Gun issues updates page 6

222 posts

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

It seems to me, karma, you are not really adding to the discussion, but critiquing my posts and trying to insult me. Maybe you should just stand out if you have nothing useful to add.

 
Flag Post

He’s dismantling and attacking your arguments, and comparing them with the arguments you have given before, not insulting you.

There is a difference.

 
Flag Post

nah, that was too much ‘about the man’ rather than ‘the man’s arguments’

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by jhco50:

Lastly, yes if the 2nd Amendment goes so will all our freedoms. The purpose of this amendment is too protect us from a tyrannous government. Read the letters written by our founding fathers and they make it clear why each of the Bill of Rights were put in the Constitution. Without the means to retake our government there is nothing to stop the rest of the amendments from falling…and they would.

Minor flaw in that reasoning: By that logic, every country without a second amendment would be a tyranny, and they’re not. You still have your right to free expression, you still have your right to vote, and even without a second amendment many can still own firearms. Where’s the slippery slope coming from?

Please educate yourself on why the 2nd Amendment is there, Read the founding fathers letters. Here are the Federalist papers pro and con.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/federalist/index.shtml

http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/constitutional/antifederalist/antifed.htm

 
Flag Post

You’re aware the Founding Fathers lived a couple of hundred years ago, right? You’re aware civilisation a few hundred years ago, was not the same civilisation as we have now, yes? You’re aware we always have to examine our laws in the context of the times, I hope?

I’ll also require your evidence showing Australia is a totalitarian dictatorship because it does not have the second amendment. Likewise your evidence that New Zealand is a totalitarian dictatorship. Likewise your evidence that Eire is a totalitarian dictatorship.

None of them have the second amendment, and your reasoning is that without the second amendment, the govenment will swiftly rise up and completely abolish citizen rights. So you should have no problem showing that this has happened in all three countries, and the government has completely crushed the people under an iron heel.

 
Flag Post

I agree with vikaTae’s most recent post.
Also note the following:
1. The government has jets, helicopters and a whole lot more weaponry. You cannot defend yourself against it/overthrow it. If you believe it is evil enough to overthrow, they you should believe it will be willing to kill you.
2. A gun used on someone normally kills them, regardless of if they have weapons. A head-shot at 100m is pretty trivial for someone with an ironsight on an assault rifle and no training, let alone at shorter distance.
3. Concealed carry means robbers/hostage takers have to treat everyone as a potential weapon’s holder. This means more highly strung situations, and more accidental deaths.
4. When people get panicked, if they have a firearm they often shoot. A number of innocent people die every year from having a person believing them to be following them or breaking into their house, only to turn out to be their partner.
5. The US has one of the highest rates of gun-crime in the world other than those where there is ongoing conflict.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by donseptico:

nah, that was too much ‘about the man’ rather than ‘the man’s arguments’

Yah, I was merely doing what vika assessed. At worst, I was couching my arguments in the same language he uses.
Originally posted by jhco50:

You are so naive Karma.

How else is he going to come even close to understanding concepts foreign to him? Discussions OF ISSUES w/ him thus far APPEARS to be of a nature that we SEEM TO BE speaking different languages. So, I try to use his….when necessary.

I was making cogent rebuttals to the (all over the place) points he made. That I see such ideology about guns-N-Amerka as being quite irrational to hold, it is very likely that someone is going to make a connection that the person holding them is also going to be assessed as being also irrational. That I can’t help. It is just the way human nature goes. How much can an honorable man be separated from that which he believes?

But, I’ll make a second effort that is a weeeebit less harsh on him. Maybe he won’t flag this one

However, before I do that…I’ll comment on this post:

Originally posted by jhco50:

It seems to me, karma, you are not really adding to the discussion…

This is what ppl say when they don’t like where the discussion is headed.

…, but critiquing my posts….
Mercy me, and here I was mislead to think this is what SD is all about.
…and trying to insult me.
Nah, I needn’t do so. He is doing magnificently well himself.


.
.

Nope, vika….I’m not going to take time nor make the effort on a “do-over”. I’m not even going to point out how he did his usual form of discussion by basically ignoring beauval’s question; and then, launching into one of his paranoid rants about how we need the 2nd Amend. to protect us from a tyrannical govt. It seems that if I take the time to point out that our American govt. isn’t the one who will decide the time & kinds of shackles placed upon us, my efforts are seen as “attacking the man”.

I pointed out, in some depth, that our govt. is nothing more than the work-horse puppet for the rich (oligarchy/plutocracy). These robber barons already have us in shackles (personal debt) tying us to jobs we have to work quite hard in order to have money to consume those precious material things that we are “coached” into believing we can’t live without. Guess who profits the most from the manufacturing of these goods?

This is why that .01% of society isn’t at all desirous of fucking up their system by doing something crazy….such as some hyped up conspiracy theory the gun nuts want to promote so they can keep their toys. What stuns me is how eaten up w/ the dumb-ass these gun nuts are about this ONE issue to the point it renders them unable to see where the real danger for their way of life lies. But, as I often point out: smoke-&-mirrors…slight of hand. They keep ya busy over there doing silly (but important…lol) shit so ya don’t notice the really bad shit being done to ya over here where “the man” is fucking ya royally.

 
Flag Post

Karma, I still have a copy of your removed post if you’d like it. Seems a shame to retype all that work, and I think you said you forget to save your posts. I would have let you know privately, but you’ve still got me on mute :)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Karma, I still have a copy of your removed post if you’d like it. Seems a shame to retype all that work, and I think you said you forget to save your posts. I would have let you know privately, but you’ve still got me on mute :)

Was it not deleted for a reason?

 
Flag Post

Too many jabs at Jhco, really. But the majority of it was sound arguments, splitting Jhco’s post into segments and actually addressing each segment with a strong rebuttal. Relatively orderly layout too. He just couldn’t resist jabbing his opponent one too many times.

Doesn’t make sense really. He’s directed really evil barbs my way countless times, and those posts stay. Saying that so do my counterattacks when he does start attacking me personally, so it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other ::shrug:: But still…

Rereading it, he referenced youtube vids to describe Jhco’s character twice so that’s likely why it was removed, as those were direct character assassination attempts. The usual.

But there were a lot of good counterarguments in there, which was why I defended it before Don removed it, and why I’m offering to send a copy as I doubt Karma kept it. Of course if he wouldn’t keep remuting me, there wouldn’t be any need to discuss it publicly like this, but que sera sera.

 
Flag Post

beauval asked:

Originally posted by beauval:

I came across this short piece yesterday. Now while some may dismiss it as irrelevant, it did make me wonder whether being shielded from the reality of what firearms can do to people is allowing some Americans to kid themselves that their weapons are just big boys’ toys which can be used without any serious consequences.

beauval, please understand that I’m going to be taking in the 25 words or less generality factor here. I’m gonna go bell-curve and focus on the very small minorities at the polar opposite ideologies of America’s thoughts on gun CONTROL.

Yes, there are those (liberal?) extremists that are unrealistically wanting to have a complete ban on all guns. Their argument—if there are no guns; there can be no gun violence—is quite logical. However, it is also extremely irrational…at least at this time. America just isn’t “ready” for such a step.

The moderates (that huge percentage in the gut-of-the-bell) are wanting, in varying degrees/ways, some serious dialogue on how to take the two extremist ideologies as some kind of goal post uprights by which a ball-of-rationality can be punted between. Ppl of any intelligence fully realize that rarely ever does a society follow the extremists. Even when it does (pre-war Hitler), it soon finds itself not following, but being drug along on a journey of insanity.

beauval, you asked about Americans being shielded from the utter horrors of war as a mean by which we can keep our “toys” on a sacred pedestal that causes a focusing on the more positive aspects of them. Keep in mind that we haven’t had such devastation on our soil as other nations have had. Keep in mind that the medias are usually owned outright or heavily influenced by ppl who are getting rich/richer via the military sales (industrial/military bedfellows). The negatives of battle are going to be spun so as to keep Americans highly supportive of whatever latest bullshit contrivance of “need” for saving democracy we find ourselves hopelessly bogged down in.

But, the fact that you called our guns toys and child’s playthings is basic-core germane to how a lot of American’s view weapons as being fine for kids. Thereby culturing those minds at an early age to think of guns as being far less dangerous as they are. I woman I grew up w/ (next door neighbor) had her son killed by such mentality. He and his bud (early 20’s) had been out hunting/shooting guns. Upon arriving home, the pal PLAYFULLY took a shot at Doug…thinking the gun was empty. The serious-minded individual considers a gun to be ALWAYS loaded/dangerous (sans a few extremely obvious considerations…it taken apart).

That anecdote and the “toy” links are given in hopes that it sheds some light on why Americans can so easily be shielded—even SELF-shielded—from a full understanding of the seriousness of what guns are capable of doing. I believe it is this factor that keeps any real efforts to improve on the back burner. I’m not all that knowledgeable on how these latest mass murders are impacting the moderates on gun CONTROL. Time will tell. I’ll be looking for candidates’ inclusion/exclusion of stances & their defenses of them on this issue.

We American’s have a solid history of gun use.
we used guns to obtain our freedom from England.
We used guns to “tame” the West. Sam Colt made men equal
We used guns to fight 2 World Wars.
We have made the 2nd Amend into a Holy Grail by which SOME believe the entire Constitution rests upon.
The gun-nuts deeply believe if the 2nd goes/amends….the Constitution is gutted.
I’m often surprised that we Americans aren’t born w/ a pistol in both hands.

This upcoming election will be interesting to watch in regard to the gun issues and where the candidates stand.

Question: would these ppl be considered to be those who should be denied gun ownership/usage because of mental deficiencies? Don’t miss the gal telling her man to calm down while she points a cocked gun at him..just after a fail-shooting of it.

“I’m guessing these ppl are quite capable of having fun w/ their guns. Don’t miss the guy who looks into the barrel of a cocked shotgun.

Some of these ppl shouldn’t even be allowed AROUND guns. There are several repeats; but, there are some doozies in it.

The first one is a repeat. From there, it jumps off a cliff

 
Flag Post

beauval, you asked about Americans being shielded from the utter horrors of war as a mean by which we can keep our “toys” on a sacred pedestal that causes a focusing on the more positive aspects of them.

Not really that, more that not seeing what guns can do until it’s too late enables morons, as in your video links, to treat them like toys. The ones who shot themselves deserved the pain, and were lucky they didn’t die. I was taught to use a .303 rifle by army instructors; they taught us not only how to use if effectively but to respect its power. Judging by your videos, plenty of Americans have never had that lesson. Some fairly graphic images from war zones might help to concentrate their minds.

 
Flag Post

Wow Karma, I must say there were sure a lot of scope eyes. I have see some of these videos and I do shake my head at some of the idjits. Do keep in mind guys hat these are from not only America but other countries as well. I especially like the people in India testing the rifles. Those were actual tests of a cartridge that would scare the bejeezus out ofelephant hunters. Sorry but I had a little inside background on those tests. They were trying to see how big of a cartridge they could make and shoot.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by beauval:

I should hope so too. Some of those lads are having a mental breakdown. Do you really think allowing them to carry a gun is a good idea?

The PTSD thing isn’t true (maybe a scare tactic/fearmongering story?). Most vets I know have PTSD these days, and many own guns. I was talking to an armed police officer locally who was a vet with PTSD and told me it didn’t affect his right to carry. Probably the only way PTSD takes away your right to carry firearms is if you are committed/inpatient and assigned a fiduciary.

Originally posted by Karmakoolkid:

Illegal immigrants have been coming to North America since the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. More recently, Americans who wanted extremely cheap & easily-managed unskilled labor are the ones who are directly responsible for such border crossings….while “the govt.” looked the other way.

Yes, except as the world population is expanding, America is in a bit of an economic crisis and will have a hard time supporting such an influx of illegal immigrants. With the unemployment rates at an uncomfortably high rate, having a mass of non-citizens to compete for resources (including but not limited to jobs and healthcare) is not a good idea. They need to go home or be held to strict legal standards for immigration.

The real question here is: why did the govt. look the other way when there was already in place programs for legal immigration? Could it be that those ppl who stood to benefit greatly from illegal immigration also the ppl who exert a particular degree of influence on the govt.?

Is this really supporting your argument though, KKK? I could swear I can hear whispers of “Obama’s building a future Democratic voting pool” in these statements.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by beauval:

I should hope so too. Some of those lads are having a mental breakdown. Do you really think allowing them to carry a gun is a good idea?

The PTSD thing isn’t true (maybe a scare tactic/fearmongering story?). Most vets I know have PTSD these days, and many own guns. I was talking to an armed police officer locally who was a vet with PTSD and told me it didn’t affect his right to carry. Probably the only way PTSD takes away your right to carry firearms is if you are committed/inpatient and assigned a fiduciary.

It appears to me that there is agreement there.

AND, this PSTD thing isn’t true ?
Seriously?
I’ve known and still know of some of my Nam brethren that are seriously fucked. If it were only one or two percent, then ya just might be able to pass their behavior off as being the result of other things…bad childhoods, drug abuse, normal day-2-day stress, etc. Believe me, when you send 18, 19, 20 year old KIDS into a hellish situation like that; some serious mind-fuck shit is going to be the result… and, continue to happen long after. The brother of my neighbor will break down into tears some times w/ survivor’s guilt.
.

Originally posted by Karmakoolkid:

Illegal immigrants have been coming to North America since the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. More recently, SOME Americans who wanted extremely cheap & easily-managed unskilled labor are the ones who are directly responsible for such border crossings….while “the govt.” looked the other way.


Yes, except as the world population is expanding, America is in a bit of an economic crisis and will have a hard time supporting such an influx of illegal immigrants. With the unemployment rates at an uncomfortably high rate, having a mass of non-citizens to compete for resources (including but not limited to jobs and healthcare) is not a good idea. They need to go home or be held to strict legal standards for immigration.

I should have made it much clearer that the ease of border crossings isn’t a result of ALL Americans. I emended my point above in bold. America has had no problem “importing” cheap labor when needed … building the trans-continental railroad is a good example of a huge influx of population that wasn’t “needed” after a point. Yet, here they are.

The same is largely true about Mexican border crossings. We provided “under-the-table” jobs for them. Much like if you start feeding a stray cat at your back door, soon you will have a lot more … hoping for some of the same, regardless of whether there is enough milk for all of them. But, there they are. Are you going to start shooting the excess? Rounding them up and hauling them to the next county really doesn’t work all that well when they still know where some free milk is.

I totally agree w/ what YOU say above. A country, like a backyard pool party, shouldn’t be “crashed”. The “host” has every right to manage their country/party as they see fit to do so. However, when it is the “errant” kids of the parents who did the “non-selective” inviting (told EVERYONE about “THEIR” party) that is the cause of the party crashers, just how much can the parents deny “involvement”?
.

The real question here is: why did the govt. look the other way when there was already in place programs for legal immigration? Could it be that those ppl who stood to benefit greatly from illegal immigration ARE also the ppl who exert a particular degree of influence on the govt.?

Is this really supporting your argument though, KKK? I could swear I can hear whispers of “Obama’s building a future Democratic voting pool” in these statements.

I’m not clear on what YOU are saying there.
Maybe it was the lack of one word (in bold) above?

My point there can be applied to a huge number of “enterprises” which those who have great “influence” on our govt. have had in the past, are doing today, and very likely WILL CONTINUTE to do so in the foreseeable future. This is simply the way things have happened for thousands of years.

The thing that is so often failed to be taught, learned, understood by most Americans is how the Founding Fathers established a form of governing that hadn’t been very prevalent for many, many years…democracy. However, true to form, human nature being what it is, we’ve managed to let the power of this concept slip away from us. Those who luv power gravitate to having it. And, they have it for their benefit; not for those whom they take it from.

 
Flag Post

Second post so as to not screw up the formatting of the above.
Ninja, YOU may hear "whispers of ’Obama’s building a future Democratic voting pool’ " in what I said. But, I’ve found most ppl simply hear what they want to hear. For his entire presidency, Obama has been blamed/accused/responsible for a shit-load of ridiculousness. We American’s love to hate our politicians.

This is esp. true if it comes from those who talk out of both sides of their mouths and out of their assess. And yes, politicians are very good at this. Politicians talking about other politicians are masters at it. We have a wonderful GOP primary race here in Kansas between Pompeo & Tihart. To hear one talk about the other, it is obvious we should vote for the Democrat.

Ppl (including our own children) will say most anything if it will provide them w/ that which they desire.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

AND, this PSTD thing isn’t true ?
Seriously?
I’ve known and still know of some of my Nam brethren that are seriously fucked. If it were only one or two percent, then ya just might be able to pass their behavior off as being the result of other things…bad childhoods, drug abuse, normal day-2-day stress, etc. Believe me, when you send 18, 19, 20 year old KIDS into a hellish situation like that; some serious mind-fuck shit is going to be the result… and, continue to happen long after. The brother of my neighbor will break down into tears some times w/ survivor’s guilt.

Overdiagnosis of a condition is quite common. It comes about when general practicioners (who are extremely heavily overworked, and frequently cannot afford time off to keep up with every new breakthrough) are given a brief on what symptoms to look for in a condition expected to be there in certain elements of the population. When an individual has several of the expected symptoms, a diagnosis that they actually have that condition is common.

Some of them actually are suffering from PTSD, but like with everything else, there are degrees involved (and if you say bell-curve, I will hit you with one. Not all splines are bells, and certainly not in this case).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

AND, this PSTD thing isn’t true ?
Seriously?
I’ve known and still know of some of my Nam brethren that are seriously fucked. If it were only one or two percent, then ya just might be able to pass their behavior off as being the result of other things…bad childhoods, drug abuse, normal day-2-day stress, etc. Believe me, when you send 18, 19, 20 year old KIDS into a hellish situation like that; some serious mind-fuck shit is going to be the result… and, continue to happen long after. The brother of my neighbor will break down into tears some times w/ survivor’s guilt.
.

Ok, geez. I should have clarified further. When I said this “PTSD thing isn’t true”, I wasn’t saying PTSD doesn’t exist, I was saying that having PTSD didn’t hinder the ability to own/operate a firearm. Miscommunication solved, hopefully.

The same is largely true about Mexican border crossings. We provided “under-the-table” jobs for them. Much like if you start feeding a stray cat at your back door, soon you will have a lot more … hoping for some of the same, regardless of whether there is enough milk for all of them. But, there they are. Are you going to start shooting the excess? Rounding them up and hauling them to the next county really doesn’t work all that well when they still know where some free milk is.

I agree with this, although I find the metaphor of comparing illegals to stray cats interesting. Nevertheless, it fits in this instance. I think our government/social services really needs to crack down, not only on the illegals that are currently in our country (and producing what are known as “anchor babies”), but also those attempting to get in currently.


We American’s love to hate our politicians.

Well yes, we do. Most of the time I tune it out as the noise it is. However, the Obama administration made a mistake—at least in my eyes—when they trimmed veterans benefits while expanding those for illegal immigrants (Dream Act).

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Mrs_Patriarchy:

We should just ban men. Only men are violent and the world would be safer.

Which would work, if not for the small problem that I have a heck of a temper when my ire is finally provoked, and I’m by no means alone. Women can be just as violent as men, and anyone who claims otherwise is seriously deluding themselves.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Mrs_Patriarchy:

We should just ban men. Only men are violent and the world would be safer.

Which would work, if not for the small problem that I have a heck of a temper when my ire is finally provoked, and I’m by no means alone. Women can be just as violent as men, and anyone who claims otherwise is seriously deluding themselves.

You realize that you’re responding to a troll account, right? And by feeding the troll you only make it want more, and thus we’ll see more of it. Better to just ignore the troll and respond to the last user to post something legitimate.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

AND, this PSTD thing isn’t true ?
Seriously?
I’ve known and still know of some of my Nam brethren that are seriously fucked. If it were only one or two percent, then ya just might be able to pass their behavior off as being the result of other things…bad childhoods, drug abuse, normal day-2-day stress, etc. Believe me, when you send 18, 19, 20 year old KIDS into a hellish situation like that; some serious mind-fuck shit is going to be the result… and, continue to happen long after. The brother of my neighbor will break down into tears some times w/ survivor’s guilt.

Ok, geez. I should have clarified further.

Ya think so?
Ya don’t see a huge difference?
.
When I said this “PTSD thing isn’t true”, I wasn’t saying PTSD doesn’t exist, I was saying that having PTSD didn’t hinder the ability to own/operate a firearm. Miscommunication solved, hopefully.
No, not really solved.
Are you NOW trying to say that PTSD isn’t a problem….AT ALL?
I’m going to help ya out and also put a qualifier on this one.

I’m going to say that PTSD actually CAN HAVE—in a host of varying degrees; esp. of seriousness—hinder the ability to own/operate a firearm (in some cases, even being in emotional relationships w/ ppl). And of course, it really doesn’t take a rocket scientist to grasp that this incident level is, IN DEGREES of severity, considered by varying opinions by various schools of thought to be problematic.

Just to be clear about PTSD, it certainly isn’t something only soldier vets experience. Rape victims, emergency responders, truck drivers coming on accident scenes that have mangled kids, and all manner of other really fucked crap. And, just to be clear, merely having these experiences doesn’t even AUTOMATICALLY induce PTSD….short term or long; although the former is going to be considered to be a lot more rational behavior. The latter is where the problems are

A normal response to trauma becomes PTSD when you become stuck.
After a traumatic experience, the mind and the body are in shock. But as you make sense of what happened and process your emotions, you come out of it. With post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), however, you remain in psychological shock. Your memory of what happened and your feelings about it are disconnected. In order to move on, it’s important to face and feel your memories and emotions.

Other common symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
◾Anger and irritability
◾Guilt, shame, or self-blame
◾Substance abuse
◾Feelings of mistrust and betrayal
◾Depression and hopelessness

A possible correlation?

The increased violence around Fort Carson began at the start of the Iraq war. A 126-page Army report known as an “Epidemiological Consultation” released in 2009 found that the murder rate around the Army’s third-largest post had doubled and that the number of rape arrests had tripled. As David Philipps wrote in Lethal Warriors, his 2010 book about the crime spree, “In the year after the battalion returned from Iraq, the per-capita murder rate for this small group of soldiers was a hundred times greater than the national average.” Tellingly, 2-12’s post-traumatic stress disorder rate was more than three times that of an equivalent unit that had served in a less violent part of Iraq. The EPICON summarized all this in classic bureaucratic language, noting dully that there was “a possible association between increasing levels of combat exposure and risk for negative behavioral outcomes.”
◾Suicidal thoughts and feelings
◾Feeling alienated and alone
◾Physical aches and pains

I’m wondering what part of the majority stance this forum has on gun CONTROL, not BANNING, ya haven’t yet understood? The huge focus has been on coming up with and putting into practice a system of “weeding out” those ppl who strongly qualify as not being rationally capable of being around guns.

PTSD is a real and problematic MENTAL issue….whatever the source and whoever the victim. Someone on this forum (jhco…beauval?) brought up “concerns” about vets from hot zones continuing to have guns in their hands upon integrating into civilian life. Hopefully, some serious efforts are put towards helping those who likely need it.

After all, police officers involved in a killing (killer AND observing officers) are often put on ad-leave and ALWAYS receive counseling before returning to full duty…at least here in Sedgwick Co. School KIDS are offered counseling after a shooing or a classmate is killed in a car accident, etc.

Your attitude that PTSD isn’t a “biggie” is a little disturbing to me. AGAIN, I point out that I well understand it isn’t a problem (in degrees) for MOST ppl. However, in an inverse progress, PTSD can get horrifically severe as the number of ppl experiencing it decreases. What I’m saying is that the “quality” of PTSD behavior the real problem much more than the “quantity” of it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ImplosionOfDoom:

You realize that you’re responding to a troll account, right?

If I’ve learnt anything from SD, it’s that there are a plethora of legitimate users who share the exact same opinions. Thus I’ll address the argument whilst it’s still in a form that others are likely to strongly identify with.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
The same is largely true about Mexican border crossings. We provided “under-the-table” jobs for them. Much like if you start feeding a stray cat at your back door, soon you will have a lot more … hoping for some of the same, regardless of whether there is enough milk for all of them. But, there they are. Are you going to start shooting the excess? Rounding them up and hauling them to the next county really doesn’t work all that well when they still know where some free milk is.


I agree with this, although I find the metaphor of comparing illegals to stray cats interesting.

Another one, then.
From the movie: Build It and They Will Come.
Provide jobs that are well worth the perils of making the trek and ppl wanting the jobs will come. And, in a lot of cases, the shit at “home” is a great launching pad.

This one about bait cars and the criminal element involved hits very close to this issue of illegal immigration. Dangle something “attractive” in front of a “depressed” group of ppl, there is a good chance some chicanery will develop.

And, an actually depression of economic means doesn’t have to exist. A simple “identification” w/ it will do nicely. A well established Latino might see his own ethnic background as being enough of a commonality to “justify” negative behavior. There is a lot of crazy shit going on “out there”.
.

Nevertheless, it fits in this instance. I think our government/social services really needs to crack down, not only on the illegals that are currently in our country (and producing what are known as “anchor babies”), but also those attempting to get in currently.


I couldn’t agree more.
The reasons for this are as serious as they are growing right along w/ the many other issues in America’s society.

There was a time (when I was a kid) that insulating a house (walls & ceiling) just wasn’t done. Fuel to heat was cheap…just turn up the thermostat. There was a time when America actually could “afford” AND needed a modest influx of illegal immigration. But, just like our energy crisis (largely starting in the 70’s), we now have issues that preclude us from being able to handle this form of “cheap labor”.

And, while I’m not at all sure about this, I wonder what that “launching pad” situation currently is in Mexico? Has it increased; thereby adding to the desire to enter illegally? Or, mores specifically, should we be concerned more about the “quality” rather than the “quantity”. Here, I am addressing the criminal element, etc.
.

We American’s love to hate our politicians.

Well yes, we do. Most of the time I tune it out as the noise it is. However, the Obama administration made a mistake—at least in my eyes—when they trimmed veterans benefits while expanding those for illegal immigrants (Dream Act).

I totally agree w/ ya about the degree & direction of management of those issues.
However, I ask: how much of this problem is Obama’s “administration” and how much of it is coming directly from Congress…specifically the GOP and its rabid focus on illegal immigration?