dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
55,059
Reaction score
6,172
I never said anything like that was in any way acceptable. I merely illustrated that even though there isn't some written "right" to come here, we welcome immigration and always have. And always should.

You'll note I am talking immigration, not illegal immigration.

Dont take that tone with me bucko
 

Sheik

All-Pro
Messages
24,809
Reaction score
5
Illegal immigration is a hot topic, but even legal immigration needs to stop for a period of time.

We can't get our own people back to work, we aren't in need of any new immigrants at this time.

Let's get our house in order, as soon as we do that, then we can start bringing guests in again.
 

onlyonenow

In the Rotation
Messages
526
Reaction score
1
Illegal immigration is a hot topic, but even legal immigration needs to stop for a period of time.

We can't get our own people back to work, we aren't in need of any new immigrants at this time.

Let's get our house in order, as soon as we do that, then we can start bringing guests in again.

completely sensible and logical and exactly why it will not happen
 

SixisBetter

Anywhere on the line.
Messages
4,211
Reaction score
370
The U.S. has stopped immigration on certain countries,areas and ethnicity before.
Take a look at the Immigration Act of 1917 and read the wording in that little beauty.
FDR infamously refused to let refugees in from countries already occupied by the axis powers in WW2 and many Jewish refugees were turned back.
Obviously there's not much correlation between that and the current situation,but that wouldn't stop people from using that example to prop up the argument against suspending immigration.
 

NoDak

UDFA
Messages
2,633
Reaction score
0
I still think the assault rifles cause as many problems as they can potentially solve.

You are prior military, right? If so, you should know what an actual assault rifle is capable of, and that they are already banned from public use. Just because the media and the president love to use the term, because it's scary sounding and helps to drive an agenda, doesn't make it any more true. An assault rifle, by definition, is one that fires on fully automatic. Like an AK-47 or M-16. An AR-15 is not capable of that, as it's only a semi-automatic rifle. It can only fire as fast as your finger can pull the bang switch. No different than a semi-auto .22 LR. Or a semi-auto .223. Which is the main caliber of the AR-15. Just because it's black and scary looking, doesn't mean it is any more dangerous. The only thing it has in common with the M-16 is that looks like one.

Mini-AR_zps0exnmdfw.jpg


The media tells us that these are two different weapons. That one is an assault rifle and should be banned, and that the other is a perfectly fine rifle for the American public to own. The top one is a Ruger mini-14 ranch rifle. The bottom, an AR-15. They both are chambered in .223 They both are semi-automatic. They both use magazines that can hold up to 30 rounds. They both can only be fired as fast as the trigger can be pulled and the bolt will cycle, chambering another round. The difference in these two rifles? One has a collapsible stock, the other does not. One has a pistol grip and fore grip, the other does not. One is black, the other is not. Neither the stock, grips or color makes it any more dangerous than the other.
 

bbgun

Administrator
Messages
15,011
Reaction score
2,097
the critics would claim that you don't need such a "powerful" weapon for self-defense or hunting. a 30-round magazine lets you kill a lot of people in a short period of time without having to reload. of course, the kid at Va Tech wasted a shitload of people with just pistols, so a determined killer will do just that.
 

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
Messages
21,399
Reaction score
3,794
So..... Here we are again talking about banning "assault rifles." This belongs in the gun thread but what the hell. Meanwhile any rifle used to commit a assault, IS a assault rifle. Same goes with any other firearm, or hammers, or clubs, anything else you can name when it is used to assault, IS a assault weapon.

They would rather hinder and infringe on the law abiding, than stiffen the penalty for felon in possession of a firearm for example, which draws you only 5 years. (And that is IF that is prosecuted, which it seldom is.) As soon as someone on the left proposes making that 20 years and mandatory to prosecute with no plea deals possible, I will then begin to take them somewhat more seriously on the other proposals.

Think about that, while thinking about how that will pretty much stop most of the inner city gun crime - which after all is where the carnage really is. But, of course the left has a vested interest in that carnage continuing because their actual goal isn't saving lives, it's eroding and eventually in increments, getting rid of the 2nd Amendment.

We don't need new laws, we need to actually enforce the ones we have.
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
55,059
Reaction score
6,172
the critics would claim that you don't need such a "powerful" weapon for self-defense or hunting. a 30-round magazine lets you kill a lot of people in a short period of time without having to reload. of course, the kid at Va Tech wasted a shitload of people with just pistols, so a determined killer will do just that.

Didn't the latest jihadi guy (France) do his damage with a knife?
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
55,059
Reaction score
6,172
By the way speaking of crime and the mass concern over it, anyone know the number of felons Obama has now granted releases for?
 

Dodger12

Super Moderator
Messages
7,074
Reaction score
3,787
By the way speaking of crime and the mass concern over it, anyone know the number of felons Obama has now granted releases for?

I hate this guy with every fiber in my body and he can't leave office soon enough. He's the biggest fraud to ever be elected President. He's such an arrogant hypocrite and the media just let this guy off the hook from day 1.

I just had to rant.
 

SixisBetter

Anywhere on the line.
Messages
4,211
Reaction score
370
Didn't the latest jihadi guy (France) do his damage with a knife?

Not sure.
The point is,these cowardly fucks will do their damage anyway they can.
If Omar Mateen couldn't have gotten that weapon,he almost certainly would have carried out his murder plot some other way.
I'm not sure what the answer is as far as plain old nutjobs getting these weapons.
But these jihadists and ISIS?
Well you don't get rid of a roach infestation by killing the one you think is boss and telling everyone "look out for the cockroaches".
The members of ISIS would look better and be much happier getting to meet Allah in person.
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
By the way speaking of crime and the mass concern over it, anyone know the number of felons Obama has now granted releases for?
Are you talking about felons who committed violent crimes, felons who committed victimless crimes, or just felons? Got the numbers on either?
 

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
Messages
21,399
Reaction score
3,794
felons who committed victimless crimes
I'd love to see a list of those.

Meanwhile counselor, I hope you can weigh in on the argument about no-fly and/or terror list people not being able to make firearm purchases. I am arguing this is unconstitutional because you are conflating a right - 2nd amendment - with non rights. (Flight and to not be on terror watch list.) Neither of the two lists require any due process to get placed on. Seems that if you then attach a right to that, you're taking that right away without due process, or in the case of these lists - without even being informed of it or a chance to appeal. It's the same as saying that all who have invalid or suspended driver licenses, can't purchase firearms.

Anyhow I'd like your learned opinion on this please.

I agree that such purchases made when on either list, should be automatically FLAGGED, but not disallowed on the basis of being on one of these lists.
 

JBond

UDFA
Messages
2,667
Reaction score
2
Not trying to go all Hostile here, but I've been in firefights. Sometimes in villages with friendlies. More guns would not have made things better.

In Arizona (open carry state) when I first moved here in 2010 there was a shooter at a Baja Fresh near the Chandler mall. These "concerned citizens" started firing and made things significantly worse. The cops couldn't identify who the actual shooter was and these morons were shooting at cops, civilians, and property. Everyone thinks they are Billy Badass with their gun but the truth is that most people are not cut out to make rational decisions in the middle of a gunfight. It's what the military and police are for.

Now, in your own house, protecting yourself and family against an intruder? Absolutely. I still think the assault rifles cause as many problems as they can potentially solve, but by all means, people should have (licensed/registered) handguns in their homes.

Actually a large number of police departments and sheriffs have encouraged ccw holders to carry because they know they can't get there in time.
 

JBond

UDFA
Messages
2,667
Reaction score
2
I have a 30rd magazine for my Glock. If I wanted with a little trimming here and there I could convert it to full auto.
 

JBond

UDFA
Messages
2,667
Reaction score
2
With 10,000 open terror investigations ongoing right now, law enforcement is stretched thin. A halt to catch up makes sense
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
55,059
Reaction score
6,172
Are you talking about felons who committed violent crimes, felons who committed victimless crimes, or just felons? Got the numbers on either?

I didn't catch the whole segment, I heard them mention something about the death penalty as well.

They claimed it was more than the past several Presidents combined.
 
Top Bottom