Foreign Nationals and Firearms Possession

[DarthRevan]

Indeed if you are in the borders of the USA that's a huge mistake.

Holy shit, alright.
Writing your opinions off from now on.

 

[Lip]

Well Lip that's not how you were talking earlier in the thread but you keep editing posts so I cant keep track....

Sorry I'll type slower, then you can catch up.

 

[Lip]

Holy shit, alright.
Writing your opinions off from now on.

I'd have to care.

 

[milktree]

Arming a foriegn body within ones borders is a recipe for failure. Read some. Hell read about our history.

You keep saying that, but you refuse to provide a single example of how this has ever been a problem, anywhere.

What are you talking about? When has this happened? Where has it happened?

Everything you've written comes across as xenophobia. Prove me wrong.

 

[Lip]

You keep saying that, but you refuse to provide a single example of how this has ever been a problem, anywhere.

What are you talking about? When has this happened? Where has it happened?

Everything you've written comes across as xenophobia. Prove me wrong.

Try reading, Mexico allowed it, Rome allowed it. Stop being a simpleton.

 

[milktree]

Try reading, Mexico allowed it, Rome allowed it. Stop being a simpleton.

Dude, It's your argument, not mine. It's not my responsibility to dig up examples for you. That's called a onus probandi logical fallacy, or "shifting the burden of proof." You're making the assertion, it's totally reasonable to expect you to support it.

Are you seriously comparing the sacking of Rome by the Goths in 410 AD with letting foreigners living legally in the US own guns? Are you suggesting that Rome wouldn't have been sacked if only they'd made a law that non-citizens couldn't have arms? (note that I didn't say "couldn't have arms", because making a law doesn't really prevent invading armies from invading) Rome has a lot of history, please inform us of which event(s) you believe could have been prevented by a law.

Same for Mexico: When did Mexico have some sort of uprising or mass violent insurrection that could have been prevented by making a law against non-citizens having arms.

I almost forgot: ad hominem attacks aren't very effective at proving your point.

 

[drgrant]

Try reading, Mexico allowed it, Rome allowed it. Stop being a simpleton.

So those nations fell because they didn't have gun/sword control?

 

[Lip]

So those nations fell because they didn't have gun/sword control?

No they had armed foreigners within their borders. Umm Texas? I tried to dumb it down for you.

 

[Lip]

Dude, It's your argument, not mine. It's not my responsibility to dig up examples for you. That's called a onus probandi logical fallacy, or "shifting the burden of proof." You're making the assertion, it's totally reasonable to expect you to support it.

Are you seriously comparing the sacking of Rome by the Goths in 410 AD with letting foreigners living legally in the US own guns? Are you suggesting that Rome wouldn't have been sacked if only they'd made a law that non-citizens couldn't have arms? (note that I didn't say "couldn't have arms", because making a law doesn't really prevent invading armies from invading) Rome has a lot of history, please inform us of which event(s) you believe could have been prevented by a law.

Same for Mexico: When did Mexico have some sort of uprising or mass violent insurrection that could have been prevented by making a law against non-citizens having arms.

I almost forgot: ad hominem attacks aren't very effective at proving your point.

Well it didn't help did it.

 

[Lip]

Dude, It's your argument, not mine. It's not my responsibility to dig up examples for you. That's called a onus probandi logical fallacy, or "shifting the burden of proof." You're making the assertion, it's totally reasonable to expect you to support it.

Are you seriously comparing the sacking of Rome by the Goths in 410 AD with letting foreigners living legally in the US own guns? Are you suggesting that Rome wouldn't have been sacked if only they'd made a law that non-citizens couldn't have arms? (note that I didn't say "couldn't have arms", because making a law doesn't really prevent invading armies from invading) Rome has a lot of history, please inform us of which event(s) you believe could have been prevented by a law.

Same for Mexico: When did Mexico have some sort of uprising or mass violent insurrection that could have been prevented by making a law against non-citizens having arms.

I almost forgot: ad hominem attacks aren't very effective at proving your point.

I'll dumb it down for you too, ever heard of Texas? I bet Mexico regrets allowing armed foreigners there it's almost as if they now regret it. Edit.. ever heard of la Raza?

 

[milktree]

No they had armed foreigners within their borders. Umm Texas? I tried to dumb it down for you.

For someone who thinks he's so much smarter than the rest of us, you're doing a terrible job of actually communicating a rational argument.

"it didn't help" isn't the same as "it was the cause of...". If you think they're the same, you really need to bone-up on your rhetoric.

 

[Lip]

For someone who thinks he's so much smarter than the rest of us, you're doing a terrible job of actually communicating a rational argument.

"it didn't help" isn't the same as "it was the cause of...". If you think they're the same, you really need to bone-up on your rhetoric.

Well stick your head in the sand that works wonders.

 

[milktree]

I'll dumb it down for you too, ever heard of Texas? I bet Mexico regrets allowing armed foreigners there it's almost as if they now regret it. Edit.. ever heard of la Raza?

The Spanish expression la Raza[1] (literally "the Race") refers to the Hispanophone populations (primarily though not always exclusively in the Western Hemisphere[2]), considered as an ethnic or racial[citation needed] unit historically deriving from the Spanish Empire, and the process of racial miscegenation of the Spanish colonizers with the indigenous populations of the New World (and sometimes Africans brought there by the Atlantic slave trade).

What does that have to do with anything?

And what about Texas? Are you saying the people living in the Texas part of Mexico weren't Mexican citizens? If that's what you're saying, then wouldn't Mexico be an occupying force?

 

[Lip]

What does that have to do with anything?

And what about Texas? Are you saying the people living in the Texas part of Mexico weren't Mexican citizens? If that's what you're saying, then wouldn't Mexico be an occupying force?

Gosh how did Texas become texas? A armed foriegn population lived there. Google it, I'll wait. Edit: you quoted wikipedia you already lost the argument. You might have well quoted the onion.

 

[Lip]

What does that have to do with anything?

And what about Texas? Are you saying the people living in the Texas part of Mexico weren't Mexican citizens? If that's what you're saying, then wouldn't Mexico be an occupying force?

Also larazas goal is to get the states that America won from Mexico back. Forgot that part? Hmm.

 

[milktree]

Gosh how did Texas become texas? A armed foriegn population lived there. Google it, I'll wait. Edit: you quoted wikipedia you already lost the argument. You might have well quoted the onion.

Right, if you don't like the way I look up your arguments, you need to provide your own sources. See "shifting the burden of proof" above.

 

[Lip]

Right, if you don't like the way I look up your arguments, you need to provide your own sources. See "shifting the burden of proof" above.

Yawn you are boring me. Using wikipedia is akin to pulling facts out your backside. Try harder.

 

[milktree]

Yawn you are boring me. Using wikipedia is akin to pulling facts out your backside. Try harder.

You really don't get it, do you?

It is your responsibility to defend your position. Period. Nobody else has any duty to do it for you.

"I'm bored" is a cop-out. It's basically saying, "I can't defend this position so I'm going to take my ball and glove and go home after claiming I won."

I counter: Mexico was an invading force in Texas, so the native Texans kicked them out. Look it up.

I also counter: The Roman Empire was collapsing under its own weight long before the sacking of Rome, largely due to the use of lead for food and water containers, combined with internal disagreements and strife that made management impossible. Arms policy not only had no contributing influence on the Visigoths' success, and in fact helped to slow their progress because most people living in the Roman Empire benefited from the infrastructure and fought against the Visigoths. It's true, look it up.

 

[Lip]

You really don't get it, do you?

It is your responsibility to defend your position. Period. Nobody else has any duty to do it for you.

"I'm bored" is a cop-out. It's basically saying, "I can't defend this position so I'm going to take my ball and glove and go home after claiming I won."

I counter: Mexico was an invading force in Texas, so the native Texans kicked them out. Look it up.

I also counter: The Roman Empire was collapsing under its own weight long before the sacking of Rome, largely due to the use of lead for food and water containers, combined with internal disagreements and strife that made management impossible. Arms policy not only had no contributing influence on the Visigoths' success, and in fact helped to slow their progress because most people living in the Roman Empire benefited from the infrastructure and fought against the Visigoths. It's true, look it up.

Yawn the blind....

 

[Lip]

Yawn the blind....

Mexico invited the Americians in. It's a fact. The Roman's allowed the visigoths to be an armed force within its borders, also a fact. You try very hard to twist what is to what you want. So yes you are a bore.

 

[drgrant]

I'll dumb it down for you too, ever heard of Texas? I bet Mexico regrets allowing armed foreigners there it's almost as if they now regret it. Edit.. ever heard of la Raza?

What leads you to believe that Mexico could have ever kept guns out of Texas?

I also fail to see the connection here, between a (relative) handful of foreign nationals handling guns and some kind of an army capable of taking over a nation.

La Raza? Not sure if serious. That would be pretty funny shit if they tried something. You really think Texans would put up with that shit?

Even El Risitas thinks that's hysterical...



-Mike

 

[Lip]

What leads you to believe that Mexico could have ever kept guns out of Texas?

I also fail to see the connection here, between a (relative) handful of foreign nationals handling guns and some kind of an army capable of taking over a nation.

La Raza? Not sure if serious. That would be pretty funny shit if they tried something. You really think Texans would put up with that shit?

Even El Risitas thinks that's hysterical...



-Mike

Try commiefornia. But give it time as Texas shifts blue it will come.

 

[milktree]

Mexico invited the Americians in. It's a fact. The Roman's allowed the visigoths to be an armed force within its borders, also a fact. You try very hard to twist what is to what you want. So yes you are a bore.

OK, we're getting a little closer, but you're still not providing any references.

Furthermore, you're asserting causation when it's far more likely to be coincidence. It's a post hoc logical fallacy.

"Bad stuff happened *AND* there were non-citizens with arms" is very different from "Bad stuff happened *BECAUSE* there were non-citizens with arms."

It doesn't really seem like you know what "citizen" meant in Rome meant, it's not like there were "romans" and "everyone else". Rome had a bunch of different levels of citizenship which bestowed different rights; and non-citizens legally lived and worked and had children and owned property in the Roman Empire.

To suggest that Rome would not have fallen if only they'd made a law about the goths keeping weapons is absurd.

 

[Lip]

OK, we're getting a little closer, but you're still not providing any references.

Furthermore, you're asserting causation when it's far more likely to be coincidence. It's a post hoc logical fallacy.

"Bad stuff happened *AND* there were non-citizens with arms" is very different from "Bad stuff happened *BECAUSE* there were non-citizens with arms."

It doesn't really seem like you know what "citizen" meant in Rome meant, it's not like there were "romans" and "everyone else". Rome had a bunch of different levels of citizenship which bestowed different rights; and non-citizens legally lived and worked and had children and owned property in the Roman Empire.

To suggest that Rome would not have fallen if only they'd made a law about the goths keeping weapons is absurd.

Yawn how does one describe colors to the blind?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

"I'm bored" is a cop-out. It's basically saying, "I can't defend this position so I'm going to take my ball and glove and go home after claiming I won."

This ranks right up there with telling the opposing party they know you are right and declaring yourself the winner.

 

[Lip]

This ranks right up there with telling the opposing party they know you are right and declaring yourself the winner.

Yep you'd think he knew better.

 

[Lip]

Basically you're suggesting that we use gun control to disarm potentially hostile foreign nationals... think about the inherent dumbness in that idea, its just as dumb as regular gun control...

What I'm saying is they never should have been armed. Citizens armed yes, great non citizens no.

 

[Portagee]

Indeed if you are in the borders of the USA that's a huge mistake.

Are you afraid of a armed Portuguese rebellion or something?

 

[Lip]

Are you afraid of a armed Portuguese rebellion or something?

No, but the food would be good though.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

What I'm saying is they never should have been armed. Citizens armed yes, great non citizens no.

I am still looking for a logically consistent explanation as to how the 2A can be denied to non-citizens without also using that same logic to deny all other BOR enumerated rights (including the 3rd, 4th and 5th) to non-citizens.

It is actually legally "iffy" to deny the 2A to any person legally present who has not lost that right through due process of law. For example, if the 2A can be denied to someone here on a student or work visa, then the same logic would allow that person to be subject to warrantless searches as well as the requirement to quarter troops in their homes during peacetime.

I just wish the 2A advocated were as effective as the national anti-quartering society: National Anti-Quartering Association