• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Ridiculous U.S. gun laws.

arg-fallbackName="BoganUSAFFLClerk"/>
Does it say it's responsible for creating ALL laws? Does anybpdy other than congress create laws?

This really isn't going nearly as well for you as you think. It's adorable how deep you're digging.
What do you think SEPARATION of powers means? It means one branch has 1 power delegated to them and other branches get other powers. Obviously if you designate legislative branch that is the branch that creates law not the judicial or the executive branch. Literally that is how the U.S. structure is explained.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Also laws effect the inside of government. Executive orders effect the outside. Not the same thing.

Don't be pissy because you stupid and you lost and are verifiably wrong. Don't argue a point if you don't know.

Laws that only affect the inside of government, you know, like how you only get a speeding ticket if you're driving in a federal building. You can shoot dead anyone on the street, but careful not to do it in a post office - that's against the law! So sayeth the Gospel of Bimbo Cowgirl.

Now, back to actually interesting topics with actually competent and knowledgeable people who don't treat conversations like penis measurement competitions.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 619"/>
What do you think SEPARATION of powers means? It means one branch has 1 power delegated to them and other branches get other powers. Obviously if you designate legislative branch that is the branch that creates law not the judicial or the executive branch. Literally that is how the U.S. structure is explained.
Ever hear of state legislatures?

These aren't the only reason you're hilariously wrong and reading implications of things well outside their domains of applicability. You really need to learn how fucking words work.
 
arg-fallbackName="BoganUSAFFLClerk"/>
If you recall when you did maths at school, when you have common terms on both sides of an equation, they get cancelled.
There are relative percentages as well as absolute percentages. Also it doesn't really matter when we consider the topic of the forum. The argument is at the beginning of the thread. It doesn't have any relevance when I am arguing that a piece of plastic is not a firearm or converts a firearm to a machine gun. The topic doesn't really require this explanation and I am tired of addressing topics irrelevant to the thread.
Thus we're comparing like for like - there are twice as many immigrants in Australia as there are in America per hundred.
If your claim were true, then there should be twice the (violent) crimes committed.
Also immigrants doesn't take into consideration people from the 3rd world and are born here. They are still from the 3rd world originally. Correct? Their bloodline comes from the 3rd world. So this analysis still doesn't take into consideration this.
They are not based on absolute numbers. In the same way that immigration is not based on absolute numbers but as a percentage of the population.
America has 14%, Australia has 28% - if your claim were correct, then Australia should have twice the violent crime as America.
Australia's immigrants are from majority from here exactly? Again I am arguing on a generality of 3rd world countries with high violent crime rates. Even then if they are not immigrants and that family or individual is from the 3rd world related by blood then they are still originally from the 3rd world. Many things contribute to a person wanting to commit crime and genetics I think play a role among environment etc.
Then you're not basing it on any crime statistics - you're basing your claim purely on the fact that they're in America illegally!?
They also commit other types of crime not necessarily violent that make other forms of violent crime necessary for other people to commit (for example theft of private identification by others to produced falsified documents in order to obtain other credentials).
Not all people-smugglers ("coyotes") are related to the drug cartels, and not all immigrants entering the US illegally use them. Many make their own way across the border without help from either.
Never argued they did. Key word "all".
Those that do act as mules may be vulnerable to further exploitation, which is why it's so important for the laws to allow illegal immigrants to come forward to report crimes, etc. This is part of what you all "sanctuary cities".
Or you could simply take the illegal alien population out and if they attempt to return punishment is severe.
I just summarised a quote from the cited CBO study regarding illegal immigrants not being eligible to receive Federal monies...!?:confused:
A summary doesn't show any detail. A summary is not good for trying to convince others. I usually submit a screenshot showing wording and specifics.
Again these show that the overall socio-economic effect is beneficial - and, again, shows that there's no correlation between immigration and (violent) crime.
Do you think Americans only are concerned about violent crime? We don't like illegals because of concerns over general crime and lack of shared values among other things.
So, what's different about Mexicans' values?
Easy being generally anti gun considering their corrupt state. It is inherently unamerican.
Familia is very important to Mexicans - and Hispanics in general. That's why there are fewer Hispanic children in care than, say, African-American. Even if the Hispanic parents aren't married - in contrast to African Americans - they live together, and are very much involved in their children's lives - again, in contrast to African Americans.
There are still droves of gangs regarding Hispanics. Obviously those parents haven't adhered to those values.
They are more likely to join the armed forces as a route to citizenship.
I'm generally anti military as the reasons for conflict regarding the armed forces in the U.S. is primarily wrong. Fix your own house before you involve yourself in the affairs of others.
Again, apart from the cited studies, which show that immigrants create jobs for native-born Americans, the money they send home electronically is also liable for tax at source, as well as charges for exchanging into foreign currencies.
Still American made income is primarily sent home.
They cross the border illegally because they are attempting to escape socio-economic poverty. To find work to support themselves and their loved ones.
Ah so screw the established law of the land eh? They don't enter at legal points required for sanctuary and tie up U.S. systems. That would be like gun law in the U.K. shouldn't be applied to me because I suffer medical care discrimination. I am going to illegally enter the U.K. to seek refuge. Its ridiculous. The U.K. has the right to uphold their laws no different than the U.S..
You're on the list of applicants for legal immigration. The US has reached its quota for this year. Would you wait until next year or, perhaps, years for your chance to get into America if you were Mexican, living in a unstable economy with the levels of drug cartel-related violence? Or would you cross the border to find honest work, and hope for the best?
Again do we enforce the law or not? None of that emotional argument is compelling.


Also considering the Mexican - U.S. border and Mexican immigration policy should be reflected back at anyone attempting to enter from that side.
 
arg-fallbackName="Patty P"/>
Am I the only one who feels like people aren't actually addressing Bogan's points or what.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Am I the only one who feels like people aren't actually addressing Bogan's points or what.

Maybe? I couldn't say. But I can tell you that I think he's a mendacious bigoted fuckwit who's not worth anything other than amusement. His 'points' are basically him declaring that his poorly conceived opinions should be treated as fact.
 
arg-fallbackName="BoganUSAFFLClerk"/>
Maybe? I couldn't say. But I can tell you that I think he's a mendacious bigoted fuckwit who's not worth anything other than amusement. His 'points' are basically him declaring that his poorly conceived opinions should be treated as fact.
If MAYBE people would simply adhere to the topic at hand and actually criticize the original sources I posted the arguments would be more concise and fair. But NOOOOOOOOO.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
More like: Forum Fanatical Fruitcake.

This is a perfect example of your mendacity.

You call people all manner of names (usually some kind of homoerotic fantasy) then whine about people attacking the person rather than the argument.

So when you called me a cocksucker - was that an original insult, or not?

Or was this 'original'?

You are a fucking idiot you know that. Shut the fuck up. Why do you think we have separate branches you pathetic fuck?

Or are we now supposed to be all serious about the quality of discussion as per your follow up....

Attack the argument not the person.

Patty P might not have read enough of your offerings to see the pattern yet, or may never detect that pattern - I can't answer for anyone else, but I do know that I spotted your motive in your 2nd post, and from then you became clown to me, and you've done nothing that suggests I was unfair in that surmisal. I guess it's theoretically plausible my mind could be changed, but that would require you actually to be motivated by good faith discussion rather than vacuous proselytizing and empty-headed tribalist bollocks.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
If MAYBE people would simply adhere to the topic at hand and actually criticize the original sources I posted the arguments would be more concise and fair. But NOOOOOOOOO.

NOOOOOOO indeed.

Although it would no doubt be useful for you to control the conversation.

Unfortunately for you, that just ain't going to happen chump.
 
arg-fallbackName="Patty P"/>
Maybe? I couldn't say. But I can tell you that I think he's a mendacious bigoted fuckwit who's not worth anything other than amusement. His 'points' are basically him declaring that his poorly conceived opinions should be treated as fact.
Well mendacious bigoted fuckwit isn't much of an argument now is it?
 
arg-fallbackName="BoganUSAFFLClerk"/>
You call people all manner of names (usually some kind of homoerotic fantasy) then whine about people attacking the person rather than the argument.
You haven't even addressed the argument of the thread. The irony is delicious.
So when you called me a cocksucker - was that an original insult, or not?
I don't even remember. But that is how insults work. The simple fact that I have to explain that insults are nonsensical and that I am using that to obviously drive up your blood pressure proves how much of a Muppet you are.
Patty P might not have read enough of your offerings to see the pattern yet, or may never detect that pattern - I can't answer for anyone else, but I do know that I spotted your motive in your 2nd post, and from then you became clown to me, and you've done nothing that suggests I was unfair in that surmisal. I guess it's theoretically plausible my mind could be changed, but that would require you actually to be motivated by good faith discussion rather than vacuous proselytizing and empty-headed tribalist bollocks.
I don't think anyone is actually here for fair argument. I can only remember 1 person directly engaging with the topic of the thread. I wasn't here that started the insult. I am here to argue about firearms and nothing else. If you want to go off topic then why don't you create a thread purely for what you want?
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
You haven't even addressed the argument of the thread. The irony is delicious.

Your response is empty and transparently manipulative as usual.

I was clearly talking about how you pointed ample abusive insults at others then whined that people should attack the argument, not the person.
 
Back
Top