The Border Crisis: Is Allowing Illegals To Flood In A Good Thing?

[Thebrownblob]

So which is it, brown or black? Are they all Mexicans coming over? Does pointing out the obvious, that they aren't all brown or even Mexican, make me an apologist for Mexico? Can we discuss what's going on in a rational manner or do we have to salivate as we declare them all animals who should be killed? And if we don't then we're suspected sympathizers?

I wonder if my pointing out that people should be held accountable, when their teenage/young adult children commit mass murder with guns they failed to properly secure, made you angry? Seemed to have touched a nerve.

What about a kid who grabs his parents car and commits murder? or a kid who grabs his parents knife? I get your point, but they already violated the law by killing.

 

[UnionStrong]

What about a kid who grabs his parents car and commits murder? or a kid who grabs his parents knife? I get your point, but they already violated the law by killing.

They violated the law by crossing the border

 

[vantexan]

What about a kid who grabs his parents car and commits murder? or a kid who grabs his parents knife? I get your point, but they already violated the law by killing.

Can you name instances where someone took a knife to a school or mall and killed numerous people? Y'all are so intent on protecting your right to own guns that you won't even allow laws designed to force people to responsibly secure their guns or to have guns confiscated from people who are making threats to kill people online.

 

[Thebrownblob]

Can you name instances where someone took a knife to a school or mall and killed numerous people? Y'all are so intent on protecting your right to own guns that you won't even allow laws designed to force people to responsibly secure their guns or to have guns confiscated from people who are making threats to kill people online.

I can’t because I don’t care, it’s not my problem. the point is where would it stop? We have laws against murder already that’s enough. Plenty of kids have taken their parents, cars and committed murder either voluntary or involuntary you’re just opening the door to all kinds of issues. I’m not into “forcing” people to do anything that violates their constitutional rights and due process.

 

[vantexan]

I can’t because I don’t care, it’s not my problem. the point is where would it stop? We have laws against murder already that’s enough. Plenty of kids have taken their parents, cars and committed murder either voluntary or involuntary you’re just opening the door to all kinds of issues. I’m not into “forcing” people to do anything that violates their constitutional rights and due process.

Even if that guy eventually kills 20 people at Wal-Mart we must not infringe on his right to make threats online to do same or touch his guns? I'm saying anyone going off like that should be taken into custody for evaluation and any weapons found at his residence should be removed until such time he's determined to not be a threat. And if it turns out he has illegally obtained weapons or has 20 guns and 3000 rounds of ammo with all kinds of written diatribes against society or minorities or whatever then all of that should be taken into account in his evaluation. His constitutional rights to spew hatred doesn't supersede the constitutional rights of others around him for safety. But y'all don't care if it means in the even most remote way that your right to own guns is threatened. People getting slaughtered is just the price we pay to have a free society or some such.

 

[Thebrownblob]

Even if that guy eventually kills 20 people at Wal-Mart we must not infringe on his right to make threats online to do same or touch his guns? I'm saying anyone going off like that should be taken into custody for evaluation and any weapons found at his residence should be removed until such time he's determined to not be a threat. And if it turns out he has illegally obtained weapons or has 20 guns and 3000 rounds of ammo with all kinds of written diatribes against society or minorities or whatever then all of that should be taken into account in his evaluation. His constitutional rights to spew hatred doesn't supersede the constitutional rights of others around him for safety. But y'all don't care if it means in the even most remote way that your right to own guns is threatened. People getting slaughtered is just the price we pay to have a free society or some such.

Lol eventually? what are you blathering about pre-crime for? You sound a little bit like a jackbooted thug to me. Spew hatred? You mean like the FBI says MAGA is hatred. You’re really quite ignorant on the subject but whatever, you’ll get what you deserve eventually I suppose.. a kind and benevolent government who decides what hatred is, and who should and should not have their rights.

 

[vantexan]

Lol eventually? what are you blathering about pre-crime for? You sound a little bit like a jackbooted thug to me. Spew hatred? You mean like the FBI says MAGA is hatred. You’re really quite ignorant on the subject but whatever you’ll get what you deserve eventually I suppose.. a kind of benevolent government who decides what hatred is, and who should and should not have their rights.

The FBI has problems that need to be addressed for sure. But you illustrate my point. You'd let a guy go on about killing people online and just let it happen, saying it's his right to threaten others, rather than be proactive and head off a potential mass killing if it in the slightest way might affect your gun ownership. And we'll continue to have mass killings in spite of numerous clues that the shooter had mental issues and needed treatment and even restraint for his own safety and the safety of others.

 

[Thebrownblob]

The FBI has problems that need to be addressed for sure. But you illustrate my point. You'd let a guy go on about killing people online and just let it happen, saying it's his right to threaten others, rather than be proactive and head off a potential mass killing if it in the slightest way might affect your gun ownership. And we'll continue to have mass killings in spite of numerous clues that the shooter had mental issues and needed treatment and even restraint for his own safety and the safety of others.

And you illustrated my point that we cannot trust anyone to take our God-given rights away without due process. Unlike yourself, I actually do believe in the constitution. Freedom isn’t free and it also isn’t safe.

 

[vantexan]

And you illustrated my point that we cannot trust anyone to take our God-given rights away without due process. Unlike yourself, I actually do believe in the constitution. Freedom isn’t free and it also isn’t safe.

God didn't give us the right to own guns or threaten others with them. Responsible gun ownership is very constitutional.

 

[BrownFlush]

So murderers, rapists, gang members, and assorted criminals are flooding in and Biden does nothing to stop it. Meanwhile the FBI is going all out, including illegally searching bank records, to find anyone who may have walked through the Capitol January 6?

Biden's America.

 

[Thebrownblob]

God didn't give us the right to own guns or threaten others with them. Responsible gun ownership is very constitutional.

Yeah, because that’s what I said . I think you forgot about the due process part but that’s typical of you. Very leftist of you to twist words for your desired outcome but it’s pretty clear you’re not who you say you are. You can tell by the way you even say the FBI has problems that need to be “addressed.” Lol what kind of idiot at this point doesn’t realize the FBI needs to be disbanded? Keep licking the boots. Corrupted to the core, and have been for decades. American Stasi.

 

[Thebrownblob]

The FBI has problems that need to be addressed for sure. But you illustrate my point. You'd let a guy go on about killing people online and just let it happen, saying it's his right to threaten others, rather than be proactive and head off a potential mass killing if it in the slightest way might affect your gun ownership. And we'll continue to have mass killings in spite of numerous clues that the shooter had mental issues and needed treatment and even restraint for his own safety and the safety of others.

Thank God, the FBI got all those dangerous January 6 people off the street and put in jail with no due process even now for many of them. SMH The safety of others was at risk. Sorry you can’t have it both ways. If you give them that power you have to accept what you get with it. A Government that does not follow the constitution or the laws.

 

[vantexan]

Yeah, because that’s what I said . I think you forgot about the due process part but that’s typical of you. Very leftist of you to twist words for your desired outcome but it’s pretty clear you’re not who you say you are. You can tell by the way you even say the FBI has problems that need to be “addressed.” Lol what kind of idiot at this point doesn’t realize the FBI needs to be disbanded? Keep licking the boots. Corrupted to the core, and have been for decades. American Stasi.

We need an FBI or something similar. We also need better oversight over the FBI.

You said God given rights. I merely pointed out that God didn't give you the right to own a gun or threaten others with them. The crux of the matter is whether you consider gun ownership so sacred that absolutely nothing can be done that might possibly infringe on gun ownership even if it means not doing anything to head off a possible mass shooting. No, we don't know if someone spouting threats online will lead to anything more but anytime someone does, or makes threats in public, that person should be taken into custody and evaluated. And prohibited from having access to guns during that evaluation and after if deemed a threat to the public. That won't stop all mass shootings, but it's a good start. Why anyone would resist this is beyond me.

 

[Thebrownblob]

We need an FBI or something similar. We also need better oversight over the FBI.

You said God given rights. I merely pointed out that God didn't give you the right to own a gun or threaten others with them. The crux of the matter is whether you consider gun ownership so sacred that absolutely nothing can be done that might possibly infringe on gun ownership even if it means not doing anything to head off a possible mass shooting. No, we don't know if someone spouting threats online will lead to anything more but anytime someone does, or makes threats in public, that person should be taken into custody and evaluated. And prohibited from having access to guns during that evaluation and after if deemed a threat to the public. That won't stop all mass shootings, but it's a good start. Why anyone would resist this is beyond me.

Sorry, I’m not For taking the gun first before they have their due process. Kind of defeats the whole idea of the process they are due. Beyond me how anyone would resist that. You’re innocent until proven guilty not the other way around. Quite different from you saying I just want people to do whatever they want.

 

[vantexan]

Thank God, the FBI got all those dangerous January 6 people off the street and put in jail with no due process even now for many of them. SMH The safety of others was at risk. Sorry you can’t have it both ways. If you give them that power you have to accept what you get with it. A Government that does not follow the constitution or the laws.

You're assuming I'm strictly talking about the FBI. I'm talking about law enforcement in general. Nor am I happy with a FBI that has been politicized to go after the opponents of those in power. But that's a separate discussion. I've been talking about removing weapons from those who have made open threats against others until such time they can have a mental health evaluation. I'm not talking about angry comments about government actions that are unfair or illegal. I'm talking about individuals who make clear threats to harm their classmates, or members of a church, or a racial or ethnic group, or whatever group has set them off. To stand idly by until they kill a bunch of people and say that's the price we have to pay for freedom is pathetic. I hope that's not what you're saying.

 

[Thebrownblob]

You're assuming I'm strictly talking about the FBI. I'm talking about law enforcement in general. Nor am I happy with a FBI that has been politicized to go after the opponents of those in power. But that's a separate discussion. I've been talking about removing weapons from those who have made open threats against others until such time they can have a mental health evaluation. I'm not talking about angry comments about government actions that are unfair or illegal. I'm talking about individuals who make clear threats to harm their classmates, or members of a church, or a racial or ethnic group, or whatever group has set them off. To stand idly by until they kill a bunch of people and say that's the price we have to pay for freedom is pathetic. I hope that's not what you're saying.

Great I think you know what I’m talking about. everything you’re saying you don’t want to happen if you give that kind of power is exactly what the government will do. I think we’ve seen that. The last couple years, I’m sorry you haven’t figured this out yet.

 

[vantexan]

Sorry, I’m not For taking the gun first before they have their due process. Kind of defeats the whole idea of the process they are due. Beyond me how anyone would resist that. You’re innocent until proven guilty not the other way around. Quite different from you saying I just want people to do whatever they want.

So a cop sees a guy running from a business late at night. He gives chase, arrests the guy, finds a pistol on him.
Does the cop:
A. Remove the pistol and hold it at the station until the suspect is either convicted or cleared in a court of law?
B. Congratulate the suspect on taking advantage of his Constitutional right to own a gun and allow the gun to remain with the suspect?

 

[Thebrownblob]

You're assuming I'm strictly talking about the FBI. I'm talking about law enforcement in general. Nor am I happy with a FBI that has been politicized to go after the opponents of those in power. But that's a separate discussion. I've been talking about removing weapons from those who have made open threats against others until such time they can have a mental health evaluation. I'm not talking about angry comments about government actions that are unfair or illegal. I'm talking about individuals who make clear threats to harm their classmates, or members of a church, or a racial or ethnic group, or whatever group has set them off. To stand idly by until they kill a bunch of people and say that's the price we have to pay for freedom is pathetic. I hope that's not what you're saying.

I also find it interesting you’ve defended illegals rights much more than your own country men’s in this thread.

 

[Thebrownblob]

So a cop sees a guy running from a business late at night. He gives chase, arrests the guy, finds a pistol on him.
Does the cop:
A. Remove the pistol and hold it at the station until the suspect is either convicted or cleared in a court of law?
B. Congratulate the suspect on taking advantage of his Constitutional right to own a gun and allow the gun to remain with the suspect?

So a police officer investigating a phone call sees someone running it that is armed, is the same as someone not locking their pistol up at night? You have an interesting take on overreach.

 

[vantexan]

I also find it interesting you’ve defended illegals rights much more than your own country men’s in this thread.

How have I done that?