Politics

Oldfart1939 · 2018-04-28 13:12:27

I'm the grandson of a LEGAL immigrant, as are most people posting on this website living in the USA. Maybe the history of the family immigration has been lost down the memory hole? But grandpa came here with a valuable skill which guaranteed him immediate employment in 1903; he was a German Master Coal Miner. Turn of the 20th Century economy was almost entirely coal based. So, as far as immigrants are concerned--they need to have a marketable skill or knowledge base in order to not become a burden to society, and hence, taxpayers.

As far as learning English, that happened almost immediately, even though there was a major German speaking community in Illinois where his sponsor lived. Within 5 years of his arrival, he became the superintendent at one of the coal mines supplying coal for the electric powerplants near St. Louis.

Moving on to the topic of firearms. The Second Amendment per se, does not grant the right to keep and bear arms, but was written by our founders to codify a natural or God given right of free men. We all have that right unless specifically taken away as the penalty from becoming a felon or renouncing U.S. Citizenship. Gun Control in America was founded by a desire to keep firearms out of the hands of newly freed black slaves. Gun control has always attempted to move incrementally, nibbling at the issue through of various municipalities and some states making what they claim are "just reasonable restrictions for public safety." Humbug.
According to FBI statistics, the # 1 weapon used in the USA for killing another person is the Baseball Bat. Maybe we should all agitate for Bat Control? The Muslim Mayor of London is now calling for Knife Control, because that's what the British gangs are now using, absent firearms.

I only commented here about the potential success available to immigrants who work hard, and assimilate into the fabric of society. Many now come for the handouts--even refusing to learn English or make any effort to become Americans. Some of the greatest and most productive immigrants were Nicola Tesla, Enrico Fermi, and Albert Einstein. That doesn't seem to be the same type we are seeing today.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2018-04-28 15:54:01)

elderflower · 2018-04-29 04:31:51

Why do Americans ignore the bit about a "well regulated militia" -to which relatively few belong- and focus only on the bit about the right of citizens to "keep and bear arms"?

GW Johnson · 2018-04-29 09:42:47

When you live in rattlesnake country on a farm with coyotes predating upon your livestock, you need guns. No way around it.

I have owned a small arsenal of guns for a long time. I used them out here, too. I never ever shot at, or threatened any human being, nor has anybody ever bothered me out here. I have the right weapon if they ever do.

But I have shot many marauding varmints, and a bunch of poisonous snakes around my house.

I don't need any government at any level telling me what guns I can or cannot have, or how I might use them or not. I already know what I need, and what to do with them.

As for the Second Amendment, under federal law, the adult male population IS the "unorganized militia". We are supposed to be armed, or at least knowledgeable enough to serve if called up.

The Founding Fathers had a choice to make: put all the weapons in armories, or just the big ones. They chose to send the small arms home with the "unorganized militia", specifically to make the threat of armed revolution credible, so that government would behave itself better.

That need has not changed, except to be more important than ever. 50 years ago, politicians would have been tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail for doing what has become routine today. 50 years ago was when I first voted by the way.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2018-04-29 09:44:44)

elderflower · 2018-04-29 10:30:53

But it doesn't say an "unorganised militia" in the second amendment. It says a "well regulated militia". Isn't the intent to dissuade foreign powers from embarking on an invasion, not to enable a domestic uprising which would itself give foreign powers an opportunity to interfere? To that end an organised militia would be valuable- I understand that there is one, which is called the National Guard.
I appreciate that you have need of weapons to deal with unfriendly wildlife. A shotgun would be really handy sometimes. Licencing of firearms allows many shotguns in the UK, mostly for country dwellers, and your need will certainly be greater. But why would you have need of a military assault rifle, unless you are in the military or in a well regulated militia? And if you live in a city without the unfriendly wildlife what need of any of it apart from the militia? What you actually need then is good policing.

kbd512 · 2018-04-29 16:40:40

Elderflower,

Can you even define what a "military assault rifle" is, rather than regurgitating what some idiot on TV from the regressive media told you it was? The military doesn't issue semi-automatic rifles, like civilian owned AR-15's, to its soldiers and hasn't for more than half a century. The last semi-automatic rifle in US military service was the M1 rifle from WWII. No military on Earth issues semi-automatic rifles to its general infantry forces. The poorest nations in Africa issue fully automatic AK-47 rifles, also known as machine guns, to their soldiers. Welcome to the modern world. It's clearly not the world you grew up in, but it is what it is.

The only semi-automatic firearms we had in the US Navy were pistols and shotguns. Everything else we had would fire every round in the magazine or belt (most of our small arms were belt fed machine guns) if you pulled and held the trigger to the rear. That is what differentiates an assault rifle or machine gun from a semi-automatic rifle like an AR-15. I can make a semi-automatic rifle like an AR-15 that looks exactly like a military issue M4 or M16 machine gun, but that won't change how it operates. The cosmetics of a firearm are meaningless, except to regressives and other children pretending to be adults, whereas function is not. We can paint our AR-15's in "Hello Kitty" pink and purple if it makes you feel better, but your feelings won't have any affect whatsoever on how those rifles operate.

Finally, I don't care at all about what the British do over there in the UK. If they want to ban possession of kitchen utensils, I could care less. They're free to disarm and brutalize their subjects to the point to where they need permission to pee. Enjoy being beholden to a capricious government that has a complete monopoly on violence, if that's what you prefer. I'm NOT a subject of my government. I'm a citizen and adult citizens get to enjoy the privileges of citizenship and being an adult. One of those privileges is the use of technology for personal, communal, and national defense. That's how we won the Revolutionary War. The Brits were constantly complaining about how many of us there were and how well armed we were back then, too.

Incidentally, here in America "the militia" (unorganized, well organized, well regulated, or de-regulated) is defined as all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 17 and 45. A well regulated militia does not require government approval or oversight, either. Strict adherence to rules and regulations is what makes a militia well regulated. The rules don't have to come from a government for that to hold true.

Aren't the other governments of the world constantly complaining about the behavior of the US government? Do you really want to rely on a government for your personal security? As someone who society defines as an adult, do you feel even the slightest bit of personal responsibility to protect yourself or is that always someone else's responsibility? If you can't protect yourself, reason unimportant, then do you think someone you've never met cares more about you than your own friends and neighbors?

The Second Amendment is about defending your right to live with weapons, if necessary. In a society where people simply followed "thou shalt not rape, rob, or murder", weapons would be completely unnecessary. We don't live in utopia, though, and never will as long as humans are involved. What kind of child-like understanding of the way in which the world actually works is required to hold such beliefs?

It's amazing how the only amendment to the Constitution that The Founders screwed up was the Second Amendment.

For people incapable of comprehending 6th grade English if the grammatical style is a bit dated or choose to ignore what was so plainly written when they don't like what it means, let's reword the first two amendments using modern English:

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Congress will not create laws favoring one religion over another.

Congress will not create laws prohibiting the exercise of religion.

Congress will not make laws obstructing speech or media.

The people have the right to peaceably gather together and protest against their government.

The people have the right to petition their government to address problems caused by their government.

That's what the First Amendment says, even if it wasn't written in a form of English that regressives would accept after being brainwashed by public non-educational systems or other communist sympathizers who constantly try to undermine our way of life because it doesn't agree with their beliefs about the way the world should work.

2. 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.

A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free nation.

The right of the people to own and use weapons should not be restricted.

There it is. That's pretty simplistic and easily understood by people who don't have partisan political agendas who wish to disarm people while they conceal their underlying motivations for doing so.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has already ruled that no right is without limitation. The freedom of speech does not mean that you can use freedom of speech to threaten harm to other people. The freedom to own and use weapons doesn't mean that you can use a nuclear weapon against a thief who has broken into your house to steal your TV. No adult would ever debate why civilians should have nuclear weapons to protect their home from street thugs, nor claim that they can say anything to anyone at anytime without consequence.

My test of reasonability for what weapons the general public should be allowed to own and use without government restriction is pretty simple:

Can the weapon in question be used to stop (by injury, death, or mere display of said weapon) a violent criminal assault committed by a singular person, and only that person, within a crowd of other people?

Knife, Sword, or other cutting or stabbing instruments - Yes

Club, Stick, or other blunt object like a brick - Yes

Single Shot Firearm - Yes

Multi Shot or Repeating Firearm - Yes

Semi-Automatic Firearm - Yes

Laser or Electrical Shock Weapon - Yes

Fully Automatic Firearm - No

Explosive Device or Grenade or Grenade Launcher - No

Chemical Weapon - No

Nuclear Weapon - No

No human can adequately control the recoil of a fully automatic firearm or direct the force / blast of an explosive weapon to hit a singular human target where other humans are present. Every test ever conducted by so-called experts proves that even the most skilled human weapon system operators can not reliably do that and routinely miss targets entirely when fully automatic weapons are used. Can a firearm, operating characteristics unimportant, be incredibly destructive in the hands of a criminal? Absolutely. So can a motor vehicle. Speed kills. We don't propose banning motor vehicles because of car accidents, even after intentional criminal misuse of motor vehicles. The people who were killed by people who ran other people down with motor vehicles are just as dead as they'd be if they were shot with a firearm and the results can be every bit as gruesome. The explosive, chemical, and nuclear weapons can't target any specific person, so any argument along the lines of "well, if you don't believe in restrictions, does that mean people can have nukes" is a specious argument. We have enough rules, laws, and regulations surrounding the use of weapons and deadly force that no single person could ever possibly know, comprehend, and follow all of them at all times.

I've noticed that there are very few anti-firearm rape or attempted murder victims. People invariably "discover" that the Police will never be there to protect them, personally, the first time they have a real life encounter with a violent street criminal. It's all magical thinking up till that point. It's either the "I'll just call the Police" or the "I'm a ninja" nonsense that I see so frequently amongst students I've taught self-defense classes to. Then they get punched in the face for the first time in an environment that's so controlled that it bears no resemblance to a street fight, or at least none that I've ever had the misfortune of being involved in, they begin to "understand" why you'd want and need a semi-automatic firearm. The Police are a cleanup crew, a special type of city sanitation worker who comes to take human trash away. If they ever arrive before the trash does, it's a freak accident, a chance meeting if you will, between the garbage man and the reason for his profession.

elderflower · 2018-04-30 05:03:56

The second amendment comes in one sentence, not two. That means that the right to keep and bear arms cannot be separated from the need for a well regulated militia.
It is not my understanding of English which is incorrect!

GW Johnson · 2018-04-30 09:39:33

I think in the debate over the meaning of the second amendment, it is wiser not to conflate the term "well-regulated" with the terms "organized/unorganized". In the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the language is deliberately generalized (not vague, generalized) to leave the freedom to easily change the way the items are implemented under the code of law as circumstances change over time.

The conditional phrase "a well regulated militia being necessary...." (and it is really a conditional phrase, not a separate one), is from a time when it was not clear whether the US would maintain a standing army in peacetime. Before the revolution, we did not, for example. Militia in this sense includes not only the citizen soldiers who could be called up at need (today's national guard and reserves), but also any standing army, which when not on duty, went home. People forget that today, because it is so different from the ways we implement things today.

It is not in the second amendment, but in the federal legal code, where the terms "organized militia" and "unorganized militia" appear. Unlike the Constitution, in the federal code those terms have specific meanings. The "organized militia" really is today's national guard and reserves. The "unorganized militia" was every able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, and now includes females with the changes in recent years. Literally, able-bodied civilians, in today's parlance, as unpopular as that notion is among most civilians today.

Between these and the standing military forces, all these sources of soldiers taken together fit into the "well-regulated militia" concept in the second amendment. The unifying idea behind all this is the "fallback position". The basic force is the standing military (more than just the “army” today). At need, you augment it with national guard and reserves. If at greater need, you call on the "unorganized militia", by means of recruiting drives and/or the draft.

All this is long established, for over a century now. For example, the last time we drafted from the "unorganized militia" to augment the standing army, it was for the Vietnam war. The reserves had already been called, and the national guard was being used at home to control the disorder in the streets (with varying degrees of success or failure, I might add, which traces to bad policy, not bad law).

I freely admit that the concept of taking actual military infantry weapons home is not the way we implement this today (second phrase in the second amendment). It was the case at the time of the revolution: there was no difference between a squirrel rifle or a hunting rifle, and a military infantry weapon. All were muzzle-loading muskets. Today, bolt-action rifles (like the 1906 Springfield which first used 30-06 ammunition) are the military technology used in WW1, and semi-automatic rifles (like the M-1 Garand and the M-1 Carbine) are the military technology used in WW2/Korea. Today, that's hunting rifle technology. However, civilians already familiar with the obsolete technologies are easier and much faster to train with the current technology. That’s the advantage really needed, anyway.

At the time of Vietnam, it became quite clear that the updated M-1 Garand (the M-14) was obsolete and inadequate in combat against fully automatic machine guns like the AK-47. That's the genesis of the M-16 fully-automatic machine gun. Both it and the -47 have a single-shot mode as well as machine gun mode; this dates back to the Thompson submachine gun of about 1930, actually. And it was by 1934 that we realized we really didn't want machine guns on the streets in civilian hands, because of the death toll incurred with Mafia gangsters using the Thompson.

That change (the automatic weapons ban of 1934) actually worked, and I see no reason to lift that ban; no one needs a machine gun to hunt, excepting possibly for eradicating feral hogs. That last I say only half in jest. The Thompson would actually be useful against large groups of feral hogs, from ambush at close range. I don’t think the .223 has the needed stopping power against the larger hogs. The 30-06 would, and so would the .45 from the Thompson. The difference is firing rate, shooting into a crowd of hogs does not require precise aim, just a spray.

That ban on civilian machine guns is the genesis of the semi-automatic AR-15 for civilian use. Semi-automatic just like the M-1 Garand, but better ergonomics, and a different ammunition. I’d select the 30-06 for deer or elk or bear hunting, but the .223 caliber AR-15/M-16 round is good for smaller stuff. Both will kill people. Even a simple .22 will kill people (generally at closer ranges), but not as easily. So will a kitchen knife, hand-to-hand.

That being said, the bump-stock and the trigger-crank are devices invented to circumvent the ban on civilian machine guns. They are pretty much specific to the AR-15, and bring its firing rate into the machine gun range without having to repeatedly pull the trigger. They get around illegality on a technicality: the gas-operated action is not modified. But they violate the intent of the ban, and so I would support extending the machine gun ban to include them.

As for the NRA, when I was a boy, it was focused upon exactly what it should have been focused: promotion of both gun skills and gun safety among civilians. That is exactly in accord with the “unorganized militia” of the federal code, part of the “well-organized militia” of the second amendment. Guess how I myself learned marksmanship and gun safety at about age 10? With the help of the NRA, and my dad and his friends, all veterans of WW2. When I entered the Navy, I earned Navy Expert and Marksman medals very rapidly with the 1911 colt and the M-1 Garand (mine had a 1942 serial number, and came with a 12-inch bayonet). I already had training and experience with guns, and it paid off. As it was supposed to.

In recent decades, somehow this focus of the NRA has become corrupted. It has become a political action organization, and has extremized along with the rest of the current politics in this country. That is a disservice. And I think you all already know how I detest the current extremized BS that passes for politics in this country. It will destroy us, if we don’t change.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2018-04-30 09:42:57)

Terraformer · 2018-04-30 09:51:23

Maybe the NRA would be more effective if they did spend their time promoting gun skills and safety? There seems to be a lot of misinformation about guns that they could help clear up. Maybe after people have spent time on a range, they'd be less frightened of firearms.

I've only ever fired air rifles and a .22 rifle. We don't get much opportunity in the UK, so it helps to be friends with farmers.

kbd512 · 2018-04-30 09:53:49

Elderflower,

I noticed that your non-argument against my explanation of The Second Amendment was not also applied to my explanation of The First Amendment. The First Amendment was also written in one sentence, rather than the five sentences I used to enumerate the rights of "the people" for those who either don't understand the vernacular in use at the time The Bill of Rights was written or refuse to accept what was written because they don't like what it means. It's rather peculiar that no such non-arguments have been made about The First Amendment by the same people claiming that The Founders didn't clearly specify who they were arming when they ratified The Second Amendment.

elderflower · 2018-05-01 04:48:30

The first amendment contains no explanation as to why Congress shall make no law respecting this, that and the other.
The second amendment contains an explanation as to why the people have the right to keep and bear arms. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state ... I fail to see why people think they have that right whilst not involving themselves with that militia.
Hunting and self defence firearms should be by license. That way you may possibly reduce the number of nutters shooting school kids.
The second amendment does not specify what kind of arms it is talking about. It is usually taken to refer to firearms but would apply equally to swords, battleaxes, bows or anything else designed as weapons. I don't hear of American citizens mowing people down with swords, not with anything like the frequency that applies to mass shootings. Is that because there isn't a National Blade Association?

Terraformer · 2018-05-01 06:33:34

Come to Britain and visit London if you want to see people killed with bladed weapons.

Last edited by Terraformer (2018-05-01 06:35:08)

elderflower · 2018-05-01 08:02:51

True, Terraformer, but that is largely gang warfare not school massacres. And it is only possible on its current scale due to seriously inadequate policing.

Terraformer · 2018-05-01 09:38:09

Most shootings in America are gang warfare and not school shootings.

Also, we have the occasional school stabbing here.

kbd512 · 2018-05-01 13:59:18

Elderflower,

The Bill of Rights was written by the anti-Federalists. They thought it insufficient to simply say that the people had the right to keep and bear arms and felt the nature of the reasoning for arming the people needed to be included. The national militia or national army, which was part of the federal government, was repeatedly used against state and local militias and civilians. When the Bill of Rights was written, there were weapons that could fire more than 20 rounds of ammunition by repeatedly pulling the trigger and The Founders even tested some of these weapons themselves prior to writing The Second Amendment and commented on their desire to obtain more of them at a reasonable cost. Even back then, advanced firearms technology was available and well known to the men who wrote the Bill of Rights.

Murders from sharp and blunt instruments are several multiples of all murders committed with rifles or shotguns of any type, which includes AR-15's. Until we get a handle on deaths from knives and baseball bats, there's no need to ban AR-15's when that action wouldn't make a dent in the body count. We don't license hunting rifles because there's no need to. All rifles and shotguns in the US account for fewer than 500 murders per year in a population of nearly 400 million. I've owned firearms for the entirety of my adult life, so I'll keep my AR-15 and take my 1 in 800,000 yearly chance of being murdered by a criminal with a rifle or shotgun of any description.

The one time I needed a firearm outside of the military, it was in my hands ready to go and the guy who was trying to pry open my back door saw me coming towards him and decided he had urgent business elsewhere. The 85 pound boxer barking its head off had no apparent effect on the guy (never saw a face since he his head was down while he was working on the door, but assuming it was a guy), but apparently even dimwits don't want to be shot. I've seen some fast runners, but this guy took a running jump at the 6 foot privacy fence and was gone in less than 4 seconds tops. You may believe he was just coming over to play poker at 2:30AM, but everyone else who has come over has come through the front door after ringing the doorbell. That entire incident was over in less than 20 seconds, from the time our dog let me know there was a problem to the time I was through the back door watching hoody boy's rear end moving towards the fence. Afterwards, the Police were kind enough to let me know that almost every house on our block had been broken into at least once in the past few years. For whatever weird reason, nobody ever broke into our house, apart from that one failed attempt. I can't imagine why not, can you?

My next door neighbor was a liberal regressive lawyer from California, someone with a thought process much like yours and not much common sense to boot. I guess that'd make it uncommon sense. Anyway, he came over frantic one night and told me someone was in his house in broken English since he's Chinese. I asked him if he had a gun and he said he did not, so I asked him if he needed one and he refused. I almost forgot about that, but I guess that makes two times when I actually needed a gun since I couldn't rely on a grown man to defend himself, his wife, and his property. The Police showed up shortly thereafter and gave their standard spiel. He moved not long after that, but I say screw that. Why should honest law abiding citizens be forced out of their own homes when they can simply repel invaders using their own firearms? I guess some people will never learn.

I think our fundamental difference is that I have children I actually care about, so I'm not willing to sit and watch them be raped or murdered by street thugs when I could just as easily use a firearm to defend their right to live, either on the street or in our own home. You seem to think the best means of defense is to call the Police or beg for mercy. If the Police show up to the right place at the right time and they decide to do their jobs, then I'm more than happy to let them do what they do. If not, then having more options than begging for mercy is a wonderful thing.

clark · 2018-05-05 14:38:44

Mighty neighborly of ya kbd512. "Someone breaking into ya house? I'm watchin' the game right now, here, take this gun and go keep what's yers'."

Lovely strawman you've got going on here too.

Since we are talking about our neighborly experiences that no one asked for, mine is totally in line with the recent chest thumping xenophobia posts as of late:

Couple years back, my neighbors were renters, a couple of middle eastern fellows in their mid to late 20's. Couple of bachelors living in a rented home in a neighborhood mostly known for raising kids and establishing residency for access to the excellent local school system. It's a sleepy neighborhood, so they were a little out of place, but hey, whatever. So a few months go by and one weekend they get the bass thumping in the middle of the day, and they lit up. Like Coachella or Burning Man. Super Chill. But man, it was a bit much after an hour or so, so I leaned over the fence and told them to turn that sh*t down. They had a Canadian immigrant, shirtless, few tats, wearing a baseball cap smoking a fat blunt in the backyard. I think he was that singer who dated Selena Gomez for a while (some kind of tween heart-throb I am told). He said sorry, put out the doobie, and they turned that bass down.

So here I have an immigrant, polite, but using illegal drugs, making a ruckus. Probably should have waved a gun around, but opted just to tell him to get off my lawn. Whatever.

Anyway, few months go by and the neighbors move out in the middle of the night. Found out they hadn't paid the rent in like 6 months, and were under police investigation for threatening someone in the local park with a gun, and for trying to get an Uber driver to take a package to the airport (without a person to accompany the package). Apparently a couple mid twenty something middle eastern men who rent, with gun charges, and questionable delivery choices checks off a few boxes for counter terrorism.

GW Johnson · 2018-05-05 15:46:47

My family and I have been living out here on this farm for 31 years now. We have never had a problem with intruders or hostiles. In part, that is because I spent the first 10 years shooting out the loose running dogs that were killing livestock.

I'm well-known around these parts for being a dead-eye shot with buckshot in a 12 gauge. That "evil" reputation does help keep the peace, and it did when I lived in town decades ago, as the constable there confirmed. Small town Texas. Even the local teenagers don't smash mailboxes out here.

Yet I have never, ever had to point a gun at another human being, not since I moved out here (and only one time while living in town, which put the kibosh on drug and gang activity in that neighborhood for many years after we moved away). And for the last 2 decades, I have had to point a gun at no animals but rattlesnakes.

I never threatened anybody, but the threat I posed as an armed human being led to better law and order, both in town and out here on the farm. There is something to be said for that effect.

GW

clark · 2018-05-06 00:51:08

I don't live in a place where personal reputation decreases aberrant behavior. I've never pointed a gun at a human being (why the f*ck any one would think that is a badge of honor is beyond me).

I live in a highly urbanized, population dense, environment. No rattlesnakes. No neighborhood armed threat. I am the majority.

You want your guns, fine. I am happy to support the acquisition and ownership of guns by those who put in the time and effort to demonstrate that they can maintain them responsibility. I, like most free thinking sensible f*cking adults who happen to live like I do, will say that unfettered and unrestricted access to firearms is a bad f*cking idea.

You are the god damn sensible arguing for the moronic. What the f*ck is wrong with you?

kbd512 · 2018-05-06 14:58:27

Clark,

I'll provide a little more detail about how my next-door neighbor's little encounter with the "less super chill" people of this world went down since you're so willing to jump to conclusions about things you know nothing about.

I'm in my house working late, as usual, and someone starts pounding on my door. The dog starts going nuts because that's what our dog does, the kid is crying, and the wife is upset at me because like you, she erroneously believes there's something I can do to control the behavior of the other people in this world. Fun times, but more fun is on its way as I'll soon find out. I opened the door because I recognize the man doing the pounding and he has a panicked look on his face. He blurts out what the problem is as best he can. I ask him if he's called the Police and he said he had, but they haven't shown up yet. I also ask him where his wife is and apparently she's over there at their house in their driveway, alone. He's saying something only my wife might understand, but my translator is busy tending to the kids. In addition to Vietnamese, my wife also speaks a little Mandarin because she's spent time in China and has Chinese friends. My gun safe also happens to be next to the front door, so I did the polite thing and offered the man the same tool I already have on me. I failed to get him to understand that he should probably be armed if someone has broken into his house, so that's that. That entire exchange was over in seconds because I quickly realized that he's as useless as your personal insults are as a form of argumentation, so I beat feet to his house to have a look around. After I arrive, I discover that the little cretin is already gone when his wife "signs" (again, no English) that the guy ran past her. Thankfully, he was only interested in stealing their stuff. Apart from a trashed window and the wife being knocked to the ground, nobody was seriously hurt. After the Police show up and we're done with the reports and questions, I ask him again if he needs a gun.

I figured that anyone who was in their mid 20's before they left commie land must know how to use a gun. It's mandatory military training, or at least that's what my wife's Chinese friends told me about what their government requires. Maybe China uses squirt guns for military training. I was in the US military, not the Chinese military, so how would I know? In my defense, I did offer the guy a Chinese made semi-automatic AK-47 clone. Their state-run factories make good rifles and I'd put one up against any other AK made.

You may believe you're a free thinking sensible adult, but it should be fairly obvious by now that some of the rest of us don't share your sensibilities. There's an entire world of people out there who all have their own thoughts about what constitutes sensible adult behavior. I don't think it's very sensible to leave your wife alone when someone has just broken into your house to loot your stuff, for example. Opinions clearly vary. It's great that the worst behavior you've ever experienced from other people has been them playing their radios too loud. The situations I described are obviously not dope smokers playing loud music. I believe it's "moronic" is that you think inked paper controls behavior, for example.

Terraformer · 2018-05-09 04:17:03

Shouldn't 'temporary' have quotation marks around it, given how long it's lasted?

JoshNH4H · 2018-05-09 07:41:38

If you feel like arguing semantics, something can be both temporary and long-lasting (such as human life or the main sequence part of a star's lifetime), and it can also be temporary but continually renewed, such as a lease on an apartment. In this case Trump's decision not to renew shows that TPS can in fact end.

SpaceNut · 2018-05-09 16:24:15

Congress established TPS in 1990 to protect foreign nationals from being returned to their countries amid instability and precarious conditions caused by natural disasters or armed conflict.

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temp … ted-status

The list of nations that were or still are in a temprary protection status:

El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Yemen

So the language in the passed law will need to be read to determine the meaning of temporary. Some of which can file for the assylum when they first came here as well. Many of these are valued people and not just slugs on welfare....

SpaceNut · 2018-05-13 20:31:24

When Sanctions and tarrif's cross paths....
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald … te-n873736

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/s … ncna873556

SpaceNut · 2018-05-16 20:38:16

This not the way to talk about people as Trump says some migrants are 'animals'

Not everyone that is considered to be a Ms-13 gang member is an imigrant and claiming that it is just more false statements.

He has often conflated the gang with immigrants in general.
His most recent comment -- loaded with echoes of Nazi language about Jews -- was swiftly condemned
"Immigrants are human beings. Not animals, not criminals, not drug dealers, not rapists. They are human beings," said Colorado Congressman Jared Polis.
California Governor Jerry Brown said "Trump is lying on immigration, lying about crime and lying about the laws of California."

kbd512 · 2018-05-16 21:03:29

SpaceNut,

All human beings are animals according to scientists. Trump is speaking truth to criminal politicians like Jerry Brown and they don't like it.

MS-13 gang members are illegal immigrants and they behave worse than wild animals. MS-13 pedals drugs that kill, they rape women and children, extort or steal money from poor people, butcher anyone for any reason and mutilate their corpses, along with other crimes too numerous to bother listing here. Since the illegal immigrants can't be bothered to follow our laws when they enter our country, we don't know which ones are criminals and which ones are just starving poor people who are desperate for a better life because their own banana republic governments treat them worse than farm animals being lead to the slaughter.

Legal immigrants who follow our laws, whether they agree with them or not, are always welcome. Our immigration policy is at least as generous as any other country on the planet. There's a limit to the number of people we can admit and still expect to give our newly minted citizens decent living and working conditions. The US of A is not a bottomless well of resources for other people to take as they please.

SpaceNut · 2018-05-16 21:25:42

True we are from the animal kingdom but we are not all animals..agreed that the MS-13 and other such are more animal like in what they do. To which law is not doing there job to remove them from society.

Found this to be comical FBI officials, the phrase was a top secret codename used before the launch of the Russia investigation. Rolling Stones song inspired 'Crossfire Hurricane' codename for Trump-Russia investigation to which Senate panel backs intel report on Russian meddling, after interviewing Obama officials
Apparant evidence was found back to Putin as article states even through Putin claims otherwise.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1151 2018-04-28 13:12:27

Re: Politics

#1152 2018-04-29 04:31:51

Re: Politics

#1153 2018-04-29 09:42:47

Re: Politics

#1154 2018-04-29 10:30:53

Re: Politics

#1155 2018-04-29 16:40:40

Re: Politics

#1156 2018-04-30 05:03:56

Re: Politics

#1157 2018-04-30 09:39:33

Re: Politics

#1158 2018-04-30 09:51:23

Re: Politics

#1159 2018-04-30 09:53:49

Re: Politics

#1160 2018-05-01 04:48:30

Re: Politics

#1161 2018-05-01 06:33:34

Re: Politics

#1162 2018-05-01 08:02:51

Re: Politics

#1163 2018-05-01 09:38:09

Re: Politics

#1164 2018-05-01 13:59:18

Re: Politics

#1165 2018-05-05 14:38:44

Re: Politics

#1166 2018-05-05 15:46:47

Re: Politics

#1167 2018-05-06 00:51:08

Re: Politics

#1168 2018-05-06 14:58:27

Re: Politics

#1169 2018-05-09 04:17:03

Re: Politics

#1170 2018-05-09 07:41:38

Re: Politics

#1171 2018-05-09 16:24:15

Re: Politics

#1172 2018-05-13 20:31:24

Re: Politics

#1173 2018-05-16 20:38:16

Re: Politics

#1174 2018-05-16 21:03:29

Re: Politics

#1175 2018-05-16 21:25:42

Re: Politics

Board footer