenario.

----------


## torchbearer

Hating people by groups is the hitler way.
Yes, protect your own property- but they have as much right to live here as you do. You don't own the planet, nor your state, nor your county, nor your city. all you own is your homestead, and your right to tell someone where to live does not go beyond your own property.
to kill someone because they aren't from here is a bit tyrannical.

----------


## MelissaWV

> I hope a bunch of Arizona natives kill a bunch of mexicans coming here for work so that we can see who the real $#@!s are in this scenario.


It's comin' 'round the mountain when it comes.  There are those who are here legally, or who are coming here to work with their paperwork in order.  When there are a few dozen "successful" kills by citizens near the borders, and it spreads, it's not going to be pretty (see another thread on the forums about calling 9-1-1 when illegals come to your door to canvas for the Democrats).  People know what an illegal "looks like" and are not only willing to call the police on them, but in the future will be quite willing to pull a weapon on them.  That will not go well for anyone.

All of that aside, though, there is no reason to not defend your actual property from any invader/trespasser.  If they are illegal or legal, it won't matter, because if they are sneaking around on your property in the middle of the night and don't stop when you yell "STOP!" then I'm all for using force.  

There's a fine line there, and this country has a bad relationship with fine lines lately.

----------


## torchbearer

> All of that aside, though, there is no reason to not defend your actual property from any invader/trespasser.  If they are illegal or legal, it won't matter, because if they are sneaking around on your property in the middle of the night and don't stop when you yell "STOP!" then I'm all for using force.  
> 
> There's a fine line there, and this country has a bad relationship with fine lines lately.


there is an underlying truth in your statement. these people don't really care if they are legal or not... for they won't know that status. They will know they are brown skinned and speak spanish, and that is the root of the problem. they are different.
i use the word xenophobia to describe that natural tendancy of all animals to fear other animals that are different than the ones they grew up around.

----------


## torchbearer

YouTube - Mexican Americans & Beaners

----------


## PaulFrazee

> This sums up why there is a problem and how to fix it. Don't give them incentives to break our laws, end subsidization of corn in our own country so the Mexican farmers can compete again, and end the drug war that helps the terror of crime in Mexico.


You're correct that drug criminalization results in criminal activity, but the concept doesn't extend so neatly. By your suggestion, the best way to keep criminals out is to have nothing of value. Minimum wage and unemployment are highly valued assets to citizens of our nation. We have to protect them, not ignore them.




> We should instead of demonizing people, be demonizing these social programs that immorally redistribute wealth. We need to end the minimum wage so we can actually compete internationally, we need to end welfare/medicare/medicad that encourage people to stay unemployed instead of seeking employment (even if it is at mcdonald's). With these social programs gone what harm do Mexican's coming over the border really perpetuate? They can't bankrupt a system that doesn't exist.


Compete internationally? With whom, China? We regularly indict China for its enslavement of its own people to pitiful wages and over-long hours. If we were to compete with China by destroying our minimum wage, we would be subjecting our own citizenry to the same treatment.
If we can't compete with Chinese goods, why not offset the currency imbalance by levying import taxes against them? If our primary concern is American production, maybe that would work.

Medicare and medicaid are problematic, but you're using the narrative that poor people are poor simply because that's the easy option. This may feel like a tired point, but the amount of effort it takes to escape poverty is far greater than the effort it takes to maintain wealth -- even with the problems the middle class currently faces. Poorer people can't afford the same quality of education, they can't spend as much leisure time building high-value skills, and, due to (as stated above) the criminalization of drugs, they tend to grow up in fractured homes. Perhaps some people resign to a life of poverty when faced with the often-insurmountable challenges. Perhaps. But most of those people will work multiple jobs their whole life just to get to where most of the middle class start their lives. I think we can do better than blame them.

None of that is actually relevant to your point, however, because illegal immigrants can not take part in any social programs. The only incentive they have is to work illegally, which is empowered by American citizens, not the U.S. government.




> While I agree that illegal immigration is a problem, the problem comes from government intervention to begin with. As the old saying goes, you can't have open boarders and a welfare system. For me I choose the one that promotes liberty which would be open boarders, which is just another term for a free trade labor market.


We are all looking for ways to explain our financial problems, which is great. If we can publicly articulate the problem, we're that much closer to fixing it.
However, given the number of Americans seeking employment, I highly doubt the problem is that we lack labor, and the fact that so many Americans need state-assistance just tells me that businesses aren't paying our workers enough.
It's like you're blaming the crutch for a man's limp. My question is, who is the guy breaking everyone's legs in the first place? Odds are, he's posting record profits this year.




> Though again I believe that arbitrary lines drawn on a map somewhere don't really mean anything, especially if we understand private property. If private property were supreme we would have our own borders created by the market instead of political force.


I like your reasoning, so I'm going to try to poke holes in it. Show me what I'm missing:
It is incredibly difficult to enforce property laws universally. By grouping various claims of property into nations, we gain the security of helping each other retain status-quo through shared enforcement.
There are three ways I can see your idea manifesting. The first is that we have a one-world government so effective that it's capable of enforcing property everywhere. Well, that sounds like a noble goal, but it does require a very large government.
The second is that every property owner works for him/herself. That would be fine, except that groups that work together will be able to very effectively overtake the individuals. It would degenerate into gang-wars.
The third is that property owners form their own regional groups to handle the enforcement of property. That pretty much describes what we have now.

By the way, I'm Paul. Jeff invited me to the forum. Nice to meet you.

----------


## bowen161

Hey Paul nice to meet you as well. Tell Jeff, Shaun says hello.

First off the minimum wage and unemployment are not something to be continued for a multitude of reasons. 

Lets say Steve & Mark want a job at lets say Wal-Mart. Steve is a poor kid from the other side of the tracks who has had some run-in's with the police but is not trying to take the high road and earn an honest living. Mark is a kid from an affluent family, top in his class and is only looking to score some extra cash to pay for his new theater/video game system, which he's hoping to get an employee discount for. On paper Steve cannot compete with Mark's credentials, so how can he still get the job? The one bargaining chip he has is selling his labor cheaper than Mark. But with a minimum wage it prevents and employer from even beginning to barter because why hire a guy like Steve when you can get a guy like Mark for the same cost?

Secondly if I own a business the best way I can grow is by increasing production. The best way to increase production is to hire more people. However with a minimum wage I have a set cost for each employee that I cannot legally break. If I'm making enough to have say allow for $13 per work hour with the current minimum set at $7/hr I can only hire one person. If its a simple job like flipping burgers, the labor in the market, based on output is not worth the $13/hr. Where as if I could pay them $6.50/hr I would get 2 workers and double my output thereby in the future increasing their pay as they become more proficient at their job. As my business grows so will their wages. Heaping on an unemployment tax will only cost me more and prevent me from hiring other.

Thirdly on a more principled stance, I own my labor. I should be able to sell it at any price I want to. No bureaucrat can accurately calculate what a proper wage is based on the market, only someone running a business knows how much they can pay someone. So they arbitrarily set these minimums based upon political will not any true economic reasoning. If the minimum wage was a net gain why not raise it to $100/hr or $1 million/hr then we could all flip burgers in our mansions. 




> "Compete internationally? With whom, China? We regularly indict China for its enslavement of its own people to pitiful wages and over-long hours."


While we might deride China now for its lack of civil liberties this comes from an oppressive state not a free market. The people of China have consistently been gaining more and more freedom as their markets have opened up. Under full fledged Communism millions were starving to death, this was from central planning not market forces. If we want to have true wealth built upon producing some type of good, whether it be cheap widgets or fancy computers we are going to have to stay competitive so businesses will want to stay here and invest. What good would be a degree in computer hardware if all computer production is done in China because their state has cheaper costs in the way of taxes and labor?




> "If we can't compete with Chinese goods, why not offset the currency imbalance by levying import taxes against them? If our primary concern is American production, maybe that would work."


This would again only hurt the poor. China's low imports is what stocks the shelves of many of our stores and keeps prices down as we are inflating our dollar. Taxes on products always means higher prices to the consumer. Plus China, though it is currently primarily selling to America, has been building its middle class. It won't be much longer before their 2 billion people will be able to consistently support their own markets and they can stop relying on exports and the US dollar for a base of their currency. 




> "If we were to compete with China by destroying our minimum wage, we would be subjecting our own citizenry to the same treatment."


You have to start somewhere, factories have to be built and labor has to be cheap in the beginning. Ask anyone who tries to start a business today how much their income is in the beginning. However as your business grows and you invest in it you are able to raise wages as income comes in. Most entrepreneurs take in no income for many of their beginning years, as the cost of their business, including labor costs, either leave them in the red or just scraping by to pay their bills. No magical words on paper will prevent people from having to start on the bottom rung and climb their way up. Look at America's beginnings, we started with log cabins in wilderness to only 200 years later become the largest economic power the world has ever seen spanning from one coast to another.




> This may feel like a tired point, but the amount of effort it takes to escape poverty is far greater than the effort it takes to maintain wealth -- even with the problems the middle class currently faces. Poorer people can't afford the same quality of education, they can't spend as much leisure time building high-value skills, and, due to (as stated above) the criminalization of drugs, they tend to grow up in fractured homes..


I totally agree with you that escaping poverty is no easy task. However it cannot be solved by passing laws. Would you rather they have no job and use tax dollars to sustain themselves or work for $4-$5/hr and at least build some revenue and skills in the work place. The fact is that poverty will never disappear, there will always be some who have and some who don't. This is a fact of nature and cannot be legislated away. All the state programs do is allow us to disengage from our morality to help these people by putting it in peoples minds that "I don't need to help, my taxes are helping." This top down approach that Washington can fix our ills also allows people to ignore their own community and even family by fostering and attitude that prevents volunteering, personal involvement or donating to a charity. The truth is that the state, being subject to political will, cannot offer what private charity can. Not only do they do it better but morally it is not using force but instead voluntary action to solve a problem, something the state cannot do.




> "None of that is actually relevant to your point, however, because illegal immigrants can not take part in any social programs."


This is simply not true. Even Dr. Paul admits this Between public housing, food subsidies and publicly funded health programs illegal immigrants have access to social programs. Even Obama's Aunt is an illegal immigrant living in public housing and collecting disability. Despite her nephew being not just president but a millionaire as well. YouTube - Obama's Aunt Zeituni Illegal Alien Welfare Case




> I highly doubt the problem is that we lack labor


The problem is that we lack the businesses to hire the labor we have. Most of our unskilled labor is in the service industry, but as the bubble of cheap money has popped, services are on the decline. Stores are closing, restaurants are being shut down, so we have a flood of unskilled labor being put in the market. As Peter Schiff has consistently stated we need to start producing items to sell on the world market at truly competitive rates, not propping up these bad companies. This is needed to build savings so we can have an economy paid for by our own wealth not saddled on the back of future generations through debt.




> ..., and the fact that so many Americans need state-assistance just tells me that businesses aren't paying our workers enough.


Yes they aren't paying them enough for the lavish lifestyles that we have been living in, where everyone is incentivized by the state to own a home and car.  We have been living in a bubble for the past 20+ years and it has popped, the ride is over and we now have to deal with the unpleasant reality that our wealth was built on debt not savings. (Which is no wealth at all)




> My question is, who is the guy breaking everyone's legs in the first place? Odds are, he's posting record profits this year


Again I agree with you, people are greedy. But the guy breaking everyone's legs is using the state as the bat not the market. To have a business survive in a true market you must provide something that people want. When the state is involved, it will always be the wealthy who control it to use it as a means to squash their competition. The major corporate conglomerates use their influence on politicians to write regulations that attack the small entrepreneur before he can even enter the market. With less regulation comes more competition which drives prices down and employs more people to buy these products. A good book on corporate influence on Washington is Tim Carney's _Obamanomics: How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends, Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses_ . While Tim uses the Obama Administration as an example the principle he talks about in the book transcends Obama and is just inherent in the system. 




> It is incredibly difficult to enforce property laws universally. By grouping various claims of property into nations, we gain the security of helping each other retain status-quo through shared enforcement.
> There are three ways I can see your idea manifesting. The first is that we have a one-world government so effective that it's capable of enforcing property everywhere. Well, that sounds like a noble goal, but it does require a very large government.
> The second is that every property owner works for him/herself. That would be fine, except that groups that work together will be able to very effectively overtake the individuals. It would degenerate into gang-wars.
> The third is that property owners form their own regional groups to handle the enforcement of property. That pretty much describes what we have no


Again any right we have needs to be enforced otherwise we lose it. However individuals know what is best for their property and can decide how they want to organize it voluntarily. 

One world government is quickly thrown out the door because it uses the force of the state to involuntarily impose laws on our property. Not only that, it lacks true consent, because it would be physically impossible to go around and get everyone to agree on what the world government should do. 

One has the right to do with his property as he see's fit, so long as he does not infringe on the property of others *without their consent*. If a guy wishes to strap machine guns on his roof and grow crops inside a compound he is more than welcome to try that. He should have nothing to fear though if we respect property rights because we cannot trespass on his property without his permission. Of course like you said it is costly and labor intensive to monitor and defend your property all the time so many would enter into contracts with others for mutual protection, or perhaps pay a company for protection services. 

The difference though is that a state is an institution built upon coercion. If 5 property owners want to sign a contract together in which they pledge to protect each other they can, but they have no right to have me join the contract against my will. That is what the state does, it forces me at gun point to accept their protections, much like the mafia. I, whether I want to or not, must pay for their services though no one asks for my explicit agreement. The individual is supreme to the group and in all cases has the right to not go along with it. The problem is that the state denies us the ability to opt out and compete on the market for the services they claim a monopoly over. Whether it be protection services to charity, we are forced to pay them tribute under threat of violence, something I cannot agree with.

The idea that it would degenerate into gang wars is predicated on the false idea that humans are inherently bad. That a man with a badge and uniform is the only thing from keeping us at each others throats. I don't know about you but I don't want to rob people and steal from others. Especially if I know they might be willing to defend their property with lethal force instead of waiting 7 minutes for a police officer to show up and "save the day."

With the corruption in our police anyways can you really say that they are really any different than a gang? Of course that's not to imply that all cops are bad people but history has shown the police (good or bad), who have no liability to protect you, are more willing to surround and protect one another from scrutiny than actually follow the law. With their monopoly on force who is it that polices the police? I surely don't trust them to police themselves.

I hope this long post clears anything up and feel free to shoot back any questions.

----------

