Someone pls explain why Democrats don't want ICE contacted if illegal aliens attempt to buy guns

[Hanafuda]

Ha, we were hardly the ones solely responsible. Don't forget the Canadians and the British. And the loads of illegal immigrants as well.
Additionally, US only entered because Japan bombed Hawaii and Germany declared war on US. US didn't give half a shit about France unless it was buying US merch.

Wow I strongly disagree there. We were giving so much military equipment to the Brits and Russians to fight the Nazis it boggles the mind*. We were definitely getting into the war and definitely getting into the Euro theater, Roosevelt just needed an event.

*We gave Russia almost 400,000 large trucks! Plus 14,000 airplanes, 44,000 jeeps, 8,000 tractors, 13,000 tanks, etc. And I don't have numbers like that for the amount of material given to the British, but I do know it was three times as much as we gave to Russia.

 

[IncredulousP]

You can use that example with a lot of things and a gun is a lot more effective at stopping someone. The last thing I'm saying about this is that I have a right to use my guns to defend my family, friends, and innocent people from criminals or a tyrannical government. If you or others don't think so... I disagree with your view but I respect it. A free people shall never give their right away to defend themselves from people whom wish to harm us.

If a non-lethal weapon was invented that was just as effective at protection, would you still advocate for gun ownership?

 

[LowEndC]

I have a huge problem with a tyrannical government taking other peoples land.

yet we took our land by deception, murder, lies.
hmm

 

[IncredulousP]

Wow I strongly disagree there. We were giving so much military equipment to the Brits and Russians to fight the Nazis it boggles the mind*. We were definitely getting into the war and definitely getting into the Euro theater, Roosevelt just needed an event.

*We gave Russia almost 400,000 large trucks! Plus 14,000 airplanes, 44,000 jeeps, 8,000 tractors, 13,000 tanks, etc. And I don't have numbers like that for the amount of material given to the British, but I do know it was three times as much as we gave to Russia.

You say give, but I think you mean sold.

 

[PanTheFaun]

If a non-lethal weapon was invented that was just as effective at protection, would you still advocate for gun ownership?

Of course. People still have a right to use their guns to hunt and defend themselves if need be.

 

[LowEndC]

And yet.. Just going by your posts here in this thread... seems to indicate you'd have no problem with the government just -taking- people's land they supposedly fought for.

im totally anti-government.
i dont pick and choose.
this is my life damn it.
and no one will control me, but i also dont go around raping and killing and stealing. so idk.
id say that i play life like call of duty blackout, or pubg, i wait till everyone kills themselves, then go out and reap the benefits

 

[IncredulousP]

Of course. People still have a right to use their guns to hunt and defend themselves if need be.

Ok. If a weapon was invented that harnessed nuclear technology that could kill thousands in an instant and fits in the palm of your hands, should people be allowed to own them, for protection or hunting?

 

[invaderyoyo]

If they are an illegal immigrant and are found out by law enforcement they should be sent back otherwise what's the point in having a legal process to become a citizen in the first place

Just wanna say that there actually is no legal process to become a US Citizen. At least, not if you're poor and have no immediate family members who are citizens.

 

[Tigran]

Also being in the country undocumented isn't exactly illegal. It's a civil issue.

The only way for it to be illegal was if they did not come in through port of entry, which is were MOST immigrants DO come in.

 

[PanTheFaun]

Ok. If a weapon was invented that harnessed nuclear technology that could kill thousands in an instant and fits in the palm of your hands, should people be allowed to own them, for protection or hunting?

Haha they aren't even similar to each other but I don't think anybody should have something that could kill thousands in a second.

 

[Hanafuda]

You say give, but I think you mean sold.

Yeah, stuff England wanted to keep was sold to them after the war at 10% value, with 50 years to pay.

For most countries the US provided aid, the agreement was not for money repayment but for a commitment to future alliance. Also Britain gave the US access to some major tech breakthroughs including radar in appreciation for the shit-ton of gear.

Ok. If a weapon was invented that harnessed nuclear technology that could kill thousands in an instant and fits in the palm of your hands, should people be allowed to own them, for protection or hunting?

That's pretty much a moot argument. The Supreme Court case of US v. Miller back in 1939 set the precedent that the 2nd Amendment covers only up to the weapon and ammo load of soldiers in the field, i.e. nothing above squad level, and I don't think that will ever be overturned. Unless and until the US Army issues your imaginary weapon to every infantryman, the 2nd amendment doesn't cover it.

And yes, ironically, despite all the pro-gun control arguments we hear about the AR-15 rifle, that 'nobody needs a weapon of war like that!!' --- even though the AR-15 isn't equivalent to the military M16 and M4 rifles it resembles --- there is a US Supreme Court case that says weapons of war like that are exactly what the 2nd Amendment covers.

 

[IncredulousP]

Haha they aren't even similar to each other but I don't think anybody should have something that could kill thousands in a second.

Of course, they aren't similar. But you agree that, somewhere, a line has to be drawn that limits one's rights. Ultimately, nobody is truly "free", otherwise it would just be anarchy and chaos. Arguing for the ability to purchase and own something purely on the argument that it would infringe on rights isn't an infallible argument. Why is the line drawn after owning a weapon that can kill dozens of people near instantly but before owning a weapon that can kill thousands of people near instantly?

 

[PanTheFaun]

Of course, they aren't similar. But you agree that, somewhere, a line has to be drawn that limits one's rights. Ultimately, nobody is truly "free", otherwise it would just be anarchy and chaos. Arguing for the ability to purchase and own something purely on the argument that it would infringe on rights isn't an infallible argument. Why is the line drawn after owning a weapon that can kill dozens of people near instantly but before owning a weapon that can kill thousands of people near instantly?

Of course.
In this country we are free to buy guns by law to protect ourselves from people who wish to harm us or to hunt. We don't buy them for the purpose of harming innocent people and using what you have listed would surely do that.

 

[D34DL1N3R]

Gotta love a rightie asking why something or another happened with Dems, then linking to Fox News as a source. Lmao.

 

[IncredulousP]

Of course.
In this country we are free to buy guns by law to protect ourselves from people who wish to harm us or to hunt. We don't buy them for the purpose of harming innocent people and using what you have listed would surely do that.

Ok, but what if I only used my handheld nuclear weapons for protection and never harmed innocents? Why am I not allowed to own it?

 

[PanTheFaun]

Ok, but what if I only used my handheld nuclear weapons for protection and never harmed innocents? Why am I not allowed to own it?

Because by law you cannot own a nuclear weapon and because of harmful effects it causes such as thermal burns from infrared heat radiation, radiation poisoning, etc.

 

[granville]

I always laugh whenever some tough guy says their guns are for "fighting tyrannical governments". I'm originally from Tennessee and now live in Florida, so i'm very familiar with this sort of redneck drivel even from family members.

Go try marching up to Washington and pointing your little pea shooters at a government official. See what happens to you.

This isn't the 1800s, it's the 2000s. The notion of anyone being able to revolt against the government anymore is laughable. The government would wipe your ass off the face of the earth in an instance. Even if you miraculously managed to recruit millions of idiots and countless amounts of guns.

 

[PanTheFaun]

I always laugh whenever some tough guy says their guns are for "fighting tyrannical governments". I'm originally from Tennessee and now live in Florida, so i'm very familiar with this sort of redneck drivel even from family members.

Go try marching up to Washington and pointing your little pea shooters at a government official. See what happens to you.

This isn't the 1800s, it's the 2000s. The notion of anyone being able to revolt against the government anymore is laughable. The government would wipe your ass off the face of the earth in an instance. Even if you miraculously managed to recruit millions of idiots and countless amounts of guns.

I never claimed to be a tough guy when I am actually not tough at all.

I wouldn't point my gun at anyone unless they were physically trying to harm me or others.

Better to try then to not try at all.

 

[Kioku]

If a non-lethal weapon was invented that was just as effective at protection, would you still advocate for gun ownership?

It wouldn't be as effective it were non-lethal in some cases... So... Yeah... It never ceases to amaze me that some of you think the gun is the issue.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I always laugh whenever some tough guy says their guns are for "fighting tyrannical governments". I'm originally from Tennessee and now live in Florida, so i'm very familiar with this sort of redneck drivel even from family members.

Go try marching up to Washington and pointing your little pea shooters at a government official. See what happens to you.

This isn't the 1800s, it's the 2000s. The notion of anyone being able to revolt against the government anymore is laughable. The government would wipe your ass off the face of the earth in an instance. Even if you miraculously managed to recruit millions of idiots and countless amounts of guns.

Complacency is an illness.. I swear..

 

[granville]

I never claimed to be a tough guy when I am actually not tough at all.

I wouldn't point my gun at anyone unless they were physically trying to harm me or others.

Better to try then to not try at all.

You said earlier in the thread that guns were for opposing a tyrannical government. I've heard this claim many times. In a hypothetical revolt, the rebellion would lose before it even began. Embarrassingly so.

No one stands any chance against the government's weaponry, this isn't the Civil War era 1800s where there was still a relatively even playing field among arms.