America and immigration.

Toothless King said:
when I was deployed to Yuma sector in the southern border, we apprehended illegals from Romania, all over South Americas, some Chinese, and Africans.
Click to expand...

What the hell does this have to do with anything?My point was about crossing the sea.
 
helltoupee said:
I guess if we all had AR-15s, you'd be out of a job?
Click to expand...
for one, right to bear arm is protected by the Constitution.
second, the modern bad guys are not walking around with a damn muzzle loader so why should I armed myself with a muzzle loader?
 
oldshadow said:
Link me to the amendment the guarantees the right of migration and you might have some kind of point.
Click to expand...

I will just as soon as you can link me to the amendment that guarantees the right to unfettered access to firearms.

oldshadow said:
Does your view include the 1st amendment and the even bigger changes?
Click to expand...

Nope. And neither do I think that people's firearms should be taken away. I believe in a 2ndA with reasonable regulation, to prevent things like allowing 10yo's to buy an assault-rifle at the local 7-11.
 
Toothless King said:
for one, right to bear arm is protected by the Constitution.
second, the modern bad guys are not walking around with a damn muzzle loader so why should I armed myself with a muzzle loader?
Click to expand...

It is protected by the Constitution, with limits, which is why I made the comment about AR-15s and shopping malls. Try shopping at wal-mart with a dozen grenades strapped to your chest. You can't. Because the 2ndA doesn't grant you unrestricted access to bearing arms.
 
helltoupee said:
It is protected by the Constitution, with limits, which is why I made the comment about AR-15s and shopping malls. Try shopping at wal-mart with a dozen grenades strapped to your chest. You can't. Because the 2ndA doesn't grant you unrestricted access to bearing arms.
Click to expand...
i'm pretty sure 2A is restricted otherwise you see civilians armed with RPG and AT4 at Walmart

and the right for foreign nationals to US citizenship/immigration is under what amendment?
 
helltoupee said:
I will just as soon as you can link me to the amendment that guarantees the right to unfettered access to firearms.



Nope. And neither do I think that people's firearms should be taken away. I believe in a 2ndA with reasonable regulation, to prevent things like allowing 10yo's to buy an assault-rifle at the local 7-11.
Click to expand...


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

We have more then enough infringe all ready but still are will to compermise on a few things if it can be done without hurting legal gun owners.

The rest is pure bull shit.
 
oldshadow said:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

We have more then enough infringe all ready but still are will to compermise on a few things if it can be done without hurting legal gun owners.

The rest is pure bull shit.
Click to expand...
i'm pretty sure he is just making shit up.

10 y/o buys assault rile at 7/11 or walking around Walmart with grenades strapped to your chest? Hell, you can't even do that in Texas or Arizona.
 
oldshadow said:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

We have more then enough infringe all ready but still are will to compermise on a few things if it can be done without hurting legal gun owners.

The rest is pure bull shit.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with your 2nd statement.

As to the 1st and the 3rd, I'll just point out that the 2ndA is a complex sentence with a main clause that is defined by a modifying clause.
 
Toothless King said:
i'm pretty sure he is just making shit up.

10 y/o buys assault rile at 7/11 or walking around Walmart with grenades strapped to your chest? Hell, you can't even do that in Texas or Arizona.
Click to expand...

You can't do that because of regulations.

The very regulations that many 2ndA advocates cry foul about.

Point_over_your_head.jpg
 
helltoupee said:
You can't do that because of regulations.

The very regulations that many 2ndA advocates cry foul about.

Point_over_your_head.jpg
Click to expand...
2A is ALREADY restricted for a long ass time.

but yet you had to bring up "strapped grenades to your chest" or "10 y/o buys assault rifle" to help with your point?


Shit makes no sense, son
 
Here's what I don't understand about immigration from Mexico. If what I hear is true and lots of people are being killed and abused while trying to cross the border (presumably mostly Mexicans) Why doesn't Mexico seem to give a shit that it's own people are suffering?
 
Toothless King said:
2A is ALREADY restricted for a long ass time.

but yet you had to bring up "strapped grenades to your chest" or "10 y/o buys assault rifle" to help with your point?


Shit makes no sense, son
Click to expand...

My point is that a large contingent of gun fetishists point to the 2ndA as some kind of godsend that should guarantee them the right to carry any type of firearm, anywhere they please. They believe all gun regulations are a violation of such. This is exactly what my first post, which you responded to, was referring to.

If you don't have a problem with that (restrictions), then why craft a response implying people should be able to walk around a shopping mall with loaded AR15s, because 'criminals do too'? Were you just suggesting that police aren't very good at their jobs and you are in fact useless? Or do you just want to argue?
 
squeezewax said:
Sick of hearing, 'This country was built on immigration!' I see Americans saying it and it's proclaimed down here in Australia too.
Yes it was built on immigration, just like Australia was, but times are so much different these days. Back they we weren't concerned about maybe letting in the odd terrorists or two, for example.

I couldn't believe my ears recently, when i first heard about this lottery for getting immigrants in the country.
It seems almost unbelievable for the most powerful nation on the planet to get migration like this. I realize it was originally done for diversity, but again times have changed.

This chain-migration. So one person gets into the country, how long before he can send for family members? How many family members are allowed to join this new migrant?

Then all the people sneeking over the border which the democrats don't want to stop because they see future voters. They don't seem to care about the long term effect on American society, and they DO appear to care more for illegal aliens and future ones than the American people.
I heard the other day that Arizona is gradually becoming a Hispanic society, don't know if thats true? However there is a very large latino population thats steadily growing.

I'm all for immigration, but a government should look after the people that are already living in the society and not drastically change it.
Here in Australia we have a points based merit immigration scheme. We let people come into the country based on age, education, and things like that. The country wants people from particular professions, trades, etc, and hopefully all these people will benefit the country and make it better.
Click to expand...

Where legal immigration is concerned, America should "draft for need." Take the individuals with skill sets needed to fill out the labor force. Allowing people to cross the border illegaly is dangerous (for Americans and the illegal immigrants), but it's worth it to left-wing Americans because illegal immigrants (and their children) predominantly vote Democrat and because the flow across the boarder is a significant source of illegal drugs for Americans who use them. Those are the real reasons why Democrats want to open the borders (not because they are sensitive to the needs of illegal immigrants).

The only smart thing to do is secure the border and create a work visa program where people are properly vetted.
 
helltoupee said:
My point is that a large contingent of gun fetishists point to the 2ndA as some kind of godsend that should guarantee them the right to carry any type of firearm, anywhere they please. They believe all gun regulations are a violation of such. This is exactly what my first post, which you responded to, was referring to.

If you don't have a problem with that (restrictions), then why craft a response implying people should be able to walk around a shopping mall with loaded AR15s, because 'criminals do too'? Were you just suggesting that police aren't very good at their jobs and you are in fact useless? Or do you just want to argue?
Click to expand...
did i say anything about criminals walking around a shopping mall with AR15 or law-abiding citizens should be walking around shopping mall with an AR15? Show me where i said that.

But criminals do have access to AR15, not fucking muzzle loaders.
 
Toothless King said:
did i say anything about criminals walking around a shopping mall with AR15 or law-abiding citizens should be walking around shopping mall with an AR15? Show me where i said that.

But criminals do have access to AR15, not fucking muzzle loaders.
Click to expand...

When you quote someone and type out a reply, the two are taken together, contextually.

What exactly were you trying to say, when you stated "ciminals don't have muzzle loaders" which was *in response* to my quip about AR15s and shopping malls? What was your point?

If I completely misconstrued what you were trying to say, my apologies, however I don't know how you expected me to take your response as anything other than some kind of *rebuttal* to what I originally said.
 
Immigrants from the 1920s came from Southern and Eastern Europe. Good people who came over to improve their lives and help the country produce. Today, the majority of immigrants are coming from Mexico and Central America. I would say 50% are bad people not looking to give anything back to the United States. They are here to commit crime, sell drugs, and disrupt peace. MS-13 is a case and point example. You want to compare that 'shit' gang of fucktards from El Salvador with someone who came over from Italy or Ireland?

I think some of the toughest soldiers (Americans) of all time had to be the ones that fought with Washington against the British in the winter of 1777. One of the coldest winters in U.S. history and many did not even have proper shoes/boots. They were living and fighting "on a wing and a prayer".

"Valley Forge is depicted in American popular culture as a purgatory for the American Cause. A place where the nation suffered so that freedom could spring forth. 11,000 enlisted soldiers, many of them poor, non-white, and marginalized members of their home communities, huddled together shoeless around their campfires. They risked the prime years of their lives on only the hope that the American Revolution would benefit them after the war."

 
Greoric said:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
Click to expand...

As to the part you found necessary to bold, instead of looking at the entire sentence ...

A dependent clause is a clause that provides a sentence element with additional information, but which cannot stand alone as a sentence.

I mean, why not just emphasize the entire sentence? Maybe because it disrupts a selective reading of such?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,187
Messages
55,474,734
Members
174,787
Latest member
Biden's Diaper

Share this page

Back
Top