Comparative Theory: Gun-Laws & Foreign VISAs

[2Thick]

According to the majority of pro-gun members, one of the strongest arguments against restricting gun ownership is that if guns are taken away from lawful citizens, then only the "criminals" will have guns.

The theory (or logic) seems to state that most lawful citizens will abide by the laws and only the "evil dooers" will ignore the law and find a way around it.

Now with that being said, how can the same people agree to an immigration policy that punishes lawful visitors and immigrants that jump through the thousand bureaucratic hoops in order to legally enter the United States?

The steps taken include fingerprinting and taking photographs of visitors because they were born in certain countries. That is understandable for people from those countries, but the US also wants to fingerprint and photograph CITIZENS of countries such as Canada who happened to be born in certain countries (no matter how many years they have been living abroad).

As an interesting note, people from Saudi Arabia (whom 19 of the 9/11 terrorists hail from) ARE NOT required to be fingerprinted or photographed.

They both follow the same logic, but people who are pro-gun are hypocrites when it comes to immigration. Why?

Here is the point. Bad people will not follow the rules and find a way around them. Why punish good people for a small minority of bad people that will find a way around the laws anyway?

 

[wartime100]

I think immigration is out of control. With everyone easily being able to enter this country we leave the door wide open for terrorists. I think it is just an extra security measure. I think if the U.S. wants to fingerprint and photograph people in canada ,it is so we can do backround checks to make sure they don't harbor terrorists.

 

[freak daddy]

2Thick, do you live in Canada? If you do, did you grow up in the states?

 

[BackDoc]

According to the majority of pro-gun members, one of the strongest arguments against restricting gun ownership is that if guns are taken away from lawful citizens, then only the "criminals" will have guns. The theory (or logic) seems to state that most lawful citizens will abide by the laws and only the "evil dooers" will ignore the law and find a way around it.

It's not really an argument, it's fact. If guns are outlawed or if legislation prohibits ownership, then anyone part of the population included in the ban who fails to relinquish their firearms lawfully and on time is automatically breaking the law (an offense of negligence). Given that people often feel the need to protect themselves with more than sticks and stones against superior weapons, tactics and advantages (i.e. the element of surprise and/or the mental disposition of the intruder vs. the homeowner) it is not realistic to assume that everyone will voluntarily surrender their firearm. Therefore this law would only make more criminals while failing to allow the protection of America's law abiding people. So this rule is ONLY a punishment to the people who obey the law. This type of legislation will only result in more lawbreaking on the part of otherwise lawful citizens. We should NEVER allow our lawmakers to pass laws that will reduce the law abiding population of any segment of this country!

I ask the question that has never been answered or even attempted to be answered directly by the anti-gun lobby:

what are you specifically going to do to protect yourself and your loved ones and even your possessions when the bad guys come to loot, rob, pillage, rape and kill?

Actually I think I have an answer...
run as fast as you can to the nearest house of the pro gun lobbyist. you will find help there. Just hope that the kids and wife can run as fast.

Originally posted by 2Thick Now with that being said, how can the same people agree to an immigration policy that punishes lawful visitors and immigrants that jump through the thousand bureaucratic hoops in order to legally enter the United States?

I only agree with it in the sense that until someone is a citizen of a country then that country has the right to protect her citizens by keeping tabs on the visitors. Have you seen what they do in some other countries such as Switzerland, Russia, etc? Compare what they do and what we do in America and it will make having some national newby jump thru a few hurdles look like a picnic.

Now I propose a similar question: how can someone logically want to ban guns but yet open the nation's doors more easily? That's like saying auto theft is not a significant crime so and decide to not lock your house and car doors. So at this point, regardless of belief and theory, every day you have your car or your house or the contents of either still in your possession is a function NOT of your lawful right to own and protect them, but a function of the willingness, luck and skill of the law breakers and criminals and whether they decide they want your stuff! So to open the borders to everyone without a few hurdles is foolish. To simultaneously ban guns is retarded. If this legislation is passed then it's open season on America.

Originally posted by 2Thick The steps taken include fingerprinting and taking photographs of visitors because they were born in certain countries. That is understandable for people from those countries, but the US also wants to fingerprint and photograph CITIZENS of countries such as Canada who happened to be born in certain countries (no matter how many years they have been living abroad).

Well basically Canada is not the US and I can't say for certain how well the two countries work together on assessing the problems of immigration. Can you say for certain that Canadian officials were NOT in favor of the US's proposed immigration policies? Also, I have no idea, but how difficult is it to become a Canadian citizen? Would you say it is more difficult or less difficult that becoming a US citizen under the current policies?

 

[2Thick]

2Thick, do you live in Canada? If you do, did you grow up in the states?

Yes and Yes.

 

[freak daddy]

Yes and Yes.

You are just the person I need to talk to then. I'll hit your PM!