The Guns & Worker party

[HIMBOB]

This really isn't a bothism for me. These are the 2 most important domestic issues to me. I really don't like having to choose.

It was easy before. Labor is on the verge of having the last nail in the coffin driven home, while actually banning guns was laughable.

Now I get to choose when both issues are in a desperate situation.

I am honestly scared of what a dem president, house, and Senate would do on guns if they had control.

Disagree with my position if you like, but it is sincere.

Can you explain what you are scared of?

 

[SBJJ]

"Open borders" refer to borders that you are allowed to cross freely and without restriction, without fear of legal consequence or any other consequence. We have plenty of restrictions and laws on the books. You are just talking about how well our closed border is controlled.



When a central American caravan floods your border.

So u are saying anyone who crosses or crossed our closed border should be kicked out?

Sounds like it's an open border with some restrictions. Because closed means closed. Like NO one comes across.

So if we all want a closed border. No one would oppose a wall to reinforce it

 

[SBJJ]

We don't have an open border though.

So anyone who crossed this "closed" border should be kicked out?

 

[Rational Poster]

So anyone who crossed this "closed" border should be kicked out?

Any individual under US jurisdiction has the right to a trial, it depends how they crossed it and for what reasons and the consequences/cost of that deportation.

 

[nac386]

So u are saying anyone who crosses or crossed our closed border should be kicked out?

Sounds like it's an open border with some restrictions. Because closed means closed. Like NO one comes across.

So if we all want a closed border. No one would oppose a wall to reinforce it

You are creating your own definition for a phrase that already has a definition. Open border means you are free to move unprohibited back and forth, that is not at all what we have. That point can't really be argued at all. It's clearly defined in our laws that you cannot cross uninspected.

The term also does not only apply to the ground. It applies to the air and sea as well. Building a wall does not suddenly create a completely secure border, being that an enormous amount of people breaking our current immigration laws are doing so by air or crossing legally and overstaying.

The argument against the wall is that it is incredibly expensive and seems like it would be relatively ineffective in combating the issue, when compared to the price tag. They estimate that over 40% of illegal immigrants simply overstayed their visas, they didn't cross on foot uninspected. Then you have to wonder how long it will take border jumpers to outsmart a wall. My guess, not very long.

So what you end up with is a massively expensive wall that only does a mediocre job preventing border crossers, who make up only part of illegal immigrants.

 

[nac386]

By the way, @SBJJ I am not ideologically opposed to building a wall. I just think it would wind up being a huge waste of money.

They should build barriers in a few locations where it is the most necessary, increas border security in some areas, and then strictly enforce laws that prevent people from hiring illegal immigrants.

All of this attention is put on the physical border, and everybody ignores all of the people hiring them illegally which incentivizes them coming here in the first place. The illegal immigrants are demonized, and people ignore the fact that they are all working for people.

I guess it is just easier to demonize an immigrant than it is a farmer, a well-off family who wants a cheap maid, a contractor who wants cheap labor, etc.

 

[SBJJ]

Any individual under US jurisdiction has the right to a trial, it depends how they crossed it and for what reasons and the consequences/cost of that deportation.

So u are for open borders

 

[SBJJ]

By the way, @SBJJ I am not ideologically opposed to building a wall. I just think it would wind up being a huge waste of money.

They should build barriers in a few locations where it is the most necessary, increas border security in some areas, and then strictly enforce laws that prevent people from hiring illegal immigrants.

All of this attention is put on the physical border, and everybody ignores all of the people hiring them illegally which incentivizes them coming here in the first place. The illegal immigrants are demonized, and people ignore the fact that they are all working for people.

I guess it is just easier to demonize an immigrant than it is a farmer, a well-off family who wants a cheap maid, a contractor who wants cheap labor, etc.

Wait. I thought no one wanted open borders. Now u are talking about the people hiring them and exploiting them.

I just looked up the ACTUAL definitions of Open and Closed. We have an open border by the actual definition.

Also once again. Since u are not for open borders. You then are for the deportation of all those that crossed what u call our closed border?

 

[nac386]

Wait. I thought no one wanted open borders. Now u are talking about the people hiring them and exploiting them

You can't exploit illegal labor if the border is open. That would make the people legal, and unable to be exploited.

I just looked up the ACTUAL definitions of Open and Closed. We have an open border by the actual definition.

Post the definition you found.

 

[LMP]

By the way, @SBJJ I am not ideologically opposed to building a wall. I just think it would wind up being a huge waste of money.

They should build barriers in a few locations where it is the most necessary, increas border security in some areas, and then strictly enforce laws that prevent people from hiring illegal immigrants.

All of this attention is put on the physical border, and everybody ignores all of the people hiring them illegally which incentivizes them coming here in the first place. The illegal immigrants are demonized, and people ignore the fact that they are all working for people.

I guess it is just easier to demonize an immigrant than it is a farmer, a well-off family who wants a cheap maid, a contractor who wants cheap labor, etc.

China has a Great Wall, America has been far to long with out a Great Wall too. We need the best wall, can't let those Chinese be ahead of the US in any thing. I don't care what the cost is. Build the wall, Trump says it's the only way to keep all the rapist and murders out. Think about how few deaths and rapes we will have once the wall is built. It will be so much safer here. Think of the children damnit!!!

 

[SBJJ]

You can't exploit illegal labor if the border is open. That would make the people legal, and unable to be exploited.



Post the definition you found.

Open. Able to move through
Closed. Unable to move through

https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+open&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari

You are using a Political definition

Once again(3rd time now). Since u are not for an open border. You are for all those that moved through the closed border to be deported?

 

[Rational Poster]

So u are for open borders

Nope.

 

[SBJJ]

Nope.

So u are for deportation of all those that crossed the closed border. Yikes

 

[nac386]

Open. Able to move through
Closed. Unable to move through

https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+open&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari

You are using a Political definition

Once again(3rd time now). Since u are not for an open border. You are for all those that moved through the closed border to be deported?

Lol! You actually just sent me the definition of the word "open"?

Of course I used the political definition of "open border" and not the definition of the actual word "open" lol. We are not talking about opening a can of tuna, we are talking politics.

We do not have an open border. This is not a debatable thing. We have a whole host of immigration laws that prevent free movement across the border, we have physical barriers, we have armed security, lol.

You seem to have created your own definition and your own criteria in your head. Unfortunately, it's not up to you. Start a thread called, "What should we do with illegal immigrants?" and we can discuss that. But I already see by your back and forth with Rational Poster that you have included 100% deportation of illegal immigrants in your own personal definition of open borders, lol. So something tells me that conversation will go nowhere.

Also, Trump is for open borders by your personal definition. So is every single President in our lifetimes and likely the vast majority of the country.

 

[SBJJ]

Lol! You actually just sent me the definition of the word "open"?

Of course I used the political definition of "open border" and not the definition of the actual word "open" lol. We are not talking about opening a can of tuna, we are talking politics.

We do not have an open border. This is not a debatable thing. We have a whole host of immigration laws that prevent free movement across the border, we have physical barriers, we have armed security, lol.

You seem to have created your own definition and your own criteria in your head. Unfortunately, it's not up to you.

It is an open border. Maybe some restrictions. But it is VERY open. The people living close to and affected by the immigration do not use a political definition. They see an open border and they see the result of it. I laugh HARD when a war room poster gets so pompous as to say something is not debatable. Lol. My definition is the actual definition of open. Your definition is a political definition that suits your bias.

I think I'll just stop asking u the question u refuse to answer. Oh well

If you pick and choose who stays it is then an open border. It's not closed. I am for a COMPLETE stop of all immigration because of the future that will hit our work force.

A closed border is not allowing some people through. No matter what your political slant is

 

[nac386]

It is an open border. Maybe some restrictions. But it is VERY open. The people living close to and affected by the immigration do not use a political definition. They see an open border and they see the result of it. I laugh HARD when a war room poster gets so pompous as to say something is not debatable. Lol. My definition is the actual definition of open. Your definition is a political definition that suits your bias.

I think I'll just stop asking u the question u refuse to answer. Oh well

You don't get to invent definitions for phrases that are already defined, sorry.

 

[SBJJ]

You don't get to invent definitions for phrases that are already defined, sorry.

You are the one creating a definition. Not me.

Yes, Trump is not for a closed border. U are correct

EDIT. I didn't catch your phrases part. So now by open and closed u are talking about commonly used phrases. Not actual definitions. Gotcha

 

[Rational Poster]

So u are for deportation of all those that crossed the closed border. Yikes

Nope.

 

[SBJJ]

Nope.

So the border is not closed

 

[floivanus]

Red herring (presuming you're referring to the government going around door to door scooping up every firearm). As if we should all be fine with prohibition of certain models moving forward just because people that already have them are grandfathered in? Can't imagine you'd use a similar standard when it comes to other rights. Nobody needs to use racial slurs so lets ban those words. There's other words. Existing media with those words in them already can stay though. So nobody is coming for your free speech.

As we see though, grandfathering isn't guaranteed. Was the following law enacted by Republicans in Deerfield? Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm guessing Democrats are chiefly responsible. For people who value Constitutional protections, fining people daily who don't turn over their rightful property is pretty much coming for your guns. This law would be coming for almost all of my long guns.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/illinois-town-votes-to-ban-assault-rifles-fine-violators-1000-per-day/



There's five volumes of a thread in this forum noting all the threats and legislative attempts to prevent people from owning various firearms, as well as all the talk and efforts to make semi-auto pistols and rifles less effective by limiting ammunition capacity. It's all pushed mostly be Democrats. Obama getting no legislation passed is hardly proof of the two parties being the same on this issue.

Many AWB laws would cover my skeet/trap shooting gun, oh no it’s semi automatic and has the capacity to carry more than five rounds (hello aguilla mini shells) but it was built around 1910.

Oh... So by "ban guns" you mean an intention to place bans on specific models or types of firearms, not all weapons, universally.

The old “nobody said you can’t have guns, just not THAT gun argument? When the top selling rifles in the country fall into the realm of “evil assault rifles” and the rest are bolt guns and lever actions (d’oh, TC is coming out with a 15 round capacity magazine for my 308 bolt gun, that’d fall under a ban, and my dad has that henry big boy 357 lever gun with a gasp 13 round capacity, so that would be banned as well.) let me try again, when we get to have cricket 22lr single shots, the answer will still be “nobody said you can’t have a gun” right?