PrayingForWar
Founder's Club Member
imported post
marshaul wrote:
You make a very good points, and I really don't disagree with a lot of them. As far as immigration goes, I don't want keep mexicans out per say. My concern is felons, idiots, oxygen thieves and commies. People who don't want to assimilate, learn english, or appreciate the opportunity the US provides have no business within our borders. It's largely political that the CBP fails in it's job. They're understaffed for one. Secondly, every LEO who finds an "undocumented alien" should detain them, and the municipality should be able to ship them to the border for out processing. It's not a "service people demand" either, it's a constitutional obligation that's been politicized.
I really wouldn't care if they increased legal immigration, or the temporary worker visa.
It links to drugs as well. I have little doubt that we could keep drugs/illegals out, and that the UK could keep guns out. If gov't did that effectively, and actually solved these problems, they'd reduce their need for police within the border, and hence reduce their power. I don't have evidence to support it of course, but it seems like common sence.
Further, and this actually elevates your arguement, if there wasn't a market for guns in the UK, no one would smuggle them in. Since you can buy a semi auto AK in the states for $500, there's no market for full autos that come with a potential 10 year federal pounded in the a$$ sentence. Besides, drugs are easier to detect by dogs than guns.
The only reason I can tolerate drug enforcement at all, is because if we simply legalized stuff like meth, coke, or smack, what do we do with the people who use it to the point where they no longer function at all, let alone turn to crime to feed their addiction? Do we just kill them when they commit a crime? Who gets that moral authority? I see what you're saying about "unrestricted access". I can't imagine even a crack dealer selling dope to a 10 y/o, but thenagain I can't understand the mentality anyway.
So somewhere along the way we need a solution, I realize we won't get it from gov't, but since we're supposed to control the force of government we should be able to use it to enforce the proper solution. Our problem is that we allow gov't to concieve solutions that sound good, but take away the control of gov't from the people.
marshaul wrote:
PrayingForWar wrote:
Well, I wasn't trying to dispute anything with anyone, I was merely springboarding off your post; but since you disagree, I'll simply point out the same thing does apply to immigration control.I've seen and engaged you in too many pissing contests, and I' not really interested in another. Yet I'm compelled to once again school you on semantics as you're attempting to not just blur the lines between right and left, but right and wrong.
Immigration control only makes sense, we have to know who's coming in, and have standards regarding what they can contribute, or at least not become a burden. It's not a right/left issue, or at least it shouldn't be.
You may think it's a service government is capable of providing, but it's not. The proof is in the pudding. It's a great idea and all (actually, not really), but it won't, can't ever work.
How do you think guns get into the island-nation Britain? If the U.K. can't keep guns out, what makes you think our government is capable of keeping Mexicans out (especially in the face of special interest which likes low-cost jobs)?
It's not about Constitutionality (but if it were the "invasion" rhetoric falls incredibly short).
Provide to me, if you will, a single piece of evidence that suggests our government ever has been, or ever will be, capable of providing effective "immigration control" of any sort.
Like I said, most Americans are positive that, as long as it's the services they want provided by the politicians they elect, all of a sudden it's a valid use for stolen money.
As for the War on Drugs, that's what would happen in a free society: people would have "unrestricted" access to all the self-poisons they want. As if the current system has even the slightest deterrent factor on anyone, ever. :quirky
In the face of such utter inefficacy, I don't see how allowing freedom could possibly make things worse. And, *allowing* freedom is always, monetarily speaking, free.
It's the same thing. The *idea* of preventing people from using "poison" sounds great, but how, at what cost, and with whose money?
Edit: Also, if the problem is just the "unrestricted access" to these poisons, that's yet another reason to legalize. "Unrestricted access" is enabled by prohibition, not somehow prevented by it. Criminal penalties for possession are, like all "justice", reactive rather than proactive.
Consider: a 10 year old cannot walk into Safeway and buy whiskey (whereas I can). However, a 10 year old can walk up to any crack dealer and buy crack. That the -- reactive -- penalties may be greater for crack does not affect this reality.
What was that about "unrestricted access"?
You make a very good points, and I really don't disagree with a lot of them. As far as immigration goes, I don't want keep mexicans out per say. My concern is felons, idiots, oxygen thieves and commies. People who don't want to assimilate, learn english, or appreciate the opportunity the US provides have no business within our borders. It's largely political that the CBP fails in it's job. They're understaffed for one. Secondly, every LEO who finds an "undocumented alien" should detain them, and the municipality should be able to ship them to the border for out processing. It's not a "service people demand" either, it's a constitutional obligation that's been politicized.
I really wouldn't care if they increased legal immigration, or the temporary worker visa.
It links to drugs as well. I have little doubt that we could keep drugs/illegals out, and that the UK could keep guns out. If gov't did that effectively, and actually solved these problems, they'd reduce their need for police within the border, and hence reduce their power. I don't have evidence to support it of course, but it seems like common sence.
Further, and this actually elevates your arguement, if there wasn't a market for guns in the UK, no one would smuggle them in. Since you can buy a semi auto AK in the states for $500, there's no market for full autos that come with a potential 10 year federal pounded in the a$$ sentence. Besides, drugs are easier to detect by dogs than guns.
The only reason I can tolerate drug enforcement at all, is because if we simply legalized stuff like meth, coke, or smack, what do we do with the people who use it to the point where they no longer function at all, let alone turn to crime to feed their addiction? Do we just kill them when they commit a crime? Who gets that moral authority? I see what you're saying about "unrestricted access". I can't imagine even a crack dealer selling dope to a 10 y/o, but thenagain I can't understand the mentality anyway.
So somewhere along the way we need a solution, I realize we won't get it from gov't, but since we're supposed to control the force of government we should be able to use it to enforce the proper solution. Our problem is that we allow gov't to concieve solutions that sound good, but take away the control of gov't from the people.