The results are in from last weeks Facebook Poll Question. “Should the US Military be allowed to use deadly force to protect the Southern Border?” Ninety-three percent of you said yes. Seven percent said no. How if at all did respondents clarify those positions?
Russ said,
Only when fired on, in the rough terrain encounters, particularly. There will always be victims, and we will always look bad at this, because the media only takes one side. We should do what is right and accept those consequences. The migrants piling up at the border can be shipped back with haste, not hesitation – this is a very unlikely live fire situation.
Chris said,
If a large group of people threaten to invade by rushing over the border, shots over their heads would be first, and if the rush persists, restrained shots at the ringleaders (those in front) would be next.
Curtis added,
Only if attacked. They start up with the crap they pulled on the Mexican police then start slinging lead at the ones doing it.
William reminded us that,
Sooner or later if we don’t show our resolve, they will send armed groups. They’re already armed with diseases we haven’t had problems with in decades.
No comments from anyone who opposed even a measured use of force as a last resort.
I wish they had. It would make the conversation or interesting. Next time, perhaps?
