• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun used by illigal immigrant in killing belonged to federal agent

If America would get rid of law enforcement officers like building a wall or something this murder never would have happened.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Again with the ignorance. <sigh>

You chose to use the term "returning immigrant" over a variety of other, more accurate terms like "illegal immigrant" purposefully. Your purpose in choosing "returning immigrant" is transparent and obvious.

When deception becomes necessary to advance the cause, it's time to start questioning the cause...
Click to expand...
That's why the term "illegal alien" is better; if removes the faux equivalence between those who go through the difficult legal channels and those who just take what they want. It's the difference between a guest and an intruder.
 
CMPancake said:
It wasn't until recently had Obama made drastic changes to how he handled immigration. It's a statistic fact that under Obama has deported immigrants by millions. Feel however you like about how the President handled reform but a change in the policy is needed. because "kickin' 'dem illegals out" hasn't been working.
Click to expand...

This administration has done everything it can to frustrate the immigration laws to enable more illegals to enter and stay in this country and we just can't afford it. No other country in the world advocates this much relaxation in their laws or enforcement. This administration will push it past the limit to obfuscate the immigration laws and enforcement. "Univision Town Hall, March 28, 2011: ‘The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws."

Obama’s royal flip-flop on using executive action on illegal immigration - The Washington Post

That is why Jeh Johnson is getting slapped by a federal judge around for over stepping his constitutional authority at the behest of the administration.

Jeh Johnson, Homeland Security chief, others ordered to court by judge - Washington Times

So I just don't buy the argument that Obama is hot on any type of action when it comes to solving the immigration problem.
 
NonoBadDog said:
This administration has done everything it can to frustrate the immigration laws to enable more illegals to enter and stay in this country and we just can't afford it. No other country in the world advocates this much relaxation in their laws or enforcement. This administration will push it past the limit to obfuscate the immigration laws and enforcement. "Univision Town Hall, March 28, 2011: ‘The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws."

Obama’s royal flip-flop on using executive action on illegal immigration - The Washington Post

That is why Jeh Johnson is getting slapped by a federal judge around for over stepping his constitutional authority at the behest of the administration.

Jeh Johnson, Homeland Security chief, others ordered to court by judge - Washington Times

So I just don't buy the argument that Obama is hot on any type of action when it comes to solving the immigration problem.
Click to expand...


I'm not arguing that Obama unilaterally used Executive action to reform immigration laws. What I am arguing is that prior to this, under Obama illegal immigrants were being deported at a far faster rate than under Bush or Clinton. Obviously the old laws were not working, why enforce legislation and laws that don't solve the problem?
 
CMPancake said:
I'm not arguing that Obama unilaterally used Executive action to reform immigration laws. What I am arguing is that prior to this, under Obama illegal immigrants were being deported at a far faster rate than under Bush or Clinton. Obviously the old laws were not working, why enforce legislation and laws that don't solve the problem?
Click to expand...

He NEVER enforced the old laws so he, through executive action, made the enforcement weaker. That just doesn't make any sense.
 
Capster78 said:
Not a ban, just a registration and accountability process.
Click to expand...

registration is the prerequisite for a ban. and you are on record for demanding a complete ban so I don't buy your CURRENT claim. btw, criminals cannot be forced or punished for failing to register weapons. why do you gun banners support laws that ONLY apply to people who have not misused guns?
 
NonoBadDog said:
He NEVER enforced the old laws so he, through executive action, made the enforcement weaker. That just doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

What do you qualify as enforcing the law, exactly? Because as I have pointed out earlier, Obama was deporting illegal immigrants at a far faster pace than George W Bush. If that isn't enforcing the law, then I'm quite frankly lost.
 
CMPancake said:
What do you qualify as enforcing the law, exactly? Because as I have pointed out earlier, Obama was deporting illegal immigrants at a far faster pace than George W Bush. If that isn't enforcing the law, then I'm quite frankly lost.
Click to expand...

You are assuming that I think that Bush did a good job. Frankly Bush was as screwed up as Obama so using him as a standard is kind of a fail.
 
NonoBadDog said:
You are assuming that I think that Bush did a good job. Frankly Bush was as screwed up as Obama so using him as a standard is kind of a fail.
Click to expand...

I wasn't assuming anything, I am only stating facts. Fact is, Bush was tough on immigration. Another fact, is that prior to his executive actions, Obama was deporting aliens at a far faster rate than Bush. So this whole "Obama is soft on immigration" talking point is bupkis.
 
TurtleDude said:
registration is the prerequisite for a ban. and you are on record for demanding a complete ban so I don't buy your CURRENT claim. btw, criminals cannot be forced or punished for failing to register weapons. why do you gun banners support laws that ONLY apply to people who have not misused guns?
Click to expand...

Why is registration a prerequisite for a ban. If you use this logic, you can pretty much reason your way to making everything free to do no matter what it is. I mean, if you force people to register cars, it could lead to involuntary confiscation. If you force people to carry around money with serial numbers on it, it could result in tracking and confiscation of that money at any time. I mean, really, if you have no better argument then that, you just have to be chalked up as one of those people that we call "gun nuts" in anyone's book. You don't want to solve the problem, and you are more then happy or, simply just don't care what the consqeuences of doing nothing are.

And I have also explained my reasoning several times to you and you keep asking the same question. Reasoning that seems logical and is actually completely factual. First, they need to ban sales at gun shows unless they are forced to do background checks. Second, they need to ban second hand sales without a background check, and third, every gun needs to be registered and traceable to its current owner. You can decide weather you want a DMV like process where you have to visit them and use them as the intermediary in order to make a legal sale to a 2nd party, or weather you want there to be laws drawn up where that responsibility is left on the seller and buyer themselves. Either way, the only way you will be able to put a dent into firearm paliferation into illegal hands, or hands they should not be in at all, is to come up with a registration and accountability process. No other solution will solve the problem and you will be left with the label of gun nut...
 
TurtleDude said:
registration is the prerequisite for a ban.
Click to expand...

Yeah... I remember when the government made it compulsory to register cars... now nobody drives. Or when I had to go and register my daughter's birth with the US gov. Now nobody has babies... or... well I think you're starting to see where I'm going with this. ;)
 
Hatuey said:
Yeah... I remember when the government made it compulsory to register cars... now nobody drives. Or when I had to go and register my daughter's birth with the US gov. Now nobody has babies... or... well I think you're starting to see where I'm going with this. ;)
Click to expand...

The other laughable thing here is, people don't realize how often crimes are solved because a police officer was able to run a plate number and get all the suspects information.
 
Capster78 said:
The other laughable thing here is, people don't realize how often crimes are solved because a police officer was able to run a plate number and get all the suspects information.
Click to expand...

I'm just using one of TD's most often used arguments to defend gun ownership. Hopefully, he'll see that both his previous arguments and mine are similar... and you know, drop the matter.
 
CMPancake said:
I'm not arguing that Obama unilaterally used Executive action to reform immigration laws. What I am arguing is that prior to this, under Obama illegal immigrants were being deported at a far faster rate than under Bush or Clinton. Obviously the old laws were not working, why enforce legislation and laws that don't solve the problem?
Click to expand...

This is not because he was more strict, but because of increasing illegal immigration, the number of apprehensions skyrocketed.

From roughly 10,000 per month in 2007 to almost 40,000 per month in 2014. Up from 20,000 per month in 2013.

This is not because the current President is any more effective, but because the problem itself has ballooned out of control.
 
Capster78 said:
Why is registration a prerequisite for a ban. If you use this logic, you can pretty much reason your way to making everything free to do no matter what it is. I mean, if you force people to register cars, it could lead to involuntary confiscation. If you force people to carry around money with serial numbers on it, it could result in tracking and confiscation of that money at any time. I mean, really, if you have no better argument then that, you just have to be chalked up as one of those people that we call "gun nuts" in anyone's book. You don't want to solve the problem, and you are more then happy or, simply just don't care what the consqeuences of doing nothing are.

And I have also explained my reasoning several times to you and you keep asking the same question. Reasoning that seems logical and is actually completely factual. First, they need to ban sales at gun shows unless they are forced to do background checks. Second, they need to ban second hand sales without a background check, and third, every gun needs to be registered and traceable to its current owner. You can decide weather you want a DMV like process where you have to visit them and use them as the intermediary in order to make a legal sale to a 2nd party, or weather you want there to be laws drawn up where that responsibility is left on the seller and buyer themselves. Either way, the only way you will be able to put a dent into firearm paliferation into illegal hands, or hands they should not be in at all, is to come up with a registration and accountability process. No other solution will solve the problem and you will be left with the label of gun nut...
Click to expand...

car registration is a revenue device applied to items not constitutionally protected. every time there has been gun bans, registration has been used to accomplish it

you support registration-you support gun bans and you claim that registration is not a tool to accomplish that

btw where have you ever seen a politician arguing for car bans?
 
Hatuey said:
I'm just using one of TD's most often used arguments to defend gun ownership. Hopefully, he'll see that both his previous arguments and mine are similar... and you know, drop the matter.
Click to expand...

why is it that every group that supports a gun ban supports registration.

your argument is moronic and there is no evidence that registration of guns in Hawaii allowed the solving of crime

how are serial numbers on a gun going to be evident to observers?

its like saying the VIN number on a vehicle was used to solve lots of crime

STUPID ANALOGY YOU HAVE MADE
 
Apparently, it was an FBI agents personal gun that was stolen out of his home or car or something like that. So unless the illegal immigrant was the one who stole it, which I highly doubt, then this new evidence helps back up his claim that he found the gun.
 
TurtleDude said:
why is it that every group that supports a gun ban supports registration.
Click to expand...

Source?

your argument is moronic and there is no evidence that registration of guns in Hawaii allowed the solving of crime.
Click to expand...

Nope, my argument simply addressed the fallacious slippery slope nature of your statement. There are quite a few things which need to be registered to day, none have been banned. :shrug:

how are serial numbers on a gun going to be evident to observers? its like saying the VIN number on a vehicle was used to solve lots of crime. STUPID ANALOGY YOU HAVE MADE
Click to expand...

So I take it that you'll no longer make analogies between guns and cars?
 
JoeTrumps said:
this is turning into a True Detective episode. and it will gain momentum and become a BIG part of the upcoming election. It could really give the GOP candidates traction, no doubt.
Click to expand...

Probably, since the GOP has little if much to capitalize on.
 
Hatuey said:
Source?



Nope, my argument simply addressed the fallacious slippery slope nature of your statement. There are quite a few things which need to be registered to day, none have been banned. :shrug:



So I take it that you'll no longer make analogies between guns and cars?
Click to expand...

I don't, its liberals who stupidly claim guns should have the same licensing requirements-usually because gun banners don't understand the reality: you don't need a license to buy a car, own a car or use a car on private property
 
TurtleDude said:
I don't, its liberals who stupidly claim guns should have the same licensing requirements-usually because gun banners don't understand the reality: you don't need a license to buy a car, own a car or use a car on private property
Click to expand...

So what? Why do you think that ends the argument?

Both are potentially dangerous, so we have regulations in place to reduce risk to others.

Cars haven't been confiscated.
 
Deuce said:
So what? Why do you think that ends the argument?
Click to expand...

there is no argument because the gun banners have no facts on their side
 
TurtleDude said:
there is no argument because the gun banners have no facts on their side
Click to expand...

:roll:

There it is again. Registration = ban. Background check = ban. ****, I bet you'd be up in arms about a regulation that says "gun manufacturers must ensure their guns don't spontaneously explode in the hands of the user."
 
Deuce said:
:roll:

There it is again. Registration = ban. Background check = ban. ****, I bet you'd be up in arms about a regulation that says "gun manufacturers must ensure their guns don't spontaneously explode in the hands of the user."
Click to expand...

see, that is the moronic type of argument we see from gun restrictionists.

registration serves no useful purpose

every group that wants to ban guns pushes for registration

registration helps facilitate confiscation

it does nothing good for gun owners

and your claim about defective products shows you are completely clueless about this issue
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom