You are not logged in.
Here are a few ideas.
In the short run, they're hoping for an economic boost. In the long run, they'll be dead, so they don't care much about the long run.
A lot of them still feel guilty about europeans going to Africa and civilising it stealing their stuff colonising it, and think we can make it up to them by letting them come here and take our stuff. Such is the collectivist mindset.
A stubborn belief in multiculturalism, and that human beings are fungible - a Turk can step onto German soil, and he instantly becomes as much a German as those whose ancestors actually built the place.
They are firm believers in the cult of progress. The idea that civilisation is fragile, and that what Europe has is a historical aberration that should be carefully preserved, is anathema to them.
They see other places as cesspools, and wish to save their inhabitants from such a fate. The question of why they are cesspools is not asked.
GDP is their No. 1 priority. Anything that increases it is by definition good.
They have a disdain for the common folk, and wish to dissolve their people and elect another.
They are uncultured swine who actually believe, as a result, that white people have no culture, and so wish to import one from abroad.
Thank you for the reply. :-)
Original registration - May 2002
[i]I want that Million Year Picnic on Mars[/i]
Offline
So much for Voltaire, eh Cindy? The words of a racist European dead head deserve polite reply?
With time comes sadness.
Offline
Clark,
Since I can't know how other people think about things, I need someone who ascribes to different beliefs to fill in the blanks for me.
Are there any political or economic issues that can't be neatly packaged as racism, bigotry, or xenophobia?
How warped does one's view of the world have to be to immediately suspect the very best or very worst of people they barely know? In other words, why can't there be anything about peoples' beliefs that falls between those two extremes?
Is it possible that there's a bit more nuance to the issues surrounding emigration and immigration than that?
What possible good will ultimately come from using identity politics to divide the people of a nation?
Are there any human values that supersede identity politics, or are those ideas not politically useful because they can't be used to try to "control" other people or pit them against each other while the "controllers" rob everyone else blind?
Is it possible that all people and their opinions matter, but some are more universally acceptable than others?
My take on speech we don't agree with is that it demands more speech. If there's a bad idea out there that's harmful to civilized society, then explain why it's bad. If necessary, explain it again. Rinse and repeat, as the saying goes. It's as if the politically aligned people are speaking two different languages. The people on the left and the right both have valid fundamental points to make, but many suffer from "political ideology blinders" that filter out the nuances of the issues.
The leftists point to inequality of outcomes or opportunities amongst various people who can be categorized as part of an identity group and then try to differentiate every identity group and attribute the cause of the inequalities experienced by people in those various identity groups to simple racism / bigotry / xenophobia. That person was harassed by the Police because they were black. This person wasn't addressed as a woman because he was a man who dressed like a woman and everyone who refused to address that person who was, by birth, a biological male as a biological female is bigoted. The other person was an illegal immigrant from a foreign country and was deported because she was Mexican, Chinese, or what have you. I think you'll find the underlying reasons to be a bit more nuanced than that, even if the point about the massive inequalities in opportunities and outcomes still stands and is valid. I think we all want good education, jobs, and healthy lives, but different people will define success in life in radically different ways and that may exacerbate the inequalities.
The rightists point out that there's very little in the world that's egalitarian in nature and there are reasons why things happen the way they do beyond claims of racism / bigotry / xenophobia. It may very well be the case that people get excluded from a job opportunity because of that, but seldom is it simple discrimination based upon race or ethnicity. Most of the people I recommend to hire probably have Indian or European ancestry, but that has nothing to do with why I recommend them to my supervisors. I never pick the candidates put in front of me and most of the time I never even see them in person. Even so, 95% of the time I end up recommending someone who ostensibly has European or Indian ethnicity. That said, I have also personally worked with IT professionals who happened to be black or hispanic. I can confidently say that very nearly everyone I've ever worked with, irrespective of race or ethnicity or national origin, had the technical and communication skills to do the job and that is all 99% of IT people care about (I don't doubt there are invariably "some" racist people who work in IT, but I'd also wager they don't last very long when their bigoted personal beliefs interfere with productivity) because our bottom line is about money, not race or ethnicity. The people I recommend either have the technical background, communication skills, and can answer the technical questions I ask with valid responses, or they can't. If they can, then they get a recommendation. If not, then they aren't recommended. I could be recommending people who all came from Timbuktu for all I know since I rarely see them until after the hiring process is complete. All evidence I can point to indicates that the standards don't exist to discriminate against people based on race, ethnicity, or national origin. I wouldn't view the end result as racism, even if it happened to exclude everyone of a particular race or ethnicity.
With the same productivity-based viewpoint, I don't want people coming here who don't speak the language, or refuse to learn it, don't share our cultural values, or won't follow the laws. If you subscribe to a religion that widely teaches (it doesn't have to be universally taught to still be a major problem) that it's okay to murder people who don't share that religion, then I don't support bringing those people to America because they're unlikely to change beliefs as deeply held as religion simply because they've been transported to a strange new land where the majority of the people hold differing beliefs about religion.
I ask simple and straightforward questions:
If I take an immigrant who doesn't speak the language, doesn't understand or accept the culture, has little to no technical skills, and has little to no money as a result, then how likely is it that that person is going to integrate well into the society they're entering into and not simply become another economic burden for everyone else to support?
Is it discriminatory to expect immigrants to integrate into a society and obey the laws?
If we have significant issues providing gainful employment that supplies livable wages or salaries to our own people, then why do we need to import foreign workers?
Where do you think both sides go off the rails at? In other words, where do you draw your boundaries on your idea maps?
My thinking on this is that leftists go off the rails when they advocate for policies that support failed collectivist social and economic institutions and rightists go off the rails when they advocate for policies that support patently false ideas of racial or ethnic or religious superiority.
Offline
kbd, please excuse me if I overlook the rhetorical questions you pose. Please also accept my rejection of your straw-man argument. I will also suggest that you have a poor grasp of my history here.
I am familiar with verse. I am familiar in the art of constructing a sentence to say something not said aloud. I can read a lie just as well as you and see the two truths behind it. I don't have idea maps. I know what is fundamentally right, and what is fundamentally wrong, just like you.
Terraformer can say some intelligent things, but he is a closet racist. Maybe you are too, I don't know. I'll watch and learn either way.
Remember, this is just text.
Offline
How can I be racist against closets? I have no trouble with closets. Unless you mean to say that I *am* a closet?
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline
Clark,
I hope you'll understand if I don't marvel at the intellectual prowess you've demonstrated thus far from a few unsubstantiated claims or insinuations of racism against Terraformer and myself. If you can't or won't articulate why you believe other people to be racists, then for lack of better information I'll conclude that you're just calling other people names. The underlying cause for the name calling is still unknown to everyone else. I thought you might shed some light on this seemingly pervasive leftist belief that everyone who does not share their political opinions regarding the best way to run a country must be a racist / bigot / xenophobe.
As far as what's fundamentally right or wrong is concerned, that's typically part of a belief system that won't change simply because someone asks questions about it. If it will change or can be immediately deconstructed as factually incorrect upon examination, then I would argue that it's not a very stable belief system and probably not something people should subscribe to. I don't think questions defining what a belief system entails should be dismissed as rhetoric or straw-man arguments, even if your opinion on that matter differs.
Offline
Here is something that I recieved recently in the form of a survey. Sounds simple and ok to collect data to be used for a supposed research. The issue is 1 page was in english and the other page of the same survey was in Spanish....
We are in America and its an English language country so stop catering to the non english speaking community....
Citizenships first steps are to give up your language.....
The second is to Know our history....
The third is to assimulate into Americas culture not force us to adapt to yours.....
Offline
I stand corrected Terraformer. All this time I thought you had no sense of humor. You are a funny guy. Such a clown.
kbd, i really can't comprehend why you wouldn't marvel at me. I mean, I just don't get it. Is it the jacket? the hat? my shoe selection? Perhaps the whole ensemble just isn't working together. oh, the mystery! My god man, this is a crisis. I should probably workshop this, maybe do some surveys out to the local community.
Hey SpaceNut, if i ask non-english speakers the questions in English, really loudly and slowly, is that okay? I can walk down the street screaming and hollering at every passerby, "WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THIS OUTFIT?"
And if and when i get a reply I don't like, I can use my fancy words, preen, and demand that they provide a sound, reasoned, measured response defending their point of view.
There is a moral to my story. There is a metaphor at work here. Did you get it? No, probably not. That's okay. Just know I am here for you. Hugs.
Last edited by clark (2018-04-21 10:57:46)
Offline
I just remember the words of the good book. "Answer a fool according to his folly."
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline
LOL!!! Clark are they over 60 and with a hearing aid battery thats gone dead.....Whats is funny is just how many words of the English language and where they do come from other languages; so its not all that hard to learn but its grama syntax is. You meet half way until you can learn more of the language. If they are trying you can make use of any language but its not ok when not even learning any words to the point that they only use there native language.
Ordering chinese by numbers......The food names are assimulated to the american culture so give it a try and say the name.
Same is true of many others from all countries but I do not continue in that ordering language as that is not where we are....
Offline
Oh goody, Terraformer wants to play sock puppet. I see your proverbs and raise you one bard, "a fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool." Shall we continue with more pithy replies made by others?
Thanks for the elocution lesson SpaceNut. Suffice to say I don't subscribe to your view on language acquisition requirements. I prefer to live and let live, but far be it from me to dissuade you from getting on your soapbox with your like minded friends and loudly proclaim how others ought to communicate if they want to live near you. Since your intended audience are those that don't understand you to begin with, it is rather comical. Like radio ads aimed at the deaf.
Offline
Those years a while back when I taught in public schools, I saw non-English speakers "mainstreamed" into my math classes. The end state is as stated above: they are to learn English to live here. But, it is quite unfair not to help them learn in an appropriate and rapid way. The starting state is VERY far from the desired end state.
That "mainstreaming" policy was utter b*llsh*t driven by ideology and politics. Those kids could not work the math because they could not read and understand the problem. Same was true for science or social studies or anything else. What is required with a non-English speaker is a semester (or a year if needed) learning to be fluent in English, then they can "mainstream" with the rest.
I know this is the politics thread, but most politics is b*llsh*t, in my humble opinion. Ditch the ideologies. Pick up the common sense.
GW
Edit: Better Clark!
Last edited by SpaceNut (2018-04-22 08:40:59)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Welcome to the gutter GW! Slumming vacation or are you looking to buy some property here? Word of warning, our Minder is very good about being strict with rules pertaining to profanity. So in essence, your earnest point about "the children" will more than likely be amended because, "the children".
Can you all not see what a wonderful joke that is?
In all seriousness, is a belief that reliance on common sense is a more practical methodology of navigating this world in itself an ideology? Ditch the ideologies and assume the fetal position GW!
Last edited by clark (2018-04-21 19:04:55)
Offline
Clark, How long before you realise virtue signalling is not the same as reasoning?
I would say that common sense is not a bad way of navigating the world. It certainly gave rise to the scientific methodology and is to be contrasted completely with faith-based belief.
Welcome to the gutter GW! Slumming vacation or are you looking to buy some property here? Word of warning, our Minder is very good about being strict with rules pertaining to profanity. So in essence, your earnest point about "the children" will more than likely be amended because, "the children".
Can you all not see what a wonderful joke that is?
In all seriousness, is a belief that reliance on common sense is a more practical methodology of navigating this world in itself an ideology? Ditch the ideologies and assume the fetal position GW!
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Hi louis, I have a special affinity for anyone else that chooses lowercase spellings for their handle. So unpretentious. You're my homie.
Now that you mention it, i should probably do a bit of introspection, then bare my soul to this lot. Show my credentials of why I think what I think, right? I mean, I can't just sit here and say slavery is bad, the holocaust was terrible, and I disapprove of murder without *justifying* my reasoning. Right louis? Tell you what, I'll think about justifying why tolerance and acceptance as a foundational viewpoint is necessary for this discussion if I can somehow rationalize a reason why I would want to debase myself like that.
Here is something to chew on; common sense would dictate that you only ever cross the road when there are no cars coming in either direction. Faith based belief has you cross when a little green light tells you that "everything is going to be okay".
Last edited by clark (2018-04-21 19:30:47)
Offline
Clark,
I went back through the last couple of pages of posts, but I couldn't find any instances where someone here attempted to justify or otherwise advocated for slavery or murder, nor asked you to explain why it is that you believe slavery or murder are unacceptable, so I believe any insinuation that someone has to be another claim without evidence.
Thus far I've learned that you have a very high opinion of yourself, a very low opinion of some other people, like to call other people names if it suits your purpose (whatever that is), and don't feel the need to explain any of your reasoning for the name calling. You seem to prefer to dismiss the questions posed by other people here as irrelevant as well.
I do wonder about what level of insecurity someone has to have, with respect to their own reasoning, when they can't respond to the most basic questions regarding what they believe or why they believe it.
Offline
Hi kbd512,
I'll note that your last post contained no questions, but faults me for not answering questions. Have I trained you, or are you testing me?
As to my insecurity on my reasoning, it is at a comfortable level 4 on a scale from Blue to Magenta. I've worked really hard over the last few years to get above Chocolate. And to clarify, i do not in fact have a high opinion of myself, and in point of fact have opted to reserve judgement on myself as I might be biased. So many conflicts of interest, ya know?
Buffoonery aside, you and I agree more than not. I have enough sense to know quite well that where my views diverge from yours it is entirely for subjective reasons. Self-awareness [shake fist at invisible non-existent god]! We can both look at the same facts and come to equal, and different, conclusions.
As to what I believe: people are people, regardless of where they come from, what they pray to, how they look, or how they speak. We are all fundamentally the same, with equal parts good and bad. we need rules in place to help guide behavior, not enforce behavior; and only as many rules as absolutely necessary. anything that maximizes personal choice and increases opportunity of choice is better; anything that reduces personal choice or decreases opportunity of choice should be considered carefully. I think that people, when left to their own devices, will in the great majority of situations, make the best choices afforded to them that are best for their situation. I think that it is in my own self-interest to encourage or support private or public programs that increase opportunity and choice for people.
The validity of my views are self-evident, in the same way that saying slavery is wrong. The assertion needs no additional justification. To engage in a debate on the subject only adds credibility of the counterpoint, and frankly I don't care if someone disagrees with me on the points above. Call me righteous if you want, i get it.
Here are some of the things I believe that we might find areas of disagreement: I support limiting or restricting sales of AR-15's, not all guns. I support immigration control, but expanded immigration processing so it easier for people to come to the united states and build a life here. I reject requirements around immigration integration or language acquisition; people should choose of their own accord how and in what way they want to integrate into the fabric of society, not forced. i support universal healthcare, progressive taxation, and other forms of government intervention that furthers social stability as it is in my self-interest as a "have" to have things that help reduce social tension and individual desperation. I'm against capital punishment. I don't condone destroying or burning images that hold significance to others (aka flags), but I oppose trying to criminalize the behavior. I think that the political parties in the united states are fundamentally the same, and do not represent any real, meaningful choice.
So now what? Shall we nitpick and spar? Hug it out? Do you have views that you are on the fence about, or do you have fully formed thoughts and opinions on everything? Are you putting your opinions out here to test them, or test others?
Offline
Clark,
I was being sincere when I said I wanted to understand the underlying beliefs held by other people who frequent this little corner of the internet regarding our governance. If you read the previous exchange between GW and I, you'd have noted that I stated that agreement is not required for acceptance. I want the best arguments other people have for why they believe as they do. That's enough of an exchange of ideas for other people to understand the reasoning behind the beliefs that other people hold.
I like deconstructing all ideas regarding governance, including my own, to test the logical and moral validity of those beliefs. I won't choose to believe something simply because the idea came from someone claiming to be an authority. It's probable that that is the very worst reason for having a belief. I'm not overly enamored with my own thoughts, either. The mere fact that I thought something doesn't make it logically consistent or morally correct. Finally, I don't relish playing this childish "gotcha game" that so many people like to engage in. What I would like to do is to put forth and adequately explain, to the best of our ability, the highest forms of the arguments for our beliefs about governance.
I didn't come here to debate about whether or not slavery is evil because I believe it's every bit as absurd to argue that as you do. The only difference is that I'm willing to express my reasoning for my belief instead of claiming the validity of my viewpoint is self-evident. Clearly it's not, or there would never have been any slavery. Other people may choose to express why they think slavery is worth practicing, but I won't dignify their assertion with a response. Using violence to force people to do things that they don't want to do is coercive and, to my way of thinking, evil. I think it's beneficial to a civilized society that the very least amount of violence or coercion is applied to its citizenry as is practicable. There is clearly some amount of coercion and violence inherent to the implementation of governance. If you don't pay your taxes, then eventually men with guns from the IRS show up at your door. A government can't run without taxes because government doesn't create anything through its mere existence, apart from self-perpetuation.
If the immigrants who come here can't pay their way through life when they can't get a job because they can't read and write English passably well, will I still be forced to support that "lifestyle choice", via taxation, as my contribution to the welfare state, at the muzzle of a gun from my friendly neighborhood tax man? I paid 39 and some change in taxes this year to Uncle Sam. I never made that much in a year until I was in my mid 20's. How much should I pay in taxes? How much government spending is enough?
Regarding socialism versus capitalism and to what extent we should mix the two together, since we obviously do already, can you point to any socialist country where the poor have had any upward economic mobility as a result of socialism? What does the welfare state do over here for the productivity of its recipients? Does it encourage anyone to do better? What happens when you inevitably run out of other peoples' money and the bills keep coming in? Is it better to have someone else give you a fish or to know how to catch a fish?
I would like to know why you support limiting the sale of AR-15's and who you would restrict sales to. Fewer than 500 murders occur every year from rifles and shotguns of all types, to include everything from single shot muskets to semi-automatic rifles or shotguns. A further 10,500+ murders are the result of handguns. There were 374 homicides by rifle (of any kind, a portion of which were AR-15's) in 2016, for example, and 11,004 total firearms homicides (meaning rifle homicides were just over 3% of all firearms homicides). For comparison purposes, 963 people were fatally shot by the Police in 2016. What major problem do we solve by banning AR-15's?
We already tried banning weapons like the AR-15 for a period of ten years, from 1994 to 2004. Our government's own assessment of the results was that it had virtually no impact on murder rates because most firearms homicides were and are committed with handguns. That's been true for a very long time, as in before AR-15's existed, and the AR-15 design is more than half a century old.
Offline
Hey kbd512,
Generally speaking, immigrants that come to this country, or any country, do so for opportunity, not handouts. Is it all, no, but the vast majority. Because they come for opportunity, most are willing to learn to read and write to allow for more opportunity. Adding in a government requirement adds in a level of coercion that is unnecessary. I'm willing to oppose regulatory requirements stipulating that everything must be communicated in multiple languages just as well as opposing regulatory requirements that everything must be communicated in english. Let free people decide for themselves. We have a far greater problem with deadbeat citizens than with deadbeat immigrants, so I don't really see a need to focus on that as a problem that needs solving.
As for how much you should pay in taxes, I am of the mind that it should be little. We would be far better off in my opinion if progressive taxation moved a larger burden to the 1%. A fat middle class with more disposable income equates to more consumers, more customers, and more jobs to service them. You can sell more burgers if 10 people have a 100 dollars vs. 1 person with a 1000.
I can't answer how much government spending is enough, but clearly how it is spent should be better.
Your questions are fair regarding the value of social welfare programs. I attended public school. I attended a public university. I've worked for not for profit organizations that serviced or focused on medicaid and medicare beneficiaries. I've worked for academic institutions that perform research on behalf of mankind, through grants from the state. I know that if I am unemployed I can receive some level of temporary assistance. I know that if my income is not sufficient to cover my food needs, I can qualify for assistance. I know that children who do not have enough to eat can qualify for programs and be fed at school. Everything i just pointed out are a form of socialism or welfare that help improve productivity or leads to opportunities for people to become more productive.
I support gun restrictions in general and I say this as someone who has experience with firearms. They are too easily accessible by those that have no respect or understanding of how to operate or maintain them safely. I support concealed carry and ownership of weapons, just with more regulations, permitting, and oversight. I recognize this conflicts with the second amendment so would support a repeal of the second amendment to allow for more laws that could legally restrict gun ownership. I recognize this will not stop gun violence, but I believe it will help reduce instances of gun violence while still allowing those with a desire to own a weapon, to do so.
Offline
Clark,
I see your point about government regulation mandating English reading and writing being unnecessary.
Do you see my point about not paying people to sit on their rear ends because they don't want to learn the local language and laws?
After our government waves its magic wand and makes our new immigrants citizens, they should also have a job lined up for that newly minted citizen to perform, even if it's only helping to process the other new immigrants.
I'd don't begrudge any of the money we pay to people who are truly disabled. That said, welfare can't be a cradle-to-grave proposition for someone who is fully capable of working, but chooses not to. Even prisoners shouldn't be permitted to sit in their cells 24/7 because it's an utter waste of their lives. Few things are more degrading than society saying "We no longer have any use for you." That's just ignorant. There's plenty of work that needs to be done here, however mundane. It's interesting that such stupidity never flies in the military. Even those who are lead around in chains are still expected to work in the military.
We already have millions of people who came into this country illegally who are now demanding their citizenship. If I can't emigrate into China or Mexico illegally and demand that they make me a citizen, then why should anyone from other countries have claim to American citizenship? What form of exceptionalism is being demonstrated by acquiescing to the demands of foreign criminals? If you think illegal immigration isn't considered to be a real crime, then go to China or Mexico and try it.
How much more money do you think you can take from the 1%? We already receive 40% of the income tax revenue from them. If we took every penny they had, we couldn't fund the federal government for one month. After you implement confiscatory tax rates for everyone who makes more money than what you define as being "middle class", what incentive do the rich have to continue to work harder or smarter after they reach the top of the middle class? Where else in the world has this improved the lives of the average citizen?
How do you plan on enforcing the repeal of 2A?
You don't support capital punishment, but you would have armed men enter everyones' homes, even people who never owned any firearms to begin with since we don't know where all the firearms are, just to steal their property because you don't think they deserve to have it? What happened to live and let live?
When they hold that Constitutional Convention to repeal 2A, how do you feel about giving up some of your other privileges, like 1A?
If our politicians decide that posting your thoughts on the internet isn't free speech protected by 1A, since there weren't any computers around when The Founders lived, nor were there any AR-15's, are you willing to give up your freedom to express your thoughts via the internet just to get rid of 2A?
Why do people who support collectivism automatically assume that the only things that will be taken will be things that they don't care about taking from other people?
Offline
Toronto Police say the driver of a van killed 9 people and injured 16 when he decided to run them down with his vehicle.
When is the right time to talk about banning assault vehicles? After another senseless tragedy?
Let's confiscate those fully semi-automatic assault vehicles and their high horse capacity motors! Confiscating assault vehicles may not prevent all vehicle deaths, but it will reduce the number of people killed by vehicles.
Nobody needs an assault vehicle. Save the planet and each other by not driving.
It might look a little funny when Police Officers are chasing criminals on roller blades while making siren noises like Michael Winslow from Police Academy, but if it saves one person who's literally too stupid to live, then it's all worth it. If it doesn't, oh well. Only the collective truly matters.
If anyone else here thinks that what they just read is stunningly ignorant and unfairly blames people who had nothing whatsoever to do with what happened in Toronto today, then maybe you can understand how I feel when someone demands that I give up my guns because some low life murdered someone else with a gun.
You don't think you need a gun to defend yourself? Great. Put up a gun free sign in front of your house. Advertise that you're a willing victim for criminals to brutalize. What could be more virtuous than signaling to the rest of the world that you're a door mat for evil people to take advantage of? Who wants to take the chance of something bad happening if you defend yourself when you can guarantee something bad will happen when you choose to be a rag doll?
We think nothing of using technology to do something as simple as driving to work, yet some of us blow a gasket when it comes to using the most effective means available for surviving chance encounters with the most violent and brutal criminals our society has to offer.
Offline
This feels like we are sliding into hyperbole, sarcasm, and rhetorical questions. Based on previous posts I assumed you were passionate about the second amendment, so am not surprised I am able to trigger this type of response.
To answer some of your points, I accept restrictions and limitations on 1A rights. Most notably they all involve giving up unfettered freedom in the interest of public safety (yelling fire in a crowded theater, inciting violent overthrow, threats against leaders, etc.). Our rights come with responsibility as you full well know. You accept limitations on your 2A rights today; unless you feel that removal of your weapons on a plane, in a courthouse, or at a public sporting event is an infringement. My view is that the availability of guns coupled with their lethal purpose is such that the best interest of society is better served by doing more to limit access, not prevent. I think we can find a middle ground where we make it harder to acquire a gun but still make it possible to posses one. Unfortunately i do not believe we can engage in meaningful compromise until the 2A is repealed or replaced with a modified amendment that allows for greater scope in laws to restrict access to guns.
I've been to Mexico, China, India, Hong Kong, Japan, England, South Pacific, and Europe. I've had an opportunity to see how different people live, and I am not surprised some would want to find their way to our shores. I also understand what some people sacrifice in being in the US. It's easy to paint in broad strokes and ignore their humanity.
Offline
Clark,
I've yet to see any actual argument explaining how the privilege of law abiding citizens to own and use firearms infringes upon anyone else's privilege to use or not use firearms as they see fit. The manifestation of "safety" doesn't exist anywhere outside of the human brain. Much like "god", it's an abstract concept that you can't throw in a bucket because it's not real. The world is not "safe" or "unsafe", so there's no such thing as "public safety".
Incidentally, I do feel that disarming people who are effectively trapped in confined spaces with a bunch of other people they don't even know is an inherently evil infringement upon their personal liberties to protect themselves from criminals using one of the same tools that criminals prefer to use against them. I couldn't help but notice that everywhere we prohibit law abiding citizens from carrying their own firearms, we have mass murders committed with everything from box cutters to firearms to explosives to motor vehicles.
Aircraft
Airports
Buses
Churches
Court Houses
Hotels
Military Bases
Movie Theaters
Restaurants
Schools
Shopping Malls
The only thing all those places have in common is that the law abiding citizens, who would have otherwise had a chance to defend themselves, voluntarily reduced themselves to defenseless victims for mass murderers to butcher at their leisure. Since most firearms owners are people who follow the laws regarding firearms ownership and usage, they voluntarily left their best tools to defend themselves at home. Politicians reward the obedience of firearms owners, indeed society, to the law with unchecked thuggery at the hands of violent criminals.
I see you've also traveled around quite a bit, so you also have a good perspective on why people would want to come here. I've no desire whatsoever to stop or even slow legal immigration, even though I want the people who come here to assimilate into our society. Such a belief would be the pinnacle of hypocrisy. My wife is a first generation immigrant from Viet Nam. One day, US government permitting, we'll have paid enough money to Uncle Sam for her sister to join us here in the land of the free. Breaking the law shouldn't get you moved to the front of the line. What sort of message does that send to everyone?
Offline
Hi kbd512,
I won't argue the semantics of the concept of "safe". I concede the point. If you prefer, we can speak in terms of risk aversion or risk mitigation. In my mind, gun restrictions is a sensible risk mitigation strategy. Gun access is ubiquitous in the US, making the barrier to entry low. The same is not true for bombs and I would surmise that if they were easily accessible, we would see more instances of violence with that method. I see other countries where it is difficult to own a gun and there is lower instances of gun violence. To reiterate, we can find a middle ground where those with a strong interest in possessing firearms have a means to do so, while also making it harder for someone to just walk off the street or pick one up on a secondary market.
Since you are pursuing chain migration you also know that you are in effect sponsoring an immigrant and taking on the onus of supporting her, so I am surprised about some of the rhetoric you use around immigrants that come here to "sponge" off the welfare state. Or am I mistaken on the support requirements you commit to? Either way, I would support a more liberal immigration policy that allows for immigrants to easily secure a tax-id to pay to taxes and retain an ongoing residence status in this country as long as they maintain gainful employment and avoid felony convictions. Why deport people if they have a job and keep their nose clean?
Offline
Clark,
Anyone who knows what they're looking for can walk into a hardware store and get what they need to manufacture improvised explosive devices. You don't see many people use explosives because most violent crimes are impulsive in nature and involve the taking of something of value. Ever heard of that mugger who demanded wallets or he'd blow himself and his victim up with a pipe bomb? Me neither. The use of intrinsically dangerous improvised explosive devices requires planning and technical skill to avoid death or serious injury while manufacturing and testing the explosives. Most of the people who attempt to manufacture explosives get caught when they start testing what they've made or make mistakes in the manufacturing process. The meth cookers generally get caught the same way.
It's always a good idea to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. There are two really good ways to do that. The first is to secure firearms in appropriate storage containers when they're not in use. The second is to prosecute firearms crimes and lock up criminals before they transition from petty crimes to rape, robbery, and murder. While they're locked up, instead of treating them like they're worthless, something they've probably already experienced since they were small children, teaching them a trade or skill and forcing them to work for a living like everyone else is a proven way to dramatically reduce recidivism. There are some who will continue their criminal activities until they're locked up forever or killed, but thankfully that is not the majority of criminals if they're given the mere opportunity to obtain gainful employment. Actual testing of that idea here in Texas and elsewhere has proven that the basic concept is sound and works well in practice.
Supporting my wife's sister shouldn't be an overly burdensome task since she has marketable skills and is learning to speak English. There's a marked difference between importing people with technical skills and education versus people who have little to no marketable skills or education and can barely speak and write their own language. Setting people up to fail is every bit as criminal as ignoring the illegal immigration problem.
Illegal immigration needs to be stopped so that more immigrants can come here legally as citizens and enjoy all the privileges afforded to American citizens. Every nation has its borders and those borders must be enforced. The US is not such a transcendental place that it defies the basic definition of a nation.
Offline