If I had a bowl of skittles and told you just 3 will kill you?

AAAintheBeltway said:
Pie, you can relax about the Constitution. No foreigner has a Constitutional right to come here and we can enact any kind of restrictions we decide are necessary.

Getting rid of problem cases after they have arrived here however or, shudder, become naturalized is another matter. Far better to err on the side of exclusion. The FBI is already whining that they can't be blamed because there are too many suspects to keep track of, not to mention the ridiculous PC-inspired restrictions.
More...
I believe that there is considerable popular support among the U.S. population for the sentiments you express, i.e., that no foreigner has a Constitutional right to come here. It is difficult to argue that point. However once on our shores there are years of precedent behind at least some of the same Constitutional protections that citizens (supposedly) enjoy being (supposedly) extended to non-citizens as well. Can this be an argument for holding Muslim prisoners on Cuban soil if suspension of habeas corpus is on the menu? [technically defensible perhaps, but not wise in my opinion.] Put precedent together with the non-right of foreigners to come here and you get a policy that allows us to say no to entry based on religion, but no deportation based on religion once here, even for non-citizens. Somewhat unwieldy I would think. Oh what a tangled jurisprudence web we have woven for ourselves!
 
Last edited:
wow for a minute there I thought you were trying to get back your soul as a thinking caring person recognizing that there is no reason to bring in terrorists hence no reason for immigration.

But, quickly you reverted back to desperate big govt, big bank, hillary distract from the facts droid.

that headline is relevant because we have all seen your teams M.O. calling these terrorists hard to predict lone wolves. ( Yeah I know, its not your team, you are stalinist libertarian not a democrat.)
 
Last edited:
futurecurrents said:
Need cars, and they serve a useful purpose. We don't need guns.
More...
We don't need guns? Cops and the military do! Could you imagine the chaos...martial law. Cops need guns because bad guys have guns. The citizens need guns too, for the same reason...the bad guys have guns. There's too many guns out there already...can't take guns away from the people now...the bad guys will be the only one's left with the guns. HYPOTHETICAL: I'm a bad guy, but I don't have access or the resources to get any guns. So what do I do? I use the internet or whatever means to track and locate LIBERALS and where they reside. These are the homes that I'm pretty sure don't have any firearms...the homes with the best risk to reward ratio (trading reference). I get a few of my bad ass buddies and plan busting your door down!

Wouldn't it be better if bad guys were deterred from these type of "strong-arm tactics"...not knowing for sure if their "TARGET" has guns? If theoretically, the citizens and the bad guys both don't have guns...bad guys "get together" and will physically overwhelm whoever they wish! That's why the citizens need guns...things would be so much worse if they didn't! As far as guns against the government...whole other discussion.
 
When seconds matter, the police are minutes away. Maybe more like hours if you live in one of the cities run by liberal democrats, ie pretty much all of them, and they decide to order the police to pull back and let thugs do all the looting, burning and rioting they want, including closing down an interstate highway and highjacking trucks on it.
 
futurecurrents said:
Need cars, and they serve a useful purpose. We don't need guns.
More...
To the people who don't believe in or don't want GUNS...put a sign up on your home that says "GUN FREE ZONE". Tell me how secure that makes you feel at night when you're "not sleeping"?;):wtf:
 
Last edited:
I think BONECRUSHER has a simplified view of things.

First of all having a gun in your house without proper security and training is a very bad thing. This is especially true if there are children in the house.

In SC where I live, in order to get a concealed weapons permit you must show that you have had a minimum training session in how to handle and use the gun. This is good but hardly enough.

For the most part people who own a gun and have not had extensive training and drill in using the weapon are a danger to themselves and others. In the event a situation arises where the gun is necessary an untrained person is more likely to hurt himself or a family member than he is to save himself and his family as he deludes himself into believing.

I have a number of weapons in my house, have a permit to carry, have taken multiple live training courses and go to the range regularly to keep my skills up. Just having a gun is asking for a tragedy.

 
oldnemesis said:
I think BONECRUSHER has a simplified view of things.

First of all having a gun in your house without proper security and training is a very bad thing. This is especially true if there are children in the house.

In SC where I live, in order to get a concealed weapons permit you must show that you have had a minimum training session in how to handle and use the gun. This is good but hardly enough.

For the most part people who own a gun and have not had extensive training and drill in using the weapon are a danger to themselves and others. In the event a situation arises where the gun is necessary an untrained person is more likely to hurt himself or a family member than he is to save himself and his family as he deludes himself into believing.

I have a number of weapons in my house, have a permit to carry, have taken multiple live training courses and go to the range regularly to keep my skills up. Just having a gun is asking for a tragedy.

More...
I totally agree with any training...more the better! In California, if it was required to have training just to own a gun...this state would "fee" the hell out of everyone...like they do smog checks and vehicle licenses, etc.. Maybe it's still one solution...required training just for ownership?

Did you read the previous posts about vehicle crashes and deaths per day/year? 3,287 daily! Well, it seems mostly everyone EXCEPTS "DEATH" via car crash as an acceptable risk for having the benefits of transporting one's self to one's desired location...I see gun ownership in the same way. Now, there are terrible drivers everywhere and many who are good drivers, who can have that bad day too. But people don't seem too eager to want extensive required drivers training annually...to weed out the bad drivers...oh no...that would possibly ruin the economy or the auto industry or people would fear that they will be the one to FAIL the "test". What would they do without a license to drive!:wtf::vomit:

My point is, liberals SHOULD be making a stand against poor driving/car ownership and the negative consequences involved...extreme casualties! But they don't...how could that be? You're supposed to fight for the human condition and this is a BIG ONE...as bad or worse than WAR! The answer is DARK. Even for the LIBERALS, car ownership is just too SELF SERVING to fight against! Liberals don't have a self serving bias when it comes to guns, so they fight for gun control. What a contradiction...or double standard...or is it just plain HYPOCRISY!!!!!!!:wtf:
 
Here is how liberals defend it:

more people will die if we leave them in Syria.

Less people will die if we bring them here


That's the essence of their logic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top