Immigration

[Guisslapp]

Yeah, I know where you are trying to go, but you are making the wrong assumption that all conservatives believe the 2nd amendment is ALL about a well regulated militia. I addressed that in my first post toward your new liberal talking point.

And what else is it about? Hunting?

[Guisslapp]

I, for one, believe the military would side with we conservatives....if push came to shove. Hopefully, it'll never come to that, of course.

But beside that...yes! an armed populace is a deterrent to a tyrannical guvmint. You continue to make the mistaken assumptions that it would remain our high-tech, super duper military vs. armed citizens with semi-automatic rifles, etc.. Wrong! Not only would most of the military join us, as I mentioned, but we armed citizens would capture, steal, acquire, etc...the latest in equipment in a short time. This has been shown again and again around the world.

Heck!! several years ago a brave group of villagers stood up to mooslim terrorist thugs looking to kidnap young women and girls, and slaughter everyone else. They did so initially with muzzle loader muskets. Yes, the .58 caliber Enfield Rifle was their only firearm, that and machetes and bows & arrows. They ambushed the mooslim thugs and captured some AK-47s. When the terrorists returned with more thugs, they faced a combination of older rifles, and the AK-47s. It was another victory for the villagers, and resulted in more captured AK-47s. Eventually, after yet another attack, the villagers followed the mooslim terrorists back to their base. They launched their own surprise attack and wiped out the terrorists! Complete and total victory.

Goosey would have counseled those villagers to just submit to the tyranny. Never mind they would have all been either murdered or sold into sexual slavery. Nah! Goosey would have told them "you're more likely to shoot yourself with your old rifle, and you have no chance against the earnest, righteous and heavily armed mooslim fellows anyway." Just submit.

Thankfully those villagers had a different view of the situation. As do we....

If the military is on your side, you don’t need a second amendment.

If they aren’t, the second amendment isn’t enough.

That is the point.

[PawDawg]

If the military is on your side, you don’t need a second amendment.

If they aren’t, the second amendment isn’t enough.

That is the point.

You and the socialist liberals are arguing the 2nd amendment is ONLY about a well regulated militia. It's also about individual rights.

[atobulldog]

An appeal to elitism and a refusal to answer the question I asked.

Do you think the framers would have supported a military of the statute that the US has built?

And if you trust such a strong military not to violate your constitutional rights, why is a second amendment necessary?

As I have said and you don’t want to think about - either a strong military or a strong 2nd amendment makes sense. Supporting both is the contradiction in logic.

An accusation of not answering a posed question is rich from you as if I've not actually asked you direct questions that you flat out ignore. I've answered your question, just not in capitulation to your confused belief. Just because you can't reconcile your straw man arguments doesn't make me a hypocrite

[dawg80]

If the military is on your side, you don’t need a second amendment.

If they aren’t, the second amendment isn’t enough.

That is the point.

First, I don't need any reason to defend or justify the 2nd Amendment. It is the law. That is enough for me.

But, if you need additional reasons, I think you have been given many in all these posts from me, and others.

Next, you are absolutely dead wrong on the issue of an armed populace. Guess what! .308 rifles kill soldiers and at great distances. Such rifles can take down helicopters too. The Kurds have just proven what even "normal" weapons can do! They started off facing down two professional battalions of ISIS, 10,000 troops armed with tanks, helicopters, artillery...and did so with very little in the way of real military equipment. The Kurds converted bulldozers into tanks and armed vehicles! Did you even watch any of it on the news? Some of it is posted on YouTube. It looked like something from Mad Max movies!

Admiral Yamamoto understood the truth. He warned his fellow Japanese military leaders that an invasion of the US would be disastrous. This even after the complete destruction of the US military. Yamamoto said "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

[Guisslapp]

You and the socialist liberals are arguing the 2nd amendment is ONLY about a well regulated militia. It's also about individual rights.

And why is that particular individual right singled out in the 2nd amendment? Why is it important?

Is it more important than the right to form a marriage, for which there is no explicit individual right specified in the Constitution?

[Guisslapp]

First, I don't need any reason to defend or justify the 2nd Amendment. It is the law. That is enough for me.

But, if you need additional reasons, I think you have been given many in all these posts from me, and others.

Next, you are absolutely dead wrong on the issue of an armed populace. Guess what! .308 rifles kill soldiers and at great distances. Such rifles can take down helicopters too. The Kurds have just proven what even "normal" weapons can do! They started off facing down two professional battalions of ISIS, 10,000 troops armed with tanks, helicopters, artillery...and did so with very little in the way of real military equipment. The Kurds converted bulldozers into tanks and armed vehicles! Did you even watch any of it on the news? Some of it is posted on YouTube. It looked like something from Mad Max movies!

Admiral Yamamoto understood the truth. He warned his fellow Japanese military leaders that an invasion of the US would be disastrous. This even after the complete destruction of the US military. Yamamoto said "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

You certainly have already lost tactical advantage to the US military with their superior training, intel, tactics, and weaponry. Their drones could take you out while you sleep tight in your bed.

They could also just shut off your power and water and let the Louisiana heat do the work for them.

But, like I said, if you trust them not to do it, why do you need a second amendment anymore?

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Merkel’s government on the brink as opponents seek to boot migrants

[70TECHGRAD]

Merkel’s government on the brink as opponents seek to boot migrants

The German people are waking up!!!

[Guisslapp]

I can’t believe the US government is running concentration camps for kids. I can believe Trump would think this is a good idea.

[techman05]

How long has the law been on the books concerning the separation of detained parents and children? Are you more upset that this admin is enforcing the law or that our lawmakers didn’t do anything to change it when the last admin didn’t want to enforce it?

[Guisslapp]

How long has the law been on the books concerning the separation of detained parents and children? Are you more upset that this admin is enforcing the law or that our lawmakers didn’t do anything to change it when the last admin didn’t want to enforce it?

There is no law that requires it. We used to allow detained immigrants to be released on bond and reunited with their kids. Illegal entry is a misdemeanor - not the type of crime that bond is usually refused for.

Here is a flowchart of the process. Notice the use of the word “discretion” throughout the chart. Nothing requires detainment without bond.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/02...e-texas-jails/

Laws dealing with rules for “unaccompanied minors”, which children become when the government decides to criminally prosecute and not release on bail, were signed into law by George W Bush in 2008.

You should also note that some of the families that are being separated are families showing up at ports of entry seeking asylum and following US law.

Trump is deliberately doing this.

[Guisslapp]

And here is the history of the development of the laws around “unaccompanied minor” - again to become this first requires exercise of discretion on not releasing the parent on bond:

https://cliniclegal.org/resources/pr...grant-children

The 2008 law I referred to was a very popular law designed to combat human trafficking. It requires assessing whether the unaccompanied minor could be a victim of child trafficking. The Flores v. Reno settlement really lays out the limitations around how the children can be detained.

What the 2008 law does is prevents Trump from immediately deporting the family. That is why he has resorted to separating them.

[PawDawg]

How long does it take to get a green card? Are these parents even trying to get a green card?

[TYLERTECHSAS]

I can’t believe the US government is running concentration camps for kids. I can believe Trump would think this is a good idea.

Those pictures of children in cages were from the Obama years.
And again, when an American citizen gets arrested their children don't go to jail with them. They are separated.
Why give illegal aliens more or extra rights then American citizens?

Again this issue is another red herring attempted by the liberal media and Dem. politicos
to take the focus off the Hillary, FBI/CIA , DNC crimes.