Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If say 1 out of 1000 immigrants commits crimes against US citizens like the Two brothers who bombed the Boston marathon, then why not ban immigration if it will save even one life? Why are Americans [liberals] willing to give up their second amendment rights but at the same time are willing to live with the problems that some immigrants cause?
The left uses the same argument against guns, but not against immigrants. If a gun ban will save just one life, if a magazine ban will save just one life, then ban them. Well if by banning immigration it saves one life then why not stop it?
Construction workers die building buildings. Why not ban building buildings to save lives? Fisherman drown in the ocean. Why not ban fishing?
What you are unwittingly referring to is assumption of risk and what is acceptable risk. Those who favor reasonable regulation of firearms note that there were 900,000 gun deaths in the U.S. since 1980, while similar nations that have stricter regulations have a fraction of that number.
You may think sacrificing nearly a million lives is an acceptable cost to maintain this fantasy of "freedom" but any do not.
Oh crap...in oredr to satisfy the nitpicky that want to make an issue rather than acknowledge your general idea ( although there are some right on this forum that do want total bans)...amend your analogy to bans on assualt guns....that ought to do it.
Construction workers die building buildings. Why not ban building buildings to save lives? Fisherman drown in the ocean. Why not ban fishing?
What you are unwittingly referring to is assumption of risk and what is acceptable risk. Those who favor reasonable regulation of firearms note that there were 900,000 gun deaths in the U.S. since 1980, while similar nations that have stricter regulations have a fraction of that number.
You may think sacrificing nearly a million lives is an acceptable cost to maintain this fantasy of "freedom" but any do not.
Funny.....it's done all the time in our so-called "for our freedom" wars
Oh crap...in oredr to satisfy the nitpicky that want to make an issue rather than acknowledge your general idea ( although there are some right on this forum that do want total bans)...amend your analogy to bans on assualt guns....that ought to do it.
Its not nit picky, its the whole concept that's asinine.
How many democrats on the hill support an assault weapons ban? How many republicans want to repeal the ban on fully automatic weapons that's already in place?
Construction workers die building buildings. Why not ban building buildings to save lives? Fisherman drown in the ocean. Why not ban fishing?
What you are unwittingly referring to is assumption of risk and what is acceptable risk. Those who favor reasonable regulation of firearms note that there were 900,000 gun deaths in the U.S. since 1980, while similar nations that have stricter regulations have a fraction of that number.
You may think sacrificing nearly a million lives is an acceptable cost to maintain this fantasy of "freedom" but any do not.
1,150,000 have died in car accidents since 1980. The founder could never have seen automobiles. And the number of deaths outnumber guns so therefor we need to regulate cars more.
Its not nit picky, its the whole concept that's asinine.
How many democrats on the hill support an assault weapons ban? How many republicans want to repeal the ban on fully automatic weapons that's already in place?
About the same number.
Its hard to talk to people like you who don't know what your talking about. There is no ban on full auto weapons. Here is a list for sale to the public just on Gun Broker.
Its not nit picky, its the whole concept that's asinine.
How many democrats on the hill support an assault weapons ban? How many republicans want to repeal the ban on fully automatic weapons that's already in place?
About the same number.
Are you not realizing his anaolgy is aimed at those that keep using the "if it would save just one life,it's worth it " argument?
If the shoe fits, fine....if it doesn't, what's your beef?
Its hard to talk to people like you who don't know what your talking about. There is no ban on full auto weapons. Here is a list for sale to the public just on Gun Broker.
They are more regulated then semi auto in that you have to buy a tax stamp from the Government to own one, but are very legal.
There is a ban you moron be cause you can't go and buy a new one without being the federal government.
By your logic there would be no assault weapons ban, if passed, because you could still buy old assault rifles. NRA got their panties in a war over that
Guess what, marijuana is legal with a tax stamp. Ever seen anyone with a marijuana federal tax stamp?
Are you not realizing his anaolgy is aimed at those that keep using the "if it would save just one life,it's worth it " argument?
If the shoe fits, fine....if it doesn't, what's your beef?
I think its a case of if you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with BS.
Are you not realizing his anaolgy is aimed at those that keep using the "if it would save just one life,it's worth it " argument?
If the shoe fits, fine....if it doesn't, what's your beef?
Question? Do we screen, or check the background, of immigrants trying to get in legally?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
