• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Will Health Care Reform Regulate Guns?


Founder's Club Member
Sep 9, 2007
The Real World.
imported post

marshaul wrote:
PrayingForWar wrote:
I've seen and engaged you in too many pissing contests, and I' not really interested in another. Yet I'm compelled to once again school you on semantics as you're attempting to not just blur the lines between right and left, but right and wrong.

Immigration control only makes sense, we have to know who's coming in, and have standards regarding what they can contribute, or at least not become a burden. It's not a right/left issue, or at least it shouldn't be.
Well, I wasn't trying to dispute anything with anyone, I was merely springboarding off your post; but since you disagree, I'll simply point out the same thing does apply to immigration control.

You may think it's a service government is capable of providing, but it's not. The proof is in the pudding. It's a great idea and all (actually, not really), but it won't, can't ever work.

How do you think guns get into the island-nation Britain? If the U.K. can't keep guns out, what makes you think our government is capable of keeping Mexicans out (especially in the face of special interest which likes low-cost jobs)?

It's not about Constitutionality (but if it were the "invasion" rhetoric falls incredibly short).

Provide to me, if you will, a single piece of evidence that suggests our government ever has been, or ever will be, capable of providing effective "immigration control" of any sort.

Like I said, most Americans are positive that, as long as it's the services they want provided by the politicians they elect, all of a sudden it's a valid use for stolen money.

As for the War on Drugs, that's what would happen in a free society: people would have "unrestricted" access to all the self-poisons they want. As if the current system has even the slightest deterrent factor on anyone, ever. :quirky

In the face of such utter inefficacy, I don't see how allowing freedom could possibly make things worse. And, *allowing* freedom is always, monetarily speaking, free.

It's the same thing. The *idea* of preventing people from using "poison" sounds great, but how, at what cost, and with whose money?

Edit: Also, if the problem is just the "unrestricted access" to these poisons, that's yet another reason to legalize. "Unrestricted access" is enabled by prohibition, not somehow prevented by it. Criminal penalties for possession are, like all "justice", reactive rather than proactive.

Consider: a 10 year old cannot walk into Safeway and buy whiskey (whereas I can). However, a 10 year old can walk up to any crack dealer and buy crack. That the -- reactive -- penalties may be greater for crack does not affect this reality.

What was that about "unrestricted access"?

You make a very good points, and I really don't disagree with a lot of them. As far as immigration goes, I don't want keep mexicans out per say. My concern is felons, idiots, oxygen thieves and commies. People who don't want to assimilate, learn english, or appreciate the opportunity the US provides have no business within our borders. It's largely political that the CBP fails in it's job. They're understaffed for one. Secondly, every LEO who finds an "undocumented alien" should detain them, and the municipality should be able to ship them to the border for out processing. It's not a "service people demand" either, it's a constitutional obligation that's been politicized.

I really wouldn't care if they increased legal immigration, or the temporary worker visa.

It links to drugs as well. I have little doubt that we could keep drugs/illegals out, and that the UK could keep guns out. If gov't did that effectively, and actually solved these problems, they'd reduce their need for police within the border, and hence reduce their power. I don't have evidence to support it of course, but it seems like common sence.

Further, and this actually elevates your arguement, if there wasn't a market for guns in the UK, no one would smuggle them in. Since you can buy a semi auto AK in the states for $500, there's no market for full autos that come with a potential 10 year federal pounded in the a$$ sentence. Besides, drugs are easier to detect by dogs than guns.

The only reason I can tolerate drug enforcement at all, is because if we simply legalized stuff like meth, coke, or smack, what do we do with the people who use it to the point where they no longer function at all, let alone turn to crime to feed their addiction? Do we just kill them when they commit a crime? Who gets that moral authority? I see what you're saying about "unrestricted access". I can't imagine even a crack dealer selling dope to a 10 y/o, but thenagain I can't understand the mentality anyway.

So somewhere along the way we need a solution, I realize we won't get it from gov't, but since we're supposed to control the force of government we should be able to use it to enforce the proper solution. Our problem is that we allow gov't to concieve solutions that sound good, but take away the control of gov't from the people.


Campaign Veteran
Aug 13, 2007
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

This is off-tooic so I'll be brief, and avoid the little details.

I believe that assimilation is important. I also believe, from my experience with illegal workers (Northern California makes up for its distance from the border with its agriculture and "sanctuary cities"), that assimilation is all about incentives.

Sure, many people show up with plans to go home at some later, indefinite date. So did I, for example, when I moved to the U.K. briefly after high school. Had I been properly incentivized to stay (much less assimilate), I very well might have. Instead, oppressive government drove me away, a government I could never "assimilate" under, nor would I ever want to.

Admittedly, the U.K. may be a dumb example, and indeed since I never planned to stay, I use it only for analogy.

But, by analogy, consider the incentives faced by the illegal immigrants here in the U.S.: already criminals, unable to defend themselves against resident gangs who prey on them, unable to participate in the economy or society above-board due to "illegal" status, forced to take jobs with no contractual or tortious liability on the part of their employers (illegals can't go to court), etc.

They have little incentive to "assimilate", and every incentive to leave -- once they've earned enough money -- or, even worse, join/create gangs of their own for protection and greater earnings (selling drugs of course).

Now, if the standard of "illegal immigrant" actually meant something (other than just "migrant worker without a permit"), like for example actual criminals who are here without citizenship, I might begin to see reason.

For example, Mexico's immigration policies are very lax: as long as you can earn your way (and can prove it), you aren't otherwise a criminal, and you actually go through the immigration process, you're pretty much guaranteed to be allowed in, and if you naturalize, you're able to get citizenship.

So, there's really no incentive to go around the system, unless you're exactly the kind of person they don't want immigrating (criminal, parasite etc.). Thus, "illegal immigrant" status actually implies some truly undesirable characteristic, i.e. actually means something, and they can oust "illegals" accordingly, in reasonable quantities for good reason.

As for positive incentives, there's every reason to immigrate legally -- they'll let you, as long as you work (which is what itinerant laborers do) -- and later to assimilate: you're already half way to citizenship, which offers benefits but requires, and only requires, naturalization.

In contrast, what positive incentives does a Mexican laborer here in the U.S. have to operate within the system when he simply won't be allowed into it, because people are afraid of "cultural dilution"?

He's going to come here and labor anyway: the money is always enough incentive.

And no government would ever actually stop such a profitable flow of labor, except maybe a communist one. No, instead of keeping them out, government keeps them essentially rights-less, a self-fullfilled prophecy of an underclass.

And that's not even a free market: it's one group of people wielding the power of government to literally exploit another group of people, in a way that few citizens are ever exploited. It's the kind of thing that gives leftists fuel in their flamewars against what they believe to be "capitalism", but which is anything but a truly free market.

In a truly libertarian society, the freedom wouldn't represent a problem, and the supplies and demands of a market would be self-limiting. If cultures really needed government to protect them, the world would already be a single, intermingled culture, seeing as every government in history has been inept. ;)

So much for keeping my off-topic points to a minimum. Oh well, I hope that wasn't completely wasted typing. :?

Edit: Oh yeah, I was going to say, with regard to drugs: I agree, it isn't ideal to just let addicts all go until they commit a crime, and then you've got a victim and a criminal on your hands.

Perhaps vendors of addictive drugs -- including currently-legal ones -- could be taxed (in the absence of a general sales tax, ideally ;) ) to create rehab programs, which addicts could go to voluntarily, or could be sent to upon commission of their first minor offense.

It may not be perfect, but it makes more sense than stealing money and using it to send addicts to prison, who will later be released to become addicts once again. It would be basically making addicts pay for their own mandatory rehab insurance. ;) Hell, maybe we could even collect victims compensation (the way some states do for uninsured drivers), if the problem remains a serious one following serious reform.

So much for keeping my off-topic points to a minimum. Oh well, I hope that wasn't completely wasted typing. :?