Gun Control

GonZo_626 said:
Ok, so that to me is different from an "economic refugee", to me you are talking about regular immigration here. You want to move to a country that has better economic conditions so you apply to become a citizen, or the country in question opens a program for skilled workers like Canadas temporary workers program that allowed people to apply for jobs and would be allowed into the country for 18 months and at the end be allowed to apply for regular citizenship. These are good things and I would never argue that. Immigration is great especially in the western world with our declining birth rates. I am talking about somebody like the caravan that Trump was going on about. These people had no applicable skills needed, and just decided to show up hoping to be let in because they heard they would have a great life in the US through some sort of misinformation. Now they apply to be "refugees" even when they have no threat for there life, and had fine jobs at home that allowed them to live a decent enough life (farmers and such). Some have decided to work there way through the system which to me is fine, if slow. Part of Trumps 5 billion is money for new immigration judges and staff to review and speed up these applications. Now the asshats who think that storming the border or hoping the fence and circumventing the system, who think they don't need to follow the basic laws to let them into the country, these are the problem. We have thousands of Haitians just show up and cross illegally into Canada because they think they will be let in and be allowed to stay (we are sending a good portion of them home) but in the meanwhile we are paying for them to live as they are not able to find jobs due to no relevant skills that are needed and just sit on welfare for years as they appeal decisions and think they have a "right " to be allowed in. If we allowed everyone who thinks they should be allowed in we could never support these people, nor is there the jobs needed to be filled. A country can only handle so much at one time, we have the space, but not the ability to support everyone until they can get the relevant skills to be able to stay.
Click to expand...
They tried to apply for asylum. They only entered illegally after Trump blocked asylum applications and left them to starve outside.
 
yfk12 said:
They tried to apply for asylum. They only entered illegally after Trump blocked asylum applications and left them to starve outside.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, seems to me they have all been encouraged to apply for asylum, but the staff can only process 100 applications per day so not blocked, but short staffed and needs more funding for more staff. As for starving outside, don't see how that is the US's problem, they chose to show up, and that is the consequence of there choice. Maybe they should have made some better choices, as even the US does not have an unlimited ability to feed people. Sorry I have no sympathy for those that make stupid choices, hell they were starving in there caravan as well while they traveled. This is the thing that you have to get into your head, that's there problem not yours, you already have thousands of Americans starving and living homeless, maybe you should get your own house in order before attempting to help those that are not your responsibility.
 
It's a matter of ethics and morality, especially for a country that has a giant statue with 'The New Colossus' inscribed within it. It's hypocritical and beneath one of the wealthiest countries in the world to shirk that moral foundation.
 
BigGuyCIA said:
It's a matter of ethics and morality, especially for a country that has a giant statue with 'The New Colossus' inscribed within it. It's hypocritical and beneath one of the wealthiest countries in the world to shirk that moral foundation.
Click to expand...

Ahhh but it is not ethical or moral. Feed a man a fish you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish you feed him for life. This means that you are only supporting there inept values and ways by feeding them now, while the hard lesson is to learn to support themselves to be responsible for themselves. This is how ethics and morals have been corrupted, it may be hard to watch, it may hurt you to watch it, but you will only hurt them in the long run, you will only make them believe that they are entitled to that help and they learn to rely on that help, never learning that it is there own responsibility to help themselves and to not expect others to always be there as they will not always be. Its harsh, but it is the truth.

Unethical and immoral would also be purposely starving them, but that is not being done by the US, they did that to themselves.
 
GonZo_626 said:
Ahhh but it is not ethical or moral. Feed a man a fish you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish you feed him for life. This means that you are only supporting there inept values and ways by feeding them now, while the hard lesson is to learn to support themselves to be responsible for themselves. This is how ethics and morals have been corrupted, it may be hard to watch, it may hurt you to watch it, but you will only hurt them in the long run, you will only make them believe that they are entitled to that help and they learn to rely on that help, never learning that it is there own responsibility to help themselves and to not expect others to always be there as they will not always be. Its harsh, but it is the truth.

Unethical and immoral would also be purposely starving them, but that is not being done by the US, they did that to themselves.
Click to expand...
Hard for them to get the chance to learn how to fish when they're dead from exposure and malnutrition. What we have always done in the past is let asylum applicants in and then have them go to their hearing, and that was working pretty well.
 
yfk12 said:
Hard for them to get the chance to learn how to fish when they're dead from exposure and malnutrition. What we have always done in the past is let asylum applicants in and then have them go to their hearing, and that was working pretty well.
Click to expand...

Here let me put this another way to you, if a homeless guy comes to the door to your house, are you going to let him in and feed him? My guess is no, and it would not matter if it is cold or they are hungry. Do you have the food to feed him, yes, do you have a nice warm house he could sleep in, yes. So why don't you let him in? You are much better off, you have food and a warm bed, is it immoral or unethical for you to say no? But it is immoral or unethical for a country to say no?
 
GonZo_626 said:
Here let me put this another way to you, if a homeless guy comes to the door to your house, are you going to let him in and feed him? My guess is no, and it would not matter if it is cold or they are hungry. Do you have the food to feed him, yes, do you have a nice warm house he could sleep in, yes. So why don't you let him in? You are much better off, you have food and a warm bed, is it immoral or unethical for you to say no? But it is immoral or unethical for a country to say no?
Click to expand...
Would I feed him? Absolutely. I have more than enough food to spare. Wouldn't you?
 
yfk12 said:
Would I feed him? Absolutely. I have more than enough food to spare. Wouldn't you?
Click to expand...
CONGRATULATIONS you just got raped. But you virtue signaled and this is what is important. Whats a torn anus to a feeling of self importance and smug satisfaction.
 
TheGM said:
CONGRATULATIONS you just got raped. But you virtue signaled and this is what is important. Whats a torn anus to a feeling of self importance and smug satisfaction.
Click to expand...
First, I didn't say that I was going to let him in, and I live in a fairly safe neighborhood. Second, I've found that when people accuse others of "virtue signaling", it's usually because they aren't really all that virtuous themselves.
 
From the authors of "being poor doesn't make you violent or proclive to crime", comes "homeless people will rape and murder you at any sign of kindness". :lmao:
 
GonZo_626 said:
Ok, so that to me is different from an "economic refugee", to me you are talking about regular immigration here. You want to move to a country that has better economic conditions so you apply to become a citizen, or the country in question opens a program for skilled workers like Canadas temporary workers program that allowed people to apply for jobs and would be allowed into the country for 18 months and at the end be allowed to apply for regular citizenship.
Click to expand...

Without any offense, but I think you somehow must be a part of it to really understand it. I mean the same kind of people, the same kind of motivations drive the 'immigrants' today, just as it did 40-50 years ago. With the difference, that the people today are simply unwanted - not that many people welcomed all of the migrants with open arms mind you, the 60s and 70s have been pretty racist compared to today, but gaining citizenship was at least much easier.

What I mean is, not much has really changed, just the stance/attitude.


GonZo_626 said:
Here let me put this another way to you, if a homeless guy comes to the door to your house, are you going to let him in and feed him? My guess is no, and it would not matter if it is cold or they are hungry. Do you have the food to feed him, yes, do you have a nice warm house he could sleep in, yes. So why don't you let him in? You are much better off, you have food and a warm bed, is it immoral or unethical for you to say no? But it is immoral or unethical for a country to say no?
Click to expand...
By comparing appes to orange trees, you won't get anywhere. I am so tired of all those, But Obama has a wall around his house, so walls on the border are effective! Or Would you let a stranger in your house too! Arguments.

Those are not arguments, those are fallacies, the oversimplified cause fallacy.

Description: When a contributing factor is assumed to be the cause, or when a complex array of causal factors is reduced to a single cause. It is a form of simplistic thinking that implies something is either a cause, or it is not. It overlooks the important fact that, especially when referring to human behavior, causes are very complex and multi-dimensional.

Just beacuse you as individual wouldn't do a certain action, doesn't mean the government can't get out there and help asylumseekers or do something to improve the conditions of foreign people.
 
Last edited:
Has this now become the Trump/forest fire/gender/gay/animu/Serbian immigrant/whatever -thread?

As for arming the US homeless, maybe that's a good idea. That way they could fight against the 1% with AR's etc. You'd be surprised how many veterans are homeless in USA right now, maybe those guys could provide the troops with some much needed cooperation skills and small unit tactics.

If not AR's then maybe even shotguns for the homeless.
 
MutantScalper said:
Has this now become the Trump/forest fire/gender/gay/animu/Serbian immigrant/whatever -thread?

Click to expand...

Pretty much, yeah.
MutantScalper said:
As for arming the US homeless, maybe that's a good idea. That way they could fight against the 1% with AR's etc. You'd be surprised how many veterans are homeless in USA right now, maybe those guys could provide the troops with some much needed cooperation skills and small unit tactics.

If not AR's then maybe even shotguns for the homeless.
Click to expand...

Or they'd just sell the gun and buy something useful.
 
yfk12 said:
Or they'd just sell the gun and buy something useful.
Click to expand...

But if they are in that situation facing persecution from the government, and the US constitution gives them the right to oppose that government, aren't they within their constitutional rights to go First Blood on the 'feds' etc.?
 
Then they still probably wouldn't be that interested in what's basically assisted suicide.
 
yfk12 said:
Then they still probably wouldn't be that interested in what's basically assisted suicide.
Click to expand...

Well sometimes you just have to go against the odds, eh. I mean, yanks opposed the 'red coats' etc. Wasted a bunch of racists in the civil war. And now are facing fascism in the form of the Trump regime.

And I'm not even referring the right-wing stuff like Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklaholma bombing, etc.
 
MutantScalper said:
Well sometimes you just have to go against the odds, eh. I mean, yanks opposed the 'red coats' etc. Wasted a bunch of racists in the civil war. And now are facing fascism in the form of the Trump regime.

And I'm not even referring the right-wing stuff like Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklaholma bombing, etc.
Click to expand...
a) We were basically carried by France in the Revolution
b) In the civil war, the racists were going against the odds, not the other way round.
c) The Trump admin isn't fascist (yet). Also, armed conflict would be a shitty way to deal with it. It would be better to just wait for Mueller and the House Democrats to finish.
 
TheGM said:
So what are you gonna do shove a ham sandwich through the mail slot? pour soup on him from the second story window? :lmao:
Click to expand...
Open the door, ask him what he wants, then when he asks for food, go grab some pizza or chicken or whatever else happens to be in the fridge, and give it to him. No rape needed.
 
yfk12 said:
Open the door, ask him what he wants, then when he asks for food, go grab some pizza or chicken or whatever else happens to be in the fridge, and give it to him. No rape needed.
Click to expand...
Well see the big problem with that plan and if I may, break it down on a move by move basis.
Open the Door
Now you're own the floor
Gonna Walk funny with your ass that sore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top