The New Alabama immigration law

[Ayiekie]

More people are killed by the concept that citizens should carry guns for self-defence than are ever saved (from anything, not just death) by them. The U.S., with its horrific rate of gun death (very few of them being people shooting criminals in self-defence, even less where this was actually necessary for their protection), is actually really good proof of this point.

It's a bad idea. It has always been a bad idea. It does not work in practice, statistically speaking, and no amount of anecdotes will ever change that. It appeals to people who think life is an action movie. It isn't.

As for the American deficit, bluntly, it isn't a realistic priority. And it certainly wasn't a priority for the vast majority of conservatives under Bush, or his father, or Reagan, all of whom ran massive deficits. Regardless of that, the deficit, while a problem, is not an existential problem for the US - it is not in danger of becoming an unsustainable expense any time soon, nor will any amount of realistic cutting (particularly since there is no serious support for a substantial reduction to the military budget) affect the budgetary situation in the short or even medium-term. The problem for the US is that the overall economy isn't recovering because most Americans do not have the income necessary to refloat it, due to real wages not rising for decades. Without fixing that, any amount of cost-cutting may clear out the deficit (eventually) but will not fix the underlying economic problems.

Nor is it likely to be a political priority for Obama, since history shows quite consistently that people do not actually care about deficits as a voting issue regardless of political rhetoric about them. Obama pretended to care about the deficit in opposition and doesn't now that he's in power - the Republicans have in the past and most assuredly would in the future behave the same way.

[ECSNorway]

Epsilon, you are demonstrating your ignorance and complete lack of understanding of society here. We'd all like to live in a utopia where criminals are actually sensible, rational people, because then they wouldn't be criminals, they'd get jobs and get lives.

There is almost NEVER a cop around when you need one. It's a cliche because it's TRUE. In order to have a patrol officer within response time of every violent crime that occurs we would need thirty to forty times as many as we currently have. It has NEVER been practical to provide the kind of coverage that you suggest is appropriate, and never will be.

Let me postulate a couple of scenarios for you:

1) Joe Blow decides he wants some cash, so he grabs a stick and tells me to hand over my wallet or he'll beat my brains in. I give him my wallet, and he decides to beat me up anyway just for fun.

2) Joe Blow decides he wants some cash, so he grabs a stick and tells me to hand over my wallet or he'll beat my brains in. I pull out a gun and shoot him. He falls over, I call the cops, they clean up the body and a judge and jury finds my actions were valid self-defense.

3) Joe Blow decides he wants some cash, so he grabs a stick and tells me to hand over my wallet or he'll beat my brains in. I stand there terrified. Bill the Cop, walking down the street, notices what's going on and tells Joe to drop the stick. Joe turns around, waves the stick at Bill, and Bill shoots Joe.

Ninety percent of these scenarios, around the world, follow #1. About 75% of those end with me dead.

#3 is so unlikely as to approach 0%.

Note, too, that in both 2 and 3, Joe ends up dead, either at my hand, or the cop's.

As Logan said, "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6".

A gun is quite simply a tool for implementing the use of force. It is not a magic wand. It is not The One Ring, compelling its wielder to go forth and commit murder. People who are going to commit violent crimes will commit violent crimes with whatever weapon they can get, because a weapon is more effective than your bare hands. If they can get guns, they'll get guns. If they can't, they'll get something else, be it knives, or sticks, or slingshots. But because guns are more effective than knives and sticks and slingshots, they'll want guns, and there will be criminals who make a career out of providing them. It's not as if the formula for gunpowder is some magic deep dark secret only possessed by government-licensed alchemists.

A few years ago England, well known for its ridiculously harsh gun laws, noted that despite the considerable decrease in gun violence, they were seeing what seemed to be a massive upswing in knife violence. What was actually happening was that the overall crime rate hadn't changed all that much, criminals were just using different weapons. The solution they proposed? Ban knives. The laughter that ensued when I first heard that resulted in three noise complaints from my neighbors.
'
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Wiregeek]

It's a bad idea. It has always been a bad idea. It does not work in practice, statistically speaking, and no amount of anecdotes will ever change that. It appeals to people who think life is an action movie. It isn't.

Delicious lies, damned lies, and crap ayekie posts.
"No can brain today. Want cheezeburger."
From NGE: Nobody Dies, by Gregg Landsman
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5579457/1/NGE_Nobody_Dies

[Jinx999]

And here we have a prime example of why political discussions get their own section so people who don't want to be subjected to them get to avoid them.

[Epsilon]

Norway, your scenarios are self-serving tripe. Most robberies, even in the US, do not in fact end in murder. In the category of violent crime murder and nonnegligent homicide often accounts for less than 2% (and often much less than that) of all crimes. And that's only including violent crimes. When you count in property crimes and non-violent crimes the number of murders drops to to somethign like 0.1% of all crimes. Even when I just count the number of murders in the number of aggravated assualt cases the percentage only barely jumps up 1 or 2% at most.
The fact is, that most criminals are not fucking vidoe game enemies or wandering monsters. Like most human beings, they don't want to murder you unless they are forced to. Handing over your wallet and not resisting means you don't end up dead. The only thing arming the populace does is escalte the criminals. Your gun won't do shit for you if someone beats you over the head with a fucking rock from behind, or shots you without warning. They aren't going to engage in high noon with you.
And hey, did you know that people are more likely to survive a knife attack than a gun attack. So even if there is a one to one corrleation between less gun attacks and more knife attacks that equals more people surviving. Better judged by 12 than carried by 6? Me, I think "Better seventeen stitches than one dead human being".
But hey, I guess we must have some bizarre alien wonderland up here, were we manage to have one fifth your firearm homicide rate and a much lower rate of violent crime. (Oh, and these rates are per capita so, yes, they take into account our lower population). You want to end crime? You increase social program spending. There is a reason low crime rates are often corresponded to countries with extensive social programs. It's because people who are fed and have a roof over their heads feel less need to engage in violence to fulfill their needs.
-------------------
Epsilon

[Dartz]

I always thought the best way to defend yourself was by having training, regardless of armament. A gun is not a miracle defense. You have to think to use it. You have to know how to use it. You have to draw the thing from a concealed place while mister mugger has his own piece pointed at you. And you bet Mister mugger's going to assume you're armed if you do anything funny.

While Colt's adage has it's place a gun is not a miracle shield that immediately acts as a forcefield against all evil doers. Pointing a gun at them won't automatically make them stop.

I've no real problem myself with people claiming self-defense for being armed, I just find the idea of anyone being able to go in, buy a pistol/Ar-15, wait a couple of days, then be able to go use it with no training whatsoever a bit silly. Hand me a gun and put me in a stressful situation, I'll probably blow my own foot off. Most people armed for self defense will probably do the same thing or worse. They'll fumble and drop the thing and get shot or stabbed.

In fact, the only time I fired off a shotgun, I accidentally knocked out power to an entire village (oops).

The most dangerous thing is an armed population with no idea how to use their arms. I can kill with a car as easily as I can kill with a gun (or a knife), and the State expects me to learn how to drive that car properly, obey rules of the road and in general not act the tosser. If I break the rules, I could lose the right to drive the car. A gun is at least as dangerous as a car, wouldn't you agree?

Being able to go about armed is a privilege that should be earned by demonstrating some competency beyond respiring, and reaching a certain age. If you want to go through the bother of training up to safely be able to handle a particular firearm, and how to know when and how to use it, then you should be allowed have one. If not, it's just going to be more of a liability. And having an entire population who's sole competency is watching Westerns and Dirty Harry, is rather scary.

You want to know what the best deterrent for home invasion is? Studious locking of doors and windows, a barking dog and a decent alarm system. Thieves will tend to avoid homes where the homeowner is awake and alert... even if they're just shouting at the damn mutt to shut up. Regardless of what the homeowner is armed with, if at all, thieves would rather avoid a confrontation.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[ECSNorway]

I always thought the best way to defend yourself was by having training, regardless of armament. A gun is not a miracle defense. You have to think to use it. You have to know how to use it. You have to draw the thing from a concealed place while mister mugger has his own piece pointed at you. And you bet Mister mugger's going to assume you're armed if you do anything funny.

And on this point, we're agreed 100%. You need to know how to use it, when to use it, and when not to use it.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[robkelk]

...

As for the American deficit, bluntly, it isn't a realistic priority. And it certainly wasn't a priority for the vast majority of conservatives under Bush, or his father, or Reagan, all of whom ran massive deficits. Regardless of that, the deficit, while a problem, is not an existential problem for the US - it is not in danger of becoming an unsustainable expense any time soon, nor will any amount of realistic cutting (particularly since there is no serious support for a substantial reduction to the military budget) affect the budgetary situation in the short or even medium-term. The problem for the US is that the overall economy isn't recovering because most Americans do not have the income necessary to refloat it, due to real wages not rising for decades. Without fixing that, any amount of cost-cutting may clear out the deficit (eventually) but will not fix the underlying economic problems.

Nor is it likely to be a political priority for Obama, since history shows quite consistently that people do not actually care about deficits as a voting issue regardless of political rhetoric about them. Obama pretended to care about the deficit in opposition and doesn't now that he's in power - the Republicans have in the past and most assuredly would in the future behave the same way.

It isn't the military budget that's the big issue - it's the health-care budget that's only going to get bigger as more baby-boomers retire, moving from taxpayers to Medicare recipients. Obama tried addressing this with his health-care reforms, moving at least part of the burden of funding the system from the government to the insurance companies. It didn't get a chance to work.

And, yes, we have exactly the same problem in Canada. It only looks smaller because there are fewer people collecting Social Insurance - but there are fewer people paying into the Social Insurance fund, too. People who are just getting out of college are being told to not expect anything from the Canada Pension Plan even as they're told that they're required to pay into it.

If we don't do something about the culture of entitlement - which means to stop expecting the governments to do everything they're doing now - then we're going to end up where Greece is currently. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but before some of us retire...
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[robkelk]

Sorry Dartz.  Wish this could be changed, but Pandora's Box got opened before the outset of the American Revolution.  In the Colonies, it was critical that firearms be in ready supply on the off-hand chance the Natives got pissed.  Sad, but true.  And the Colonists knew from what the natives told them that there was a helluva lotta land out there to be explored, surveyed, and colonized.  Because of this, the Founding Fathers figured that it would be best to allow people to defend themselves, simply because 1) it would be impossible to field an army big enough and fast enough to protect everyone, and 2) when people feel their lives are at risk they generally tend to feel better when they have a dependable weapon at the ready.  It would be evil to deprive people of such a thing.
Fast forward to the Westward Expansion.  The saying is quickly coined: "God made man but Sam Colt made them equal."  This is because Colt made inexpensive revolvers that were accurate and easy to care for.  It was a dangerous place at the time.  Native Americans outraged at being displaced by the settlers stalked the horizon, as did thieves, claim jumpers, and rapists.  They preyed upon anyone that seemed the least bit weak.  Even women carried guns at times - no shit, it was that bad.
And so, this is why guns are in ready supply in America, even after there is no more wilderness left to explore and the Natives have long since been pacified.  Though we still have, and always will have thieves and rapists to worry about.

Sorry, BA, but that doesn't quite add up. We had even more to worry about than that in Canada: the French and Indian Wars before the British took over (with the British allying with the natives in order to take over more easily, then ignoring many of the treaties), armed invasion from the rebellious Thirteen Colonies in 1812 and 1839, the Metis "Rebellion" when the North West Territory was just beginning to be opened up, natives being displaced [size=smaller](Canadian natives really got the dirty end of the stick)[/size] and taking matters into their own hands throughout the 19th Century, and thieves and rapists throughout all of that and into the modern day.

But Canada doesn't have anywhere near the same number of firearms fatalities and injuries, per capita, that the US does, despite Canadians having even more historical justification to carry weapons. There's some other factor that needs to be listed to explain the discrepancy. I'm tempted to say it's because of the police in Canada defending the peace rather than punishing the guilty - as another point of comparison, look at the differences between the levels of violence around the gold rushes in San Francisco (California) and the Klondike (Yukon).
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Ayiekie]

It's a bad idea. It has always been a bad idea. It does not work in practice, statistically speaking, and no amount of anecdotes will ever change that. It appeals to people who think life is an action movie. It isn't.

Delicious lies, damned lies, and crap ayekie posts.

Your mangling of phrases aside, are you seriously arguing that statistical data doesn't say that homeowners with guns in the US are far more likely to kill innocent people than "bad guys"? Because if so, hahahahahahahahaha. Here's an idea - why don't you set me a number, some amount of studies necessary for you to say "Whoops, I was completely and utterly wrong"? C'mon, you're so totally obviously right and know what you're talking about, so what have you got to lose?

[Ayiekie]

robkelk wrote:
It isn't the military budget that's the big issue - it's the health-care budget that's only going to get bigger as more baby-boomers retire, moving from taxpayers to Medicare recipients. Obama tried addressing this with his health-care reforms, moving at least part of the burden of funding the system from the government to the insurance companies. It didn't get a chance to work.

And, yes, we have exactly the same problem in Canada. It only looks smaller because there are fewer people collecting Social Insurance - but there are fewer people paying into the Social Insurance fund, too. People who are just getting out of college are being told to not expect anything from the Canada Pension Plan even as they're told that they're required to pay into it.

If we don't do something about the culture of entitlement - which means to stop expecting the governments to do everything they're doing now - then we're going to end up where Greece is currently. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but before some of us retire...

Sorry, I disagree on pretty much every point.

1) The US spends 20% of its reported budget (there is a huge amount of unreported discretionary spending on mercenaries and other such things) on the military, which is almost what every other country on earth combined spends. Slash that in half, and they'd still have a far bigger budget for military than any other country. Medicare and medicaid represent 23% of the same budget. There is absolutely no question that a massive slash in military funding, by itself, would fund medicare and medicaid for a long time to come.
2) The US also has some of the lowest tax rates in the Western world, including and especially corporate and upper-class tax rates. It has been estimated by economists that tax revenue would have to increase 8.1% of total GDP in order to cover current and future increases in medicare and medicaid costs while avoiding further debt increases. This would still leave the US tax rate considerably lower than Western European countries like France and Germany, and considerably lower than what it was during the post-WWII time period when the US experienced its greatest economic growth.
3) Canada had no trouble running a budgetary surplus during the Chretien-Martin years; one of the reasons it doesn't now (aside from the world economic crisis, of course) was due to the reduction of the GST from 7% to 5%, a change that made very little difference to any individual consumer but significantly affected government revenue, to the tune of about six billion dollars a year. This is a not-inconsiderable chunk of the total deficit, which in 2009 was 8.7 billion dollars according to Statistics Canada (http://www40.statcan.gc.c...1/cst01/govt01b-eng.htm) - and since that includes both federal and provincial statistics, it's an even bigger chunk than it looks. Canada's overall tax rate is also much lower than that of Western Europe, though slightly higher than the US. 
4) What happened in Greece is not a simple moral fable of living beyond your means as a government, nor is it true that people in Greece have refused austerity measures. To do a very short list, Greece was affected by extremely widespread tax evasion, and insane lending schemes that let essentially anyone in the country rack up massive private debt. Due to the country's inability to get off the Euro, Greece is unable to allow its currency to devalue to the point where it can handle its debt load. Because of all this, austerity measures, while draconian, are having little impact on the situation and loans can only keep the situation afloat at the cost of further damaging the Greek economy. None of this applies to Canada or the US. 
To put it in a shorter-form way - there is no reason either Canada or the US would have to cut their social programs (both of which are quite modest by world standards) other than a greater political desire to not raise tax revenue than to maintain those social programs. While it's quite true that may well happen, given the political culture in both countries, it is by no means inevitable. It certainly has nothing to do with a "culture of entitlement" to the extremely modest social programs in the US, nor with the also modest social programs in Canada. 

[Black Aeronaut]

Sorry, I disagree on pretty much every point.
1) The US spends 20% of its reported budget (there is a huge amount of unreported discretionary spending on mercenaries and other such things) on the military, which is almost what every other country on earth combined spends. Slash that in half, and they'd still have a far bigger budget for military than any other country. Medicare and medicaid represent 23% of the same budget. There is absolutely no question that a massive slash in military funding, by itself, would fund medicare and medicaid for a long time to come.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Granted, there are cuts we can be making.  For one, we need to just give up on Iraq and Afghanistan - we're unwelcome there.  (Although I got half a mind that says that we need to 'repossess' all the roads and schools and other stuff we built over there if they honestly feel they don't need to pay us back for what we gave them.  And I ain't talking about intangible things here.)
And Ayieke, until you can tell us exactly how the hell you would 'slash military spending' then I don't wanna hear a word about it.  I'm not saying that it's not possible to do so, but if you want to cut the military budget, then you'd damn well better know how and where.  And don't you DARE touch my MGIB.
Although I will agree that the mercenaries have got to go.
It will be far easier to get the medical system reformed if we can get the lobbyists for the pharmaceuticals and the insurance companies out of the way.  Granted, they should be entitled to a voice, but for decades they've been taking far too much, and it's already been proven that their business practices tend to be questionable.  The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer.  This is not some children's nursery rhyme, it is fact and it is the sign of a broken economy.  Cutting the military budget is not gonna help much.
However, if you can convince companies like Lockheed-Martin, Northrop-Grunman, Crane, etc. to quit price-gouging, then that might shave off about ten percent.  (Seriously, for a valve block on the gun I worked on you could buy a new house in most places... and that's with the broken one being returned to be refurbished!)

[Ayiekie]

blackaeronaut wrote:
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Granted, there are cuts we can be making.  For one, we need to just give up on Iraq and Afghanistan - we're unwelcome there.  (Although I got half a mind that says that we need to 'repossess' all the roads and schools and other stuff we built over there if they honestly feel they don't need to pay us back for what we gave them.  And I ain't talking about intangible things here.)
And Ayieke, until you can tell us exactly how the hell you would 'slash military spending' then I don't wanna hear a word about it.  I'm not saying that it's not possible to do so, but if you want to cut the military budget, then you'd damn well better know how and where.  And don't you DARE touch my MGIB.

Wow, that's the most entitled colonialist imperial bullshit I've heard... uh, today, if only because I haven't checked the news yet.
"Pay you back"? Really? For what? Your tons of ordinance you used killing over a hundred thousand Iraqis, maybe? Or the ordinance you used demolishing Iraq's infrastructure, want to send them a bill for that? Maybe you want to charge them for that small city you call a military base in Baghdad, that has its own electricity and water supplies in a city where civilians frequently has neither almost a decade after your invasion? Maybe they need to pay for all the CIA prisons you stuck hundreds of innocent people into to torture, more than a few of whom died in captivity?  The arrogance, bigotry and lack of self-assessment required to think they owe your country something would be staggering if it weren't so depressingly common. 
You are not wanted there because you are the bad guys. Your country, your army,  are the ones that owe them, not the reverse. 

The gall of you! Even Mussolini didn't send the Ethiopians a bill for his ammo. Americans are still ready to explode in paroxysms of hatred against Muslims and grandiose desires for vengeance against them for the actions of al-Qaeda over ten years ago (and you are most certainly no exception to that, Mr. I-think-we-should-murder-a-bunch-of-Muslims-with-pigs-blood-soaked-bullets-that'll-totally-teach-them, a statement that somehow passes for polite discourse here), but you can't comprehend that you have done far more wrong to the people in either of those countries than the entire Muslim world combined has ever done to America. 
As far as cutting your country's ridiculous, bloated, useless military budget goes, there is literally no place sufficient to start. Cut it all. Cut it to the bone. Maintain a military that resembles that of any other country - it's not as if America could be successfully invaded even if they cut their military to 5% of what it is now. Or hell, maintain a military that's only twice the size of any other country's - that'd still be saving well over 10% of your total GDP, a staggering sum. And maybe then it'll actually be difficult for American presidents to just bomb whatever countries they want for a blip in the polls or the whims of corporate interests.
And if there was any justice in the world, your MGIB would be liquidated and the money sent to an Iraqi family. Or an Afghan family, or a Pakistani family, or a Yemeni family, or a family from whatever Muslim country you'll be killing people in next year. But there isn't, so it won't. 

[Black Aeronaut]

You know what, I'm done arguing with you. If you want to be a pacifist, then that's fine by me.

By the way, you wanna know the funny thing about pacifists? When the Hitlers, Huseins, and Pol Pots of the world come along, you're usually the first to go. And then it's someone from the USA that uncovers the mass grave they found you in and identify your remains for whatever family you have left behind... if any at all.

And if you do the one thing that requires the fewest brain cells and run instead... it's probably going to be to a refugee camp guarded, if not by UN peace keepers, then by US Army, and supplied by the US Armed Forces and the American Red Cross.

And if things in your country really do go to shit because the UN is botching the job, you'll probably wind up coming to America.

God forbid that should happen, but if it does... mind your fucking manners. After all, some people around here do carry guns.

[Niteflier]

So, Ayiekie, tell me. If you were to have your way, and you got rid of the American military, where would you put all that money? 'Cause from what I can see, the only place it could possibly go would be straight to welfare, since that's where at least half of the current military members would go. The current American economy is bad enough. The influx of almost a million people (NOT counting contractors, companies that contract with the military, or, really, ANYONE with ANY connection to the military) suddenly made jobless into an economy that already doesn't have enough 'jobs' for people would wreck it completely.

You keep saying that the American military is *evil*, but do you realize that almost all the *evil* decisions you keep whining about were made by ivory tower thinkers like you? The guy-on-the-ground like BA and I used to be, the guys that you want to make jobless and homeless, don't get a say in what city they have to bomb, what men they are told to kill, what prisoners they have to guard. And before you say that the guy-on-the-ground can disobey those orders, let me tell you, that is a straight, one way ticket to Fort Leavenworth, do not pass go, do not have any chance for parole.

You say that America is *evil*. You haven't given any justification as to *why*. Yes, some of the people in charge make decisions that look to be stupid, thoughtless, or outright evil. Why do you keep blaming the common citizen?

[Foxboy]

I believe he's making a "why are you letting these *expletives* stay in office?!" argument. (Because the SOB's -of both major parties- have money and are good at faking sincerity/buying votes.)

Also he comes across to me as the sort of person who sits gleefully sipping cognac chortling "I told you so" as the barbarians raze Rome. Of course, it could also be a degree of Gabe's Internet F*****d Theory in action. *shrug*

So.

Back to the specific topic at hand, or do we need an "America is an EEEEVIL Doody-head!-- No it's NOT!" thread?
''We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat
them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.''

-- James Nicoll

[Jinx999]

Back to the specific topic at hand, or do we need an "America is an EEEEVIL Doody-head!-- No it's NOT!" thread?

Not really. They're hardly an endangered species.

[Star Ranger4]

*Strikes away the flamables and clears the decks for action*

All right the ruddy lot of you. Quite a bit of this has devolved into pointless back and forths and are NO LONGER central to the issue.

Those of you who have a problem with what Logan's brother Dan did... WTF are you thinking? DID YOU NOT READ? THOSE GUYS CAME TO HIM. BLOCKED HIM IN. IOW, They were planning to commit Murder in the first degree. The sort of thing that gets other people executed. And its fairly clear that execution was exactly what was on their minds.

Second of all... People go where there is work. Its not the US economy, but rather that Mexico's is SO FUCKED ITS NOT FUCKING FUNNY. You wanna solve the illegal immigrants problem? F'ing invade Mexico, shoot everyone in their government as corrupt, and then rebuild it correctly from the ground up. Of course, given that we seem to not be doing much better as far our own civil responsibilities

Thirdly, far to many US citizens have a damn sense of entitelment. They'd rather sit on the damn dole or other social payments because getting a job is too much work. We dont LIKE to get our hands dirty. And in some cases what work that IS available actually pays LESS than sitting on our arses.

BA, do you know why that damn flow valve for the 5" gun costs so much? Government regs. the Manufacturer is required to perform like 17zillion tests on it and keep track of EVERYTHING about that flow valve, right back to where the ore for the metal was mined from. For certain equipment, yes it makes sense. but when you apply that same level of tracking and culpabiity to non mission critical items? you get 17m toilet seats.

AND, JUST TO PEEVE EVERYONE I MIGHT HAVE MISSED:

For good or ill, this is EXACTLY what is both right and wrong with this country. When we are of a single mind of something (Hitler must be removed from power, We WILL go to the moon) we can do amazing things. When we cant make up our minds... well...
Hear that thunder rolling till it seems to split the sky?
That's every ship in Grayson's Navy taking up the cry-
NO QUARTER!!!
-- "No Quarter", by Echo's Children

[Wiregeek]

You could do a lot of good in both Mexico and the U.S. by repealing Prohibition.
"No can brain today. Want cheezeburger."
From NGE: Nobody Dies, by Gregg Landsman
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5579457/1/NGE_Nobody_Dies

[Black Aeronaut]

*Strikes away the flamables and clears the decks for action*

All right the ruddy lot of you. Quite a bit of this has devolved into pointless back and forths and are NO LONGER central to the issue.

Those of you who have a problem with what Logan's brother Dan did... WTF are you thinking? DID YOU NOT READ? THOSE GUYS CAME TO HIM. BLOCKED HIM IN. IOW, They were planning to commit Murder in the first degree. The sort of thing that gets other people executed. And its fairly clear that execution was exactly what was on their minds.

Second of all... People go where there is work. Its not the US economy, but rather that Mexico's is SO FUCKED ITS NOT FUCKING FUNNY. You wanna solve the illegal immigrants problem? F'ing invade Mexico, shoot everyone in their government as corrupt, and then rebuild it correctly from the ground up. Of course, given that we seem to not be doing much better as far our own civil responsibilities

Thirdly, far to many US citizens have a damn sense of entitelment. They'd rather sit on the damn dole or other social payments because getting a job is too much work. We dont LIKE to get our hands dirty. And in some cases what work that IS available actually pays LESS than sitting on our arses.

BA, do you know why that damn flow valve for the 5" gun costs so much? Government regs. the Manufacturer is required to perform like 17zillion tests on it and keep track of EVERYTHING about that flow valve, right back to where the ore for the metal was mined from. For certain equipment, yes it makes sense. but when you apply that same level of tracking and culpabiity to non mission critical items? you get 17m toilet seats.

AND, JUST TO PEEVE EVERYONE I MIGHT HAVE MISSED:

For good or ill, this is EXACTLY what is both right and wrong with this country. When we are of a single mind of something (Hitler must be removed from power, We WILL go to the moon) we can do amazing things. When we cant make up our minds... well...

I never had anything ill to say about what Logan's brother did as far as defending himself.  From a tactical standpoint, he did the right thing in letting his enemy get close like that and delivering a 1HK.  From an ethical standpoint, what else could he have done?  Going to the police does not guarantee one's safety.
Mexico is fucked, but so are we: we're recovering from a very nasty recession that was very nearly a depression and from fighting what was essentially two wars and trying to rebuild two countries.  We cannot afford to do the same with a third!
Of course we got issues people that feel they're entitled.  The American people are long overdue for a paradigm shift, but at the rate things are going it looks like we're gonna blow the motor.  People have gotten so set in there ways that it will take the political equivalent of the Chernobyl Disaster to make people wake up.
Star Ranger: there's gotta be a way to cut back on all that bureaucracy.  QA is important for stuff like that - I will not deny it - but there comes a point where there's little else you can do except pray to whatever deity you worship, if any.
And hell yes, we are muddled like no other generation has been before.  There is no majority, only highly vocal minorities.  If anything, they should call this Generation OMGWTFBBQLOLROFLCOPTER.

[Niteflier]

You could do a lot of good in both Mexico and the U.S. by repealing Prohibition.

Uh, Wire? Repeal it where? In the US, it was gotten rid of in 1933.

[Wiregeek]

Sorry, I meant, 'admit defeat in the war on drugs'
"No can brain today. Want cheezeburger."
From NGE: Nobody Dies, by Gregg Landsman
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5579457/1/NGE_Nobody_Dies

[Sweno]

prohibition against what?

unless my history classes were wrong, the only Prohibition I know of (with a capitol p, the one against alcohol) was repealed in 1933.

But of course I could be missing the sarcasm.

Dragging this back onto the original topic, or at least trying to.

There are a lot of seasonal laborers in CA (the only state I'm familiar with in regards to immigration/employment)

A lot of them are illegal immigrants.

They are here for mainly 2 reasons:

1) the jobs here pay better than the jobs back home

2) there are not enough people in the native workforce willing to accomplish these jobs.

Now there are laws and systems in place to allow legal immigration for this purpose, but a significant portion of seasonal laborers don't bother with it. Mainly because it's a lot of paperwork/hassle, and because employers don't demand that they are all above the board.

now I will freely admit to ignorance of Alabama law, and if the illegal immigrants are filling seasonal labor positions.

But maybe (if they are seasonal laborers) this problem could be attacked from the other end.

AKA make it easier to get legal immigration for employment, rather than being so focused on cracking down on the ones who are here illegally.
-Terry
-----
"so listen up boy, or pornography starring your mother will be the second worst thing to happen to you today"
TF2: Spy

[Dartz]

And on this point, we're agreed 100%. You need to know how to use it, when to use it, and when not to use it.

My problem is, the people who will just walk into a gunshop, buy a gun and some ammunition, snaffle up a permit and then walk around like thinking they're cowboy. Whether those are the majority or minority, I don't know.

One thing about Irish gun law.... it really does keep the morons from being armed. I feel far safer knowing that most morons in this country aren't likely to be armed, than I would thinking I was armed as good as they are.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[Ayiekie]

You know what, I'm done arguing with you. If you want to be a pacifist, then that's fine by me.

I'm not a pacifist. The fact you think "America was fucking evil for invading a country that posed no threat to it, killing a hundred thousand people, destroying the country's infrastructure and dragging off hundreds of people into its secret illegal torture prisons" equals pacifism is why your view of the world is so warped. 

God forbid that should happen, but if it does... mind your fucking manners. After all, some people around here do carry guns.

Yes, be polite or people will shoot me. What a glorious ideal you aspire to.