Which of Your Rights Will They Go After....

[flacaltenn]

BTW --- this topic is not scoped for immigration debate or personal tales of OTHER posters. Need to cut the multiple topics out or the thread will close...

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW --- this topic is not scoped for immigration debate or personal tales of OTHER posters. Need to cut the multiple topics out or the thread will close...

 

[sparky]

Firearms will be made available by the freemarket or by the blackmarket - the most powerful police force , the KGB, could not stop the blackmarket.

The blackmarket provides heroin, cocaine and at one time marihuana - there is NOTHING the motherfuckers can do.

That is true, but I don't agree with getting firearms that way.

We have an unalienable Right to Life. Inherent in that Right is the unalienable Right to keep and bear Arms. We don't need the government's approval nor their permission.

But, it would be a Hell of a lot safer for all concerned if the left could acknowledge the Right.

Even with firearms behind a lock that requires a crow bar to defeat, you have morons saying that isn't enough. They are the same ones who think they can dictate to us what our lives are worth. You obey the law to the letter and when it don't work out, it's our fault their laws suck.

Unfortunately , we must learn to live and survive in an UNfree world.

Five fascists "Justices" will rule that we do not have an individual right to carry firearms. Please read Heller's dissenting opinion.


.

The dissenting opinion is worthless. It is the words of the losers. What scares the Hell out of me is the HOLDING. The holding is the law - period. Here is why Heller was the worst United States Supreme Court decision in my lifetime:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

What the Hell do they mean, "like most rights?" The Bill of Rights is a limitation on government, NOT on the individual. What do they mean "most rights?" You mean some rights are unlimited and some aren't? So which ones does the Court think are are unlimited? Did you know that the first time the United States Supreme Court ruled on this, they said, that Right to keep and bear Arms is not a Right granted by the Constitution, NEITHER IS IT DEPENDENT ON THE CONSTITUTION.

The Right exists; it predates the Constitution; the feds don't have de jure jurisdiction to deny it and the Court had no authority to declare such a thing.

So firearms are what? a human right? like breathing?

~S~

no .. Self DEFENSE is an unalienable human right. Whether it's protecting your business from robbers or looters or your home from vandals and murderers. It was also recognized by our Founders as a legitimate cause to DISSUADE tyrannical govts and govts that dont RESPECT the other rights of their citizenry.

Self defense? Seems that would differ state/state, as some do not allow you to defend our homes, instead insist we retreat

I'm sure you've heard of castle laws

So much for 'inalienable'.....

~S~

 

[PoliticalChic]

For that matter, why am I paying for all the 'aliens' unalienable right to life .....??????

~S~

Maybe you don't. I'll bet you wouldn't bitch to find out that aliens without papers are paying $12 BILLION DOLLARS a year into Socialist Security and can never draw a thin dime out in retirement.

The honest answer is, in their zeal to get rid of little brown people from south of the border, the right propped up a plank out of the Communist Manifesto, sabotaging the effort to eliminate the 16th Amendment and rid this country of the IRS - which would have given you a minimum 25 percent wage increase and INSURE that, regardless of your status in this country, you were taxed the same as everyone else. It would have taken that annoying argument off the table.

Perhaps you're right Humorme

'Lil Brown folk are probably a much bigger biz than i had imagined

~S~

As a strict constructionist - and having worked in and around immigration law for six years, I have a unique perspective.

My resume with this issue goes back to the late 1970s. I have been on civilian border patrols. I knew ALL the major players personally between the 1970s and 1990s. I knew everybody all the way up to the current crop of anti-immigrant types that gutted the patriot organizations and civilian militias, recruiting people for this non - win effort.

After those people gutted the efforts to restore the Constitution, they began deflecting and not taking their ownership in the demise of our nation - the so-called "Patriot Act," National ID / REAL ID Act, Constitution Free Zone, evisceration of the Fourth Amendment, the end to the presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty.

Let's face it. David Duke, the ex-nazi turned KKK leader pioneered this effort. Then, once he abandoned it, Bill Clinton took on the job:



Once Clinton left office and Hitlery went all pro-immigration, the nazis moved back in and reclaimed their territory.


Both the Ds and the Rs are demagoguing this issue in order to take America away from our foundational principles. They are all going down different roads to the same destination. And nobody can reach what was once the civilian militias, conservative groups, etc.

And stop repeating the lie "anti-immigration" when the discussion is about illegal immigration.

If there were a realistic way for people to come here properly, I might agree with you, but the statute says Improper Entry so I will continue to say anti-immigration. You want me to change, then change the laws that force people to become citizens. You pretend that by screaming "illegal" it will change the dynamics. It don't.

But you are lying.

The protests are not anti-immigration.

They are anti- illegal immigration.

Tell the truth.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yo dickhead, do you think it would have been possible for the Jews in nazi Germany to "gain standing" and challenge Hitler's decision to gas/incinerate them?



What a fucking dumbass.

.

The Jews/Nazis have no bearing on this, they weren't covered under our Constitution. SMFH

Maybe the Jews could have formed civilian militias and fought back? IDK SMFH

Natural rights , such as the right to life, are NATURAL RIGHTS , they do not depend on our Constitution for their existence, So German Jews had the right to live.

They also had a right to defend their lives but they trusted he government and allowed the Bismarck administration to disarm them.


.

Yea, so? European Jews were never "armed" to begin with, very few Europeans actually owned firearms, more owned swords or knives. They aren't covered under our Constitution (2A), nor the 1689 English Bill of Rights.

I see , they were not covered by our constitution so Hitler had the authority to gas and incinerate them with impunity ............You are retarded to the max.

We are done here


.

Perhaps you're right Humorme

'Lil Brown folk are probably a much bigger biz than i had imagined

~S~

As a strict constructionist - and having worked in and around immigration law for six years, I have a unique perspective.

My resume with this issue goes back to the late 1970s. I have been on civilian border patrols. I knew ALL the major players personally between the 1970s and 1990s. I knew everybody all the way up to the current crop of anti-immigrant types that gutted the patriot organizations and civilian militias, recruiting people for this non - win effort.

After those people gutted the efforts to restore the Constitution, they began deflecting and not taking their ownership in the demise of our nation - the so-called "Patriot Act," National ID / REAL ID Act, Constitution Free Zone, evisceration of the Fourth Amendment, the end to the presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty.

Let's face it. David Duke, the ex-nazi turned KKK leader pioneered this effort. Then, once he abandoned it, Bill Clinton took on the job:



Once Clinton left office and Hitlery went all pro-immigration, the nazis moved back in and reclaimed their territory.


Both the Ds and the Rs are demagoguing this issue in order to take America away from our foundational principles. They are all going down different roads to the same destination. And nobody can reach what was once the civilian militias, conservative groups, etc.

Based on your vaunted 'expertise'.....are the Democrats working tirelessly to entice illegal aliens into the country?

The Ds want the foreigners here for the votes; the Rs want them here for the cheap labor.

Meanwhile the average American... like where I live has guys in their 20s, 30s, 40s and beyond living at home with mommy. These dirtbags won't work; they're addicted to drugs (many having been fed drugs as a kid for non-existent conditions like ADD / ADHD) and a lot of them have made it to middle age with no high school diploma, no job skills, and not even a driver's license.

These sorry asses sit on their computer doing the social media thing and video games all day. A Mexican guy comes through here about twice a week cutting grass because those worthless Americans are that lazy.

The few who do try to do better after years of worthlessness are locked out of the system by a criminal record that shouldn't be available to the general public - except in rare circumstances (like someone who wants to take care of your kids or one who handles large sums of money / automobiles / heavy machinery.

The Rs say they want immigrants - but, only educated ones. Why? Their going to open all those minimum wage jobs up, but it is speculative that the welfare riding, dope sucking, pieces of scatalogical waste will ever take those jobs as is. AND, once the really good jobs are taken over by foreigners who came here "legally" as you like to call it, change the laws and make your points moot, what is your back-up plan?

Seems you weren't prepared to answer the question:

Based on your vaunted 'expertise'.....are the Democrats working tirelessly to entice illegal aliens into the country?



Based on what appears to be dishonesty in your post....I'll ask it another way: Which party handed out applications for food stamps in Mexico to entice illegal aliens??????


"Fat And Furious: Obama Pushes Food Stamps In Mexico"
Fat And Furious: Obama Pushes Food Stamps In Mexico | Investor's Business Daily


And which party stymied immigration courts to smooth the way for illegal immigrants????

"200,000 deportation cases quietly 'closed' under Obama
....."administratively closed" without action, a move that left tens of thousands of illegal immigrants free to roam America, sometimes indefinitely, according to a new report.

When added to those cases still pending court action, it brings the backlog of cases to about 800,000, far more than previously known.

In his report, he said the exact number isn't known. "I believe that the Obama administration's use of the practice may have ‘cooked the books' as it relates to the true number of cases that are pending adjudication before the immigration courts."

The Trump administration has taken action to reverse the practice of letting authorities close the cases and is working to reschedule them, he added."
200,000 deportation cases quietly 'closed' under Obama





Speak up, you dunce!!!!

Political chic,

The moment someone starts calling me a liar, I don't owe them jackshit except contempt. That's why I almost have to vomit having to associate with people of that ilk in the hopes of saving our unalienable Rights especially those related to the Second Amendment.

If you could open your eyes and learn how to freaking read, I DID answer your question.

Everybody points fingers about which political party did what.

Yeah, the Dems did what Political chic said... Then again, Presidents Bush and Reagan granted "amnesty" to FOUR MILLION undocumented foreigners while Clinton and Obama granted only HALF that amount.

It's a silly ass game whereby both sides try to scapegoat the foreigners while not forcing the Americans who make it possible to have to admit their ownership in the situation.

It's tantamount to blaming flies for shit.

I never use vulgarity.
I prove my point...PROVE....using only facts and logic.
I hope you will keep to the truth, and stop blaming both parties.....it isn't the truth.,

 

[PoliticalChic]

For that matter, why am I paying for all the 'aliens' unalienable right to life .....??????

~S~

Maybe you don't. I'll bet you wouldn't bitch to find out that aliens without papers are paying $12 BILLION DOLLARS a year into Socialist Security and can never draw a thin dime out in retirement.

The honest answer is, in their zeal to get rid of little brown people from south of the border, the right propped up a plank out of the Communist Manifesto, sabotaging the effort to eliminate the 16th Amendment and rid this country of the IRS - which would have given you a minimum 25 percent wage increase and INSURE that, regardless of your status in this country, you were taxed the same as everyone else. It would have taken that annoying argument off the table.

Perhaps you're right Humorme

'Lil Brown folk are probably a much bigger biz than i had imagined

~S~

As a strict constructionist - and having worked in and around immigration law for six years, I have a unique perspective.

My resume with this issue goes back to the late 1970s. I have been on civilian border patrols. I knew ALL the major players personally between the 1970s and 1990s. I knew everybody all the way up to the current crop of anti-immigrant types that gutted the patriot organizations and civilian militias, recruiting people for this non - win effort.

After those people gutted the efforts to restore the Constitution, they began deflecting and not taking their ownership in the demise of our nation - the so-called "Patriot Act," National ID / REAL ID Act, Constitution Free Zone, evisceration of the Fourth Amendment, the end to the presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty.

Let's face it. David Duke, the ex-nazi turned KKK leader pioneered this effort. Then, once he abandoned it, Bill Clinton took on the job:



Once Clinton left office and Hitlery went all pro-immigration, the nazis moved back in and reclaimed their territory.


Both the Ds and the Rs are demagoguing this issue in order to take America away from our foundational principles. They are all going down different roads to the same destination. And nobody can reach what was once the civilian militias, conservative groups, etc.

And stop repeating the lie "anti-immigration" when the discussion is about illegal immigration.

If there were a realistic way for people to come here properly, I might agree with you, but the statute says Improper Entry so I will continue to say anti-immigration. You want me to change, then change the laws that force people to become citizens. You pretend that by screaming "illegal" it will change the dynamics. It don't.

"Being "inclusive" to "Dreamers" necessarily means being exclusionary toward our own working class.
Mexican drug cartels aren't swarming through their towns. They live in fancy neighborhoods.

Somali refugees aren't beating up their kids -- who are safely ensconced in expensive private schools, anyway.

Members of our governing class seem to have decided the country is doomed, so they may as well make their pile.

A 1995 news article in The New York Times calmly described preparations the Immigration and Naturalization Service was making in case a "vast flood of illegal immigrants" surged across the Mexican border, "inundating entire communities as it washes north into the American heartland." Under the Clinton administration, the illegals would face either "immediate voluntary deportation" or "emergency detention."

No indignant denunciations followed.

More hate speech from the Times:

"Fighting illegal immigration is a difficult and important job. But Congress should do it in a way that will deter illegal entry at the border." -- New York Times editorial, Sept. 29, 1997


The great civil rights icon Barbara Jordan produced a report on immigration more than two decades ago, calling on the government to end chain migration and put a dead stop to illegal immigration, for the benefit of all Americans.


"When push comes to shove, there is only one realistic way that you can stop illegal immigration into this country, and that is by making it illegal and being tough enough that illegal immigrants cannot work in this country." -- Democratic Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, 1985

"No sane country would (reward illegal immigrants), right? Guess again. If you break our laws by entering this country without permission, and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee full access to all public and social services this society provides -- and that's a lot of services. Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense in county-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?" -- Democratic Sen. Harry Reid, 1993"
We Used to Care About One Another

 

[PoliticalChic]

This article was very close to the OP...


"They Take the Second Amendment First and the First Amendment Second

We have talked a lot about the liberal assault on our right as American citizens to keep and bear arms for the defense of ourselves, our families, our communities, and our Constitution, but it is a mistake to think of a disarmed population as their desired end-state. No, that’s merely the first step toward the subjugation of the Normals. What they want is not only for us to be disarmed, but to be silenced.

They are not going to stop with the Second Amendment. Next, they are going to move to finish off the First Amendment.

They don’t want you to speak freely."
Kurt Schlichter - They Take the Second Amendment First and the First Amendment Second

 

[Humorme]

That is true, but I don't agree with getting firearms that way.

We have an unalienable Right to Life. Inherent in that Right is the unalienable Right to keep and bear Arms. We don't need the government's approval nor their permission.

But, it would be a Hell of a lot safer for all concerned if the left could acknowledge the Right.

Even with firearms behind a lock that requires a crow bar to defeat, you have morons saying that isn't enough. They are the same ones who think they can dictate to us what our lives are worth. You obey the law to the letter and when it don't work out, it's our fault their laws suck.

Unfortunately , we must learn to live and survive in an UNfree world.

Five fascists "Justices" will rule that we do not have an individual right to carry firearms. Please read Heller's dissenting opinion.


.

The dissenting opinion is worthless. It is the words of the losers. What scares the Hell out of me is the HOLDING. The holding is the law - period. Here is why Heller was the worst United States Supreme Court decision in my lifetime:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

What the Hell do they mean, "like most rights?" The Bill of Rights is a limitation on government, NOT on the individual. What do they mean "most rights?" You mean some rights are unlimited and some aren't? So which ones does the Court think are are unlimited? Did you know that the first time the United States Supreme Court ruled on this, they said, that Right to keep and bear Arms is not a Right granted by the Constitution, NEITHER IS IT DEPENDENT ON THE CONSTITUTION.

The Right exists; it predates the Constitution; the feds don't have de jure jurisdiction to deny it and the Court had no authority to declare such a thing.

So firearms are what? a human right? like breathing?

~S~

no .. Self DEFENSE is an unalienable human right. Whether it's protecting your business from robbers or looters or your home from vandals and murderers. It was also recognized by our Founders as a legitimate cause to DISSUADE tyrannical govts and govts that dont RESPECT the other rights of their citizenry.

Self defense? Seems that would differ state/state, as some do not allow you to defend our homes, instead insist we retreat

I'm sure you've heard of castle laws

So much for 'inalienable'.....

~S~

Unalienable Rights go further than inalienable rights.

 

[Humorme]

Maybe you don't. I'll bet you wouldn't bitch to find out that aliens without papers are paying $12 BILLION DOLLARS a year into Socialist Security and can never draw a thin dime out in retirement.

The honest answer is, in their zeal to get rid of little brown people from south of the border, the right propped up a plank out of the Communist Manifesto, sabotaging the effort to eliminate the 16th Amendment and rid this country of the IRS - which would have given you a minimum 25 percent wage increase and INSURE that, regardless of your status in this country, you were taxed the same as everyone else. It would have taken that annoying argument off the table.

Perhaps you're right Humorme

'Lil Brown folk are probably a much bigger biz than i had imagined

~S~

As a strict constructionist - and having worked in and around immigration law for six years, I have a unique perspective.

My resume with this issue goes back to the late 1970s. I have been on civilian border patrols. I knew ALL the major players personally between the 1970s and 1990s. I knew everybody all the way up to the current crop of anti-immigrant types that gutted the patriot organizations and civilian militias, recruiting people for this non - win effort.

After those people gutted the efforts to restore the Constitution, they began deflecting and not taking their ownership in the demise of our nation - the so-called "Patriot Act," National ID / REAL ID Act, Constitution Free Zone, evisceration of the Fourth Amendment, the end to the presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty.

Let's face it. David Duke, the ex-nazi turned KKK leader pioneered this effort. Then, once he abandoned it, Bill Clinton took on the job:



Once Clinton left office and Hitlery went all pro-immigration, the nazis moved back in and reclaimed their territory.


Both the Ds and the Rs are demagoguing this issue in order to take America away from our foundational principles. They are all going down different roads to the same destination. And nobody can reach what was once the civilian militias, conservative groups, etc.

And stop repeating the lie "anti-immigration" when the discussion is about illegal immigration.

If there were a realistic way for people to come here properly, I might agree with you, but the statute says Improper Entry so I will continue to say anti-immigration. You want me to change, then change the laws that force people to become citizens. You pretend that by screaming "illegal" it will change the dynamics. It don't.

But you are lying.

The protests are not anti-immigration.

They are anti- illegal immigration.

Tell the truth.

Why don't YOU tell the truth?

Why do YOU continue to lie?

Let me explain to you how your side LIES about this issue. The Fourteenth Amendment provides:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

BTW, this thread is about Rights. That is the OP, right? So, the mods should not be deleting this as they have been my other posts on this thread.

The anti-immigrant lobby holds this really idiotic notion that if you are not a citizen, you shouldn't be in this country. That alone makes them anti-immigrant because they refuse to talk about people who come to the United States and do not want to become citizens. They refuse to discuss those who come here to work, not to come here permanently.

Read the Fourteenth Amendment very carefully. Notice the distinction between a citizen and a "person." A person born in the United States is a citizen. Citizens have privileges and immunities, but all persons (which includes, but is not limited to citizens) within the jurisdiction of the United States have the Rights of Life, Liberty, Property, and Due Process.

The strategy of the anti-immigrant lobby is to support antiquated quotas whereby foreigners come here to work - NOT to become citizens. In doing so, they deprive employers of having equal access to that pool of foreign workers. All employers are guaranteed the equal protection of the law. But, only a finite number of foreigners are allowed to come into the United States to work - NOT to become citizens. Employers are thus denied the equal protection of the laws.

Through force the anti immigrant lobby seeks to keep out the foreigners at the lower end of the economic scale - though those people may have American relatives, preferring to let the rich come in for the purpose of becoming citizens. The anti-immigrant lobby does not understand that for every rich person they allow to emigrate from richer countries, for the purpose of becoming citizens, the closer they are to losing their country to people with anti-American political philosophies.

 

[Humorme]

The Jews/Nazis have no bearing on this, they weren't covered under our Constitution. SMFH

Maybe the Jews could have formed civilian militias and fought back? IDK SMFH

Natural rights , such as the right to life, are NATURAL RIGHTS , they do not depend on our Constitution for their existence, So German Jews had the right to live.

They also had a right to defend their lives but they trusted he government and allowed the Bismarck administration to disarm them.


.

Yea, so? European Jews were never "armed" to begin with, very few Europeans actually owned firearms, more owned swords or knives. They aren't covered under our Constitution (2A), nor the 1689 English Bill of Rights.

I see , they were not covered by our constitution so Hitler had the authority to gas and incinerate them with impunity ............You are retarded to the max.

We are done here


.

As a strict constructionist - and having worked in and around immigration law for six years, I have a unique perspective.

My resume with this issue goes back to the late 1970s. I have been on civilian border patrols. I knew ALL the major players personally between the 1970s and 1990s. I knew everybody all the way up to the current crop of anti-immigrant types that gutted the patriot organizations and civilian militias, recruiting people for this non - win effort.

After those people gutted the efforts to restore the Constitution, they began deflecting and not taking their ownership in the demise of our nation - the so-called "Patriot Act," National ID / REAL ID Act, Constitution Free Zone, evisceration of the Fourth Amendment, the end to the presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty.

Let's face it. David Duke, the ex-nazi turned KKK leader pioneered this effort. Then, once he abandoned it, Bill Clinton took on the job:



Once Clinton left office and Hitlery went all pro-immigration, the nazis moved back in and reclaimed their territory.


Both the Ds and the Rs are demagoguing this issue in order to take America away from our foundational principles. They are all going down different roads to the same destination. And nobody can reach what was once the civilian militias, conservative groups, etc.

Based on your vaunted 'expertise'.....are the Democrats working tirelessly to entice illegal aliens into the country?

The Ds want the foreigners here for the votes; the Rs want them here for the cheap labor.

Meanwhile the average American... like where I live has guys in their 20s, 30s, 40s and beyond living at home with mommy. These dirtbags won't work; they're addicted to drugs (many having been fed drugs as a kid for non-existent conditions like ADD / ADHD) and a lot of them have made it to middle age with no high school diploma, no job skills, and not even a driver's license.

These sorry asses sit on their computer doing the social media thing and video games all day. A Mexican guy comes through here about twice a week cutting grass because those worthless Americans are that lazy.

The few who do try to do better after years of worthlessness are locked out of the system by a criminal record that shouldn't be available to the general public - except in rare circumstances (like someone who wants to take care of your kids or one who handles large sums of money / automobiles / heavy machinery.

The Rs say they want immigrants - but, only educated ones. Why? Their going to open all those minimum wage jobs up, but it is speculative that the welfare riding, dope sucking, pieces of scatalogical waste will ever take those jobs as is. AND, once the really good jobs are taken over by foreigners who came here "legally" as you like to call it, change the laws and make your points moot, what is your back-up plan?

Seems you weren't prepared to answer the question:

Based on your vaunted 'expertise'.....are the Democrats working tirelessly to entice illegal aliens into the country?



Based on what appears to be dishonesty in your post....I'll ask it another way: Which party handed out applications for food stamps in Mexico to entice illegal aliens??????


"Fat And Furious: Obama Pushes Food Stamps In Mexico"
Fat And Furious: Obama Pushes Food Stamps In Mexico | Investor's Business Daily


And which party stymied immigration courts to smooth the way for illegal immigrants????

"200,000 deportation cases quietly 'closed' under Obama
....."administratively closed" without action, a move that left tens of thousands of illegal immigrants free to roam America, sometimes indefinitely, according to a new report.

When added to those cases still pending court action, it brings the backlog of cases to about 800,000, far more than previously known.

In his report, he said the exact number isn't known. "I believe that the Obama administration's use of the practice may have ‘cooked the books' as it relates to the true number of cases that are pending adjudication before the immigration courts."

The Trump administration has taken action to reverse the practice of letting authorities close the cases and is working to reschedule them, he added."
200,000 deportation cases quietly 'closed' under Obama





Speak up, you dunce!!!!

Political chic,

The moment someone starts calling me a liar, I don't owe them jackshit except contempt. That's why I almost have to vomit having to associate with people of that ilk in the hopes of saving our unalienable Rights especially those related to the Second Amendment.

If you could open your eyes and learn how to freaking read, I DID answer your question.

Everybody points fingers about which political party did what.

Yeah, the Dems did what Political chic said... Then again, Presidents Bush and Reagan granted "amnesty" to FOUR MILLION undocumented foreigners while Clinton and Obama granted only HALF that amount.

It's a silly ass game whereby both sides try to scapegoat the foreigners while not forcing the Americans who make it possible to have to admit their ownership in the situation.

It's tantamount to blaming flies for shit.

I never use vulgarity.
I prove my point...PROVE....using only facts and logic.
I hope you will keep to the truth, and stop blaming both parties.....it isn't the truth.,

I have proven the point (though my posts are being deleted) that both sides are equally responsible for the immigration situation we have today. I gave credit the portion of your posting making allegations against the Democrats, but I also posted that the Republicans have granted "amnesty" to twice as many undocumented foreigners than the Democrats have.

When I point out the facts of how both the Ds and Rs demagogue this issue for political gain, while denying to those from south of the border an equal opportunity with rich foreigners from other parts of the world, suddenly, I'm a liar and my posts are being deleted.

If you could take five minutes of your day to READ posts instead of trying judge people, you might find that we are in agreement on a lot of things - yes, a problem exists. But that's not good enough for you. If I don't chant the mantra; if I have a different view as to solutions, then I'm a liar. THAT points to YOUR insecurity; YOUR dishonesty; YOUR failure to be able to look at the facts objectively.

All persons (everybody) standing on U.S. soil (regardless of immigration status, race, creed, color, political beliefs, religion (or lack thereof), sexual orientation or country of origin is entitled to the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Humorme]

Maybe you don't. I'll bet you wouldn't bitch to find out that aliens without papers are paying $12 BILLION DOLLARS a year into Socialist Security and can never draw a thin dime out in retirement.

The honest answer is, in their zeal to get rid of little brown people from south of the border, the right propped up a plank out of the Communist Manifesto, sabotaging the effort to eliminate the 16th Amendment and rid this country of the IRS - which would have given you a minimum 25 percent wage increase and INSURE that, regardless of your status in this country, you were taxed the same as everyone else. It would have taken that annoying argument off the table.

Perhaps you're right Humorme

'Lil Brown folk are probably a much bigger biz than i had imagined

~S~

As a strict constructionist - and having worked in and around immigration law for six years, I have a unique perspective.

My resume with this issue goes back to the late 1970s. I have been on civilian border patrols. I knew ALL the major players personally between the 1970s and 1990s. I knew everybody all the way up to the current crop of anti-immigrant types that gutted the patriot organizations and civilian militias, recruiting people for this non - win effort.

After those people gutted the efforts to restore the Constitution, they began deflecting and not taking their ownership in the demise of our nation - the so-called "Patriot Act," National ID / REAL ID Act, Constitution Free Zone, evisceration of the Fourth Amendment, the end to the presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty.

Let's face it. David Duke, the ex-nazi turned KKK leader pioneered this effort. Then, once he abandoned it, Bill Clinton took on the job:



Once Clinton left office and Hitlery went all pro-immigration, the nazis moved back in and reclaimed their territory.


Both the Ds and the Rs are demagoguing this issue in order to take America away from our foundational principles. They are all going down different roads to the same destination. And nobody can reach what was once the civilian militias, conservative groups, etc.

And stop repeating the lie "anti-immigration" when the discussion is about illegal immigration.

If there were a realistic way for people to come here properly, I might agree with you, but the statute says Improper Entry so I will continue to say anti-immigration. You want me to change, then change the laws that force people to become citizens. You pretend that by screaming "illegal" it will change the dynamics. It don't.

"Being "inclusive" to "Dreamers" necessarily means being exclusionary toward our own working class.
Mexican drug cartels aren't swarming through their towns. They live in fancy neighborhoods.

Somali refugees aren't beating up their kids -- who are safely ensconced in expensive private schools, anyway.

Members of our governing class seem to have decided the country is doomed, so they may as well make their pile.

A 1995 news article in The New York Times calmly described preparations the Immigration and Naturalization Service was making in case a "vast flood of illegal immigrants" surged across the Mexican border, "inundating entire communities as it washes north into the American heartland." Under the Clinton administration, the illegals would face either "immediate voluntary deportation" or "emergency detention."

No indignant denunciations followed.

More hate speech from the Times:

"Fighting illegal immigration is a difficult and important job. But Congress should do it in a way that will deter illegal entry at the border." -- New York Times editorial, Sept. 29, 1997


The great civil rights icon Barbara Jordan produced a report on immigration more than two decades ago, calling on the government to end chain migration and put a dead stop to illegal immigration, for the benefit of all Americans.


"When push comes to shove, there is only one realistic way that you can stop illegal immigration into this country, and that is by making it illegal and being tough enough that illegal immigrants cannot work in this country." -- Democratic Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, 1985

"No sane country would (reward illegal immigrants), right? Guess again. If you break our laws by entering this country without permission, and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee full access to all public and social services this society provides -- and that's a lot of services. Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense in county-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?" -- Democratic Sen. Harry Reid, 1993"
We Used to Care About One Another

1) With respect to Dreamers, citizenship is a privilege, NOT a Right. You continue to argue with me when my position is crystal clear. I DO NOT SUPPORT WHOLESALE CITIZENSHIP

2) Mexican drug cartels cannot sell Americans anything they don't want. Americans need to take ownership in their part of this dynamic

3) Employers have a Right to property. The job they create belongs to the employer. Unless the employer is beholden to the government (i.e. the employer went into business via a government loan) they should not be compelled to hire any specific class of individuals

4) IN NONE OF YOUR SOLUTIONS do you ask the American people to own up to their contribution for the importation of foreigners. And IF the Americans would vote for less government; if Americans would be more entrepreneurial; IF Americans would stop sucking dope, sitting on their ass drawing welfare, filling their bodies with booze and tattoos... they might be able to get a job.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Unalienable Rights go further than inalienable rights.

According to Black's Law Dictionary, according to you Black's is the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the courts unalienable and inalienable mean the exact same thing.

What is UNALIENABLE? definition of UNALIENABLE (Black's Law Dictionary)
What is UNALIENABLE?
Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.

What is INALIENABLE? definition of INALIENABLE (Black's Law Dictionary)
What is INALIENABLE?
Not subject to alienation ; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another, such as rivers and public highways, and certain personal rights; e. g., liberty.

Now the only difference is one is the English version of the word, the other is the French version of the word, which is also why some of the copies of the DoI actually use inalienable and others use unalienable. Jeffersons copy uses inalienable.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The anti-immigrant lobby holds this really idiotic notion that if you are not a citizen, you shouldn't be in this country. That alone makes them anti-immigrant because they refuse to talk about people who come to the United States and do not want to become citizens. They refuse to discuss those who come here to work, not to come here permanently.

No, nobody says if you are not a citizen you shouldn't be here. Those who come here to work have visas and asked to enter, those that are here via illegal entry, never asked permission and are working illegally too boot. You are purposely being disingenuous and creating straw men that don't exist.

Read the Fourteenth Amendment very carefully. Notice the distinction between a citizen and a "person." A person born in the United States is a citizen. Citizens have privileges and immunities, but all persons (which includes, but is not limited to citizens) within the jurisdiction of the United States have the Rights of Life, Liberty, Property, and Due Process.

The 14A EPC clause is directed at the individual state, not the entire US, for the federal DP clauses they would be under the 5A and 6A. Nobody has claimed otherwise regarding "persons" having legal protections.

The strategy of the anti-immigrant lobby is to support antiquated quotas whereby foreigners come here to work - NOT to become citizens. In doing so, they deprive employers of having equal access to that pool of foreign workers. All employers are guaranteed the equal protection of the law. But, only a finite number of foreigners are allowed to come into the United States to work - NOT to become citizens. Employers are thus denied the equal protection of the laws.

Antiquated quotas? Even if the quotas were changed, those low skilled illegal entrants would still be denied due to being low skilled. As it stands right now there are no annual caps on the H2A visa, the worlds low skilled ag workers could all be brought in, provided the farmer requests them. Employers have equal access to workers already here, they are limited to those people with work authorization. If an employer wants a foreigner to come here to work they need to apply for that person via the requirements in place, if they are denied....to bad so sad.

Through force the anti immigrant lobby seeks to keep out the foreigners at the lower end of the economic scale - though those people may have American relatives, preferring to let the rich come in for the purpose of becoming citizens. The anti-immigrant lobby does not understand that for every rich person they allow to emigrate from richer countries, for the purpose of becoming citizens, the closer they are to losing their country to people with anti-American political philosophies.

If they have American relatives then those relatives can petition for them to get visas, there is no guarantee they will get visas, nor should there be. Relatives allowed in must choose to apply for citizenship, it is not a requirement they become citizens and the majority never do apply for it.

Now what rights have you lost due to immigration law? The answer is NONE.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I have proven the point (though my posts are being deleted) that both sides are equally responsible for the immigration situation we have today. I gave credit the portion of your posting making allegations against the Democrats, but I also posted that the Republicans have granted "amnesty" to twice as many undocumented foreigners than the Democrats have.

You didn't prove anything, you exclaimed this or that was done.
Here is reality = Reagan granted 2.7M amnesty via Congress (D/R) passing a bill that was proposed by Jimmy Carter in 1977. Clinton granted 3M via 6 additional bills from Congress (D/D). Bush never granted amnesty, nor did Obama.

When I point out the facts of how both the Ds and Rs demagogue this issue for political gain, while denying to those from south of the border an equal opportunity with rich foreigners from other parts of the world, suddenly, I'm a liar and my posts are being deleted.

You claim things are facts, yet you haven't linked to anything that backs up your claims. Your "word" they are facts is as useless as tits on a bull frog.

If you could take five minutes of your day to READ posts instead of trying judge people, you might find that we are in agreement on a lot of things - yes, a problem exists. But that's not good enough for you. If I don't chant the mantra; if I have a different view as to solutions, then I'm a liar. THAT points to YOUR insecurity; YOUR dishonesty; YOUR failure to be able to look at the facts objectively.

You haven't presented any facts to look at. You've made claims and spouted opinion, nothing more.

All persons (everybody) standing on U.S. soil (regardless of immigration status, race, creed, color, political beliefs, religion (or lack thereof), sexual orientation or country of origin is entitled to the equal protection of the laws.

Nobody has stated otherwise.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

1) With respect to Dreamers, citizenship is a privilege, NOT a Right. You continue to argue with me when my position is crystal clear. I DO NOT SUPPORT WHOLESALE CITIZENSHIP

Nobody does, but that's not what she is asking or stating.

2) Mexican drug cartels cannot sell Americans anything they don't want. Americans need to take ownership in their part of this dynamic

Nobody has said otherwise, yet if we stop the drugs from entering, then Americans will have a harder time buying/obtaining/getting them.

3) Employers have a Right to property. The job they create belongs to the employer. Unless the employer is beholden to the government (i.e. the employer went into business via a government loan) they should not be compelled to hire any specific class of individuals

Employers are allowed to hire people that have authorization to work. According to your words then employers should be able to hire children right out of the womb.

4) IN NONE OF YOUR SOLUTIONS do you ask the American people to own up to their contribution for the importation of foreigners. And IF the Americans would vote for less government; if Americans would be more entrepreneurial; IF Americans would stop sucking dope, sitting on their ass drawing welfare, filling their bodies with booze and tattoos... they might be able to get a job.

There is no importation of foreigners, if that were the case they would be called slaves. The rest is merely conjecture.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Perhaps you're right Humorme

'Lil Brown folk are probably a much bigger biz than i had imagined

~S~

As a strict constructionist - and having worked in and around immigration law for six years, I have a unique perspective.

My resume with this issue goes back to the late 1970s. I have been on civilian border patrols. I knew ALL the major players personally between the 1970s and 1990s. I knew everybody all the way up to the current crop of anti-immigrant types that gutted the patriot organizations and civilian militias, recruiting people for this non - win effort.

After those people gutted the efforts to restore the Constitution, they began deflecting and not taking their ownership in the demise of our nation - the so-called "Patriot Act," National ID / REAL ID Act, Constitution Free Zone, evisceration of the Fourth Amendment, the end to the presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty.

Let's face it. David Duke, the ex-nazi turned KKK leader pioneered this effort. Then, once he abandoned it, Bill Clinton took on the job:



Once Clinton left office and Hitlery went all pro-immigration, the nazis moved back in and reclaimed their territory.


Both the Ds and the Rs are demagoguing this issue in order to take America away from our foundational principles. They are all going down different roads to the same destination. And nobody can reach what was once the civilian militias, conservative groups, etc.

And stop repeating the lie "anti-immigration" when the discussion is about illegal immigration.

If there were a realistic way for people to come here properly, I might agree with you, but the statute says Improper Entry so I will continue to say anti-immigration. You want me to change, then change the laws that force people to become citizens. You pretend that by screaming "illegal" it will change the dynamics. It don't.

But you are lying.

The protests are not anti-immigration.

They are anti- illegal immigration.

Tell the truth.

Why don't YOU tell the truth?

Why do YOU continue to lie?

Let me explain to you how your side LIES about this issue. The Fourteenth Amendment provides:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

BTW, this thread is about Rights. That is the OP, right? So, the mods should not be deleting this as they have been my other posts on this thread.

The anti-immigrant lobby holds this really idiotic notion that if you are not a citizen, you shouldn't be in this country. That alone makes them anti-immigrant because they refuse to talk about people who come to the United States and do not want to become citizens. They refuse to discuss those who come here to work, not to come here permanently.

Read the Fourteenth Amendment very carefully. Notice the distinction between a citizen and a "person." A person born in the United States is a citizen. Citizens have privileges and immunities, but all persons (which includes, but is not limited to citizens) within the jurisdiction of the United States have the Rights of Life, Liberty, Property, and Due Process.

The strategy of the anti-immigrant lobby is to support antiquated quotas whereby foreigners come here to work - NOT to become citizens. In doing so, they deprive employers of having equal access to that pool of foreign workers. All employers are guaranteed the equal protection of the law. But, only a finite number of foreigners are allowed to come into the United States to work - NOT to become citizens. Employers are thus denied the equal protection of the laws.

Through force the anti immigrant lobby seeks to keep out the foreigners at the lower end of the economic scale - though those people may have American relatives, preferring to let the rich come in for the purpose of becoming citizens. The anti-immigrant lobby does not understand that for every rich person they allow to emigrate from richer countries, for the purpose of becoming citizens, the closer they are to losing their country to people with anti-American political philosophies.

There is no anti-immigrant lobby.

Stop lying.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Natural rights , such as the right to life, are NATURAL RIGHTS , they do not depend on our Constitution for their existence, So German Jews had the right to live.

They also had a right to defend their lives but they trusted he government and allowed the Bismarck administration to disarm them.


.

Yea, so? European Jews were never "armed" to begin with, very few Europeans actually owned firearms, more owned swords or knives. They aren't covered under our Constitution (2A), nor the 1689 English Bill of Rights.

I see , they were not covered by our constitution so Hitler had the authority to gas and incinerate them with impunity ............You are retarded to the max.

We are done here


.

Based on your vaunted 'expertise'.....are the Democrats working tirelessly to entice illegal aliens into the country?

The Ds want the foreigners here for the votes; the Rs want them here for the cheap labor.

Meanwhile the average American... like where I live has guys in their 20s, 30s, 40s and beyond living at home with mommy. These dirtbags won't work; they're addicted to drugs (many having been fed drugs as a kid for non-existent conditions like ADD / ADHD) and a lot of them have made it to middle age with no high school diploma, no job skills, and not even a driver's license.

These sorry asses sit on their computer doing the social media thing and video games all day. A Mexican guy comes through here about twice a week cutting grass because those worthless Americans are that lazy.

The few who do try to do better after years of worthlessness are locked out of the system by a criminal record that shouldn't be available to the general public - except in rare circumstances (like someone who wants to take care of your kids or one who handles large sums of money / automobiles / heavy machinery.

The Rs say they want immigrants - but, only educated ones. Why? Their going to open all those minimum wage jobs up, but it is speculative that the welfare riding, dope sucking, pieces of scatalogical waste will ever take those jobs as is. AND, once the really good jobs are taken over by foreigners who came here "legally" as you like to call it, change the laws and make your points moot, what is your back-up plan?

Seems you weren't prepared to answer the question:

Based on your vaunted 'expertise'.....are the Democrats working tirelessly to entice illegal aliens into the country?



Based on what appears to be dishonesty in your post....I'll ask it another way: Which party handed out applications for food stamps in Mexico to entice illegal aliens??????


"Fat And Furious: Obama Pushes Food Stamps In Mexico"
Fat And Furious: Obama Pushes Food Stamps In Mexico | Investor's Business Daily


And which party stymied immigration courts to smooth the way for illegal immigrants????

"200,000 deportation cases quietly 'closed' under Obama
....."administratively closed" without action, a move that left tens of thousands of illegal immigrants free to roam America, sometimes indefinitely, according to a new report.

When added to those cases still pending court action, it brings the backlog of cases to about 800,000, far more than previously known.

In his report, he said the exact number isn't known. "I believe that the Obama administration's use of the practice may have ‘cooked the books' as it relates to the true number of cases that are pending adjudication before the immigration courts."

The Trump administration has taken action to reverse the practice of letting authorities close the cases and is working to reschedule them, he added."
200,000 deportation cases quietly 'closed' under Obama





Speak up, you dunce!!!!

Political chic,

The moment someone starts calling me a liar, I don't owe them jackshit except contempt. That's why I almost have to vomit having to associate with people of that ilk in the hopes of saving our unalienable Rights especially those related to the Second Amendment.

If you could open your eyes and learn how to freaking read, I DID answer your question.

Everybody points fingers about which political party did what.

Yeah, the Dems did what Political chic said... Then again, Presidents Bush and Reagan granted "amnesty" to FOUR MILLION undocumented foreigners while Clinton and Obama granted only HALF that amount.

It's a silly ass game whereby both sides try to scapegoat the foreigners while not forcing the Americans who make it possible to have to admit their ownership in the situation.

It's tantamount to blaming flies for shit.

I never use vulgarity.
I prove my point...PROVE....using only facts and logic.
I hope you will keep to the truth, and stop blaming both parties.....it isn't the truth.,

I have proven the point (though my posts are being deleted) that both sides are equally responsible for the immigration situation we have today. I gave credit the portion of your posting making allegations against the Democrats, but I also posted that the Republicans have granted "amnesty" to twice as many undocumented foreigners than the Democrats have.

When I point out the facts of how both the Ds and Rs demagogue this issue for political gain, while denying to those from south of the border an equal opportunity with rich foreigners from other parts of the world, suddenly, I'm a liar and my posts are being deleted.

If you could take five minutes of your day to READ posts instead of trying judge people, you might find that we are in agreement on a lot of things - yes, a problem exists. But that's not good enough for you. If I don't chant the mantra; if I have a different view as to solutions, then I'm a liar. THAT points to YOUR insecurity; YOUR dishonesty; YOUR failure to be able to look at the facts objectively.

All persons (everybody) standing on U.S. soil (regardless of immigration status, race, creed, color, political beliefs, religion (or lack thereof), sexual orientation or country of origin is entitled to the equal protection of the laws.

I "have proven the point (though my posts are being deleted) that both sides are equally responsible for the immigration situation we have today. "


Another lie.....unless you'd care to deny this:


Which party handed out applications for food stamps in Mexico to entice illegal aliens??????


"Fat And Furious: Obama Pushes Food Stamps In Mexico"
Fat And Furious: Obama Pushes Food Stamps In Mexico | Investor's Business Daily






And which party stymied immigration courts to smooth the way for illegal immigrants????

"200,000 deportation cases quietly 'closed' under Obama
....."administratively closed" without action, a move that left tens of thousands of illegal immigrants free to roam America, sometimes indefinitely, according to a new report.

When added to those cases still pending court action, it brings the backlog of cases to about 800,000, far more than previously known.

In his report, he said the exact number isn't known. "I believe that the Obama administration's use of the practice may have ‘cooked the books' as it relates to the true number of cases that are pending adjudication before the immigration courts."

The Trump administration has taken action to reverse the practice of letting authorities close the cases and is working to reschedule them, he added."
200,000 deportation cases quietly 'closed' under Obama



One more?

Which party is relying on illegal alien votes for their future????

"Leaked Memo Confirms What We Already Knew About Democrats And Illegal Immigration

… a leaked document from the Center For American Progress (CAP) Action Fund shows what most of us have always known, but what Democrats like to pretend isn’t their reality.

Namely, the memo, in great detail, maps out how Democrats are relying on illegal immigration to prop up their political future.

“The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success,” reads Palmieri’s memo,…” Leaked Memo Confirms What We Already Knew About Democrats and Illegal Immigration



Ripped you a new one, huh?

 

[flacaltenn]

That is true, but I don't agree with getting firearms that way.

We have an unalienable Right to Life. Inherent in that Right is the unalienable Right to keep and bear Arms. We don't need the government's approval nor their permission.

But, it would be a Hell of a lot safer for all concerned if the left could acknowledge the Right.

Even with firearms behind a lock that requires a crow bar to defeat, you have morons saying that isn't enough. They are the same ones who think they can dictate to us what our lives are worth. You obey the law to the letter and when it don't work out, it's our fault their laws suck.

Unfortunately , we must learn to live and survive in an UNfree world.

Five fascists "Justices" will rule that we do not have an individual right to carry firearms. Please read Heller's dissenting opinion.


.

The dissenting opinion is worthless. It is the words of the losers. What scares the Hell out of me is the HOLDING. The holding is the law - period. Here is why Heller was the worst United States Supreme Court decision in my lifetime:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

What the Hell do they mean, "like most rights?" The Bill of Rights is a limitation on government, NOT on the individual. What do they mean "most rights?" You mean some rights are unlimited and some aren't? So which ones does the Court think are are unlimited? Did you know that the first time the United States Supreme Court ruled on this, they said, that Right to keep and bear Arms is not a Right granted by the Constitution, NEITHER IS IT DEPENDENT ON THE CONSTITUTION.

The Right exists; it predates the Constitution; the feds don't have de jure jurisdiction to deny it and the Court had no authority to declare such a thing.

So firearms are what? a human right? like breathing?

~S~

no .. Self DEFENSE is an unalienable human right. Whether it's protecting your business from robbers or looters or your home from vandals and murderers. It was also recognized by our Founders as a legitimate cause to DISSUADE tyrannical govts and govts that dont RESPECT the other rights of their citizenry.

Self defense? Seems that would differ state/state, as some do not allow you to defend our homes, instead insist we retreat

I'm sure you've heard of castle laws

So much for 'inalienable'.....

~S~

r

Just because of the lack of Castle Law, you don't give up your right to defend your home with deadly force. It just sets a higher bar for proving that you or others were in mortal danger.. And encourages that you attempt to stop the intrusion with the minimum force required. Just like any law enforcement is TRAINED to do...

 

[Cecilie1200]

...More than a third of the Democratic party would do away with the Second Amendment, a survey by The Economist and YouGov revealed."...

And why is this?

Could it be because Gun Nuts and their NRA mouthpiece have been obstructing Public Safety in this area for years?

No, they haven't. And it's because useful idiots like you have been erroneously and disingenuously convincing people that "public safety" means "give up your freedom for a promise of safety"....

1. Yes, you have (obstructed forward progress on sane nationwide gun control for decades)

Let's be clear here. You lefties LOVE to use euphemisms like "sane gun control" and "common-sense gun control" because you know it will muddy the real issues being discussed, and you know that if you stated what you're REALLY talking about plainly, you would never get anyone to agree with you.

When YOU say "sane gun control", what you actually mean is anything that moves us closer to a universal ban on projectile tools, and/or that makes you feel warm and fuzzy and morally superior because you "did something", even if it accomplishes nothing. Don't even bother denying it, because no one with a teaspoonful of brains is going to believe you anyway. And you're damned right that I and other like-minded people are VERY obstructionist toward that sort of thing, and rightfully proud of being so, and not even remotely inclined to be shamed and vilified by the likes of you for standing against it.

On the other hand, when you say that "the gun nuts and the NRA have obstructed public safety", that is an outright, malicious lie. While you and your ilk have spent years running around with your hair on fire, randomly and loudly demanding anything and everything you can think of, regardless of whether it will have any effect, the NRA and the "gun nuts" have actually racked up quite an impressive history of real, substantial contributions to public safety. For those who know jack shit about the NRA beyond the media's condemnation, let me review:

The NRA was originally founded, right after the Civil War, to promote marksmanship training, because apparently many of the Union recruits couldn't hit the broadside of a barn. By World War II, they were devising training material for the military, organizing home guards, and training industrial security for war plants.

They have provided hunting education programs for government fish and game departments to make hunting safe. They have trained thousands of police firearms instructors, as well as training millions of gun owners every year in safe gun ownership and usage.

Are you familiar with the rules parents teach their young children about guns? Don't Touch. Run Away. Tell A Grownup. Those came from the NRA's Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program, developed in 1988 to promote child safety.

Furthermore, the NRA has, in its history, supported gun control measures which were appropriate to the time and circumstances. It was, in fact, the NRA who originally assisted then-President Roosevelt in drafting the nation's first real gun control laws in the 1930s in response to crimes inspired by the Prohibition era. The laws they helped draft are the reason that gun dealers must be licensed and registered, and that convicted felons are banned from owning guns. They supported the 1968 Gun Control Act, which instituted minimum age requirements for gun purchases and extended the ban on felons owning guns to include the mentally ill and drug addicts.

Unlike leftist gun-haters, the NRA has employed ACTUAL common-sense and responsiveness to circumstances and emerging knowledge and understanding regarding cause and effect in violent behavior. They have ALWAYS supported real enforcement of and penalties for violation of existing gun laws, something that leftists seem to think is unnecessary once they have the warm fuzzy of passing the law. They initially supported the Gun-Free School Zones Act, but - again unlike leftist gun-haters - THEY figured out that it has the opposite effect of its intention. Their much-ballyhooed opposition to gun laws is mostly opposition to laws they supported and helped create, because they cottoned on to how those laws were being abused.

The NRA also knows something the left can't ever seem to grasp: gun ownership saves lives. "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies. ... Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008." - Centers for Disease Control

Contrary to media propaganda, gun ownership does far more to promote public safety than gun bans ever could. So the next time you want to take a self-righteous, condemnatory tone about "obstructing public safety" toward an organization which has spent a century-and-a-half working to promote that very thing, ask yourself: what the fuck have YOU done and accomplished in that regard?

(to be continued in my next post)

 

[Humorme]

As a strict constructionist - and having worked in and around immigration law for six years, I have a unique perspective.

My resume with this issue goes back to the late 1970s. I have been on civilian border patrols. I knew ALL the major players personally between the 1970s and 1990s. I knew everybody all the way up to the current crop of anti-immigrant types that gutted the patriot organizations and civilian militias, recruiting people for this non - win effort.

After those people gutted the efforts to restore the Constitution, they began deflecting and not taking their ownership in the demise of our nation - the so-called "Patriot Act," National ID / REAL ID Act, Constitution Free Zone, evisceration of the Fourth Amendment, the end to the presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty.

Let's face it. David Duke, the ex-nazi turned KKK leader pioneered this effort. Then, once he abandoned it, Bill Clinton took on the job:



Once Clinton left office and Hitlery went all pro-immigration, the nazis moved back in and reclaimed their territory.


Both the Ds and the Rs are demagoguing this issue in order to take America away from our foundational principles. They are all going down different roads to the same destination. And nobody can reach what was once the civilian militias, conservative groups, etc.

And stop repeating the lie "anti-immigration" when the discussion is about illegal immigration.

If there were a realistic way for people to come here properly, I might agree with you, but the statute says Improper Entry so I will continue to say anti-immigration. You want me to change, then change the laws that force people to become citizens. You pretend that by screaming "illegal" it will change the dynamics. It don't.

But you are lying.

The protests are not anti-immigration.

They are anti- illegal immigration.

Tell the truth.

Why don't YOU tell the truth?

Why do YOU continue to lie?

Let me explain to you how your side LIES about this issue. The Fourteenth Amendment provides:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

BTW, this thread is about Rights. That is the OP, right? So, the mods should not be deleting this as they have been my other posts on this thread.

The anti-immigrant lobby holds this really idiotic notion that if you are not a citizen, you shouldn't be in this country. That alone makes them anti-immigrant because they refuse to talk about people who come to the United States and do not want to become citizens. They refuse to discuss those who come here to work, not to come here permanently.

Read the Fourteenth Amendment very carefully. Notice the distinction between a citizen and a "person." A person born in the United States is a citizen. Citizens have privileges and immunities, but all persons (which includes, but is not limited to citizens) within the jurisdiction of the United States have the Rights of Life, Liberty, Property, and Due Process.

The strategy of the anti-immigrant lobby is to support antiquated quotas whereby foreigners come here to work - NOT to become citizens. In doing so, they deprive employers of having equal access to that pool of foreign workers. All employers are guaranteed the equal protection of the law. But, only a finite number of foreigners are allowed to come into the United States to work - NOT to become citizens. Employers are thus denied the equal protection of the laws.

Through force the anti immigrant lobby seeks to keep out the foreigners at the lower end of the economic scale - though those people may have American relatives, preferring to let the rich come in for the purpose of becoming citizens. The anti-immigrant lobby does not understand that for every rich person they allow to emigrate from richer countries, for the purpose of becoming citizens, the closer they are to losing their country to people with anti-American political philosophies.

There is no anti-immigrant lobby.

Stop lying.

You are the only person between the two of us that is lying.