Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-23-2013, 04:08 AM
 
90 posts, read 64,486 times
Reputation: 40

Advertisements

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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-23-2013, 04:28 AM
 
Location: Florida
23,175 posts, read 26,214,723 times
Reputation: 27919
Good analogy....earning your first rep point
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2013, 04:30 AM
 
5,190 posts, read 4,841,664 times
Reputation: 1115
I'd be happy to ban guns and immigration unless they are specifically needed.

A country needs a boat-full of unskilled peasants as much as it needs citizens armed with AK's - IOW, both are not necessary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2013, 04:31 AM
 
90 posts, read 64,486 times
Reputation: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold View Post
Good analogy....earning your first rep point
Appreciated, It just seems hypocritical that the left will destroy the constitution to "save a life" but at the same time risk thousands of life's to allow some who would destroy this country into it. What goes on in that liberal mind that makes it so confused?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2013, 04:42 AM
 
196 posts, read 115,718 times
Reputation: 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by putlocker View Post
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?
Who the hell said anything about banning guns? What they wanted to do was removed military style weapons with extended clips and limit the rounds to ten. That plus background checks and the T Party attitude of the Right prevailed. They didn't even allow a vote.

Something you should understand. The forebears were smart men. They wrote the second amendment back when there was no standing army. They wrote the second amendment when muskets and dead cannon balls were state-of-the-art weaponry. In addition to that Thomas Jefferson said the entire constitution should be up for review every twenty years or so to keep it adjusted to the new posture of the country. In addition to that the constitution has already been amended 27 times....the first ten being the Bill of Rights. The NRA is nothing but a lobby for gun and ammunitions manufacturers. 90% of Americans wanted background checks and over half wanted the assault weapons banned.

Our government has turned in to fake which in no way speaks up for ordinary citizens. They think they're superior to the people they're supposed to represent and the only thing which might cure some of their madness is term limits and since they're the ones who would have to propose and pass it...forget it. Our government has gone to hell in a handbasket.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2013, 04:44 AM
 
5,190 posts, read 4,841,664 times
Reputation: 1115
The President wanted these restrictions put in place as did the majority.

Thus, the restrictions should have gone ahead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2013, 04:46 AM
 
977 posts, read 764,154 times
Reputation: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda View Post
The President wanted these restrictions put in place as did the majority.

Thus, the restrictions should have gone ahead.
And solved not a damn thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2013, 04:48 AM
 
5,190 posts, read 4,841,664 times
Reputation: 1115
well for a start it would have made it harder to get these hard core guns.

That's a step in the right direction isn't it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2013, 04:51 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,868 posts, read 24,403,011 times
Reputation: 8672
Quote:
Originally Posted by putlocker View Post
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?


From what I've seen, the left doesn't want to ban firearms.

4 democrats voted against the background check bill in the senate, some who voted for healthcare reform.

Now, I do know that some want to ban assault rifles, armour piercing bullets, and high capacity magazines.

None of those are gun bans. The assault weapons ban, which I oppose for silly, wouldn't have outlawed guns, hunting rifles are the same gun in most cases, just no pretty flash suppressors.

The opening posters premise has nothing to do with reality
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2013, 04:51 AM
 
90 posts, read 64,486 times
Reputation: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finley01 View Post
Who the hell said anything about banning guns? What they wanted to do was removed military style weapons with extended clips and limit the rounds to ten. That plus background checks and the T Party attitude of the Right prevailed. They didn't even allow a vote.

Something you should understand. The forebears were smart men. They wrote the second amendment back when there was no standing army. They wrote the second amendment when muskets and dead cannon balls were state-of-the-art weaponry. In addition to that Thomas Jefferson said the entire constitution should be up for review every twenty years or so to keep it adjusted to the new posture of the country. In addition to that the constitution has already been amended 27 times....the first ten being the Bill of Rights. The NRA is nothing but a lobby for gun and ammunitions manufacturers. 90% of Americans wanted background checks and over half wanted the assault weapons banned.

Our government has turned in to fake which in no way speaks up for ordinary citizens. They think they're superior to the people they're supposed to represent and the only thing which might cure some of their madness is term limits and since they're the ones who would have to propose and pass it...forget it. Our government has gone to hell in a handbasket.
The founders could never have seen the internet and the industrialized printing press, and TV and Radio. So by your logic we can not let our police and military be out spoken by such a thing. If you want free speech go stand on a soap box and talk or use a 16th century printing press to print up hand bills, what the founders intended. We must regulate the high capacity media.

Think of it, if one person can spew radical hate speech all over the net reaching thousands no millions of people, this is not what the founders would have wanted. We must regulate the media of today, the rights of the people who will not abuse it is not worth letting even one person who will abuse it do so. So by your logic this is also true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top