DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on April 24, 2015, 11:17:52 AM
-
More Than a Quarter-Million Refugees Are on Food Stamps
74.2 percent of refugees received food stamps in 2013
Detainees sleep and watch television in a holding cell where hundreds of mostly Central American immigrant children are being processed and held at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Nogales Placement CenterDetainees sleep and watch television in a holding cell where hundreds of mostly Central American immigrant children are being processed and held at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Nogales Placement Center / AP
BY: Elizabeth Harrington
April 23, 2015
More than a quarter-million refugees are on food stamps, according to a memorandum to the Senate Judiciary Committee from the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
The CRS found that 353,000 refugees were on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps, in fiscal year 2013.
According to the memo, 74. 2 percent of refugees arriving in the past 5 years are on food stamps and 22.8 percent received public housing, as of 2013.
Furthermore, 56 percent of refugees received Medicaid or public health insurance, and nearly half (47.1 percent) received cash benefits.
As of December 2014 there were 55,000 "refugees, asylees, and other related groups" who are receiving disability benefits through the Social Security Administration's Supplemental Insurance Income (SSI) program.
The CRS was unable to determine the number of refugees receiving benefits from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) welfare program, or children health insurance.
Immigration officials are expecting another surge in unaccompanied illegal alien children crossing the Southwest border this summer. Approximately 3,000 children crossed the border in March, the Washington Times reported.
"Once granted refugee status, an individual has open access to federal welfare, work permits, and the ability to receive a green card and citizenship," Sen. Jeff Session's (R., Ala.) office said.
Sessions is holding a hearing on Thursday on the administration's Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations program run by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
http://freebeacon.com/issues/more-than-a-quarter-million-refugees-are-on-food-stamps/
-
Do you propose they be allowed to starve?
What is your point of posting this?
-
Everyone is entitled to be fed.
By an American.
-
I wonder what Jeff Sessions might come up with as an alternative to feeding people who have no income and no way to get any while waiting for the bureaucracy to act on their cases.
Does he want to simply turn away all refugees, or allow those who are here temporarily waiting for their status to be determined to starve?
What are the alternatives to feeding and caring for refugees? One of them MIGHT be the next Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz's old man.
Jeff Sessions is a grandstanding Teabagger. He brings up crap like this all the time.
-
What is your point of posting this?
The point is that not enforcing our borders laws is a losing proposition.
-
You have incorrectly assumed that all these people have illegally sneaked into this country, ans such is not the case. Refugees by definition have been admitted to this country because of alleged persecution in their home countries. Cubans who come here are automatically given food stamps and aid so long as they have set a foot upon dry land.
Once they are here and waiting for a decision on their status, they must be fed and housed. Even if you and Jeff Sessions piss and moan about it. It's not like they came with this burning desire to live in Alabama, that's for sure.
-
. It's not like they came with this burning desire to live in Alabama, that's for sure.
Is that an insult to Alabama?
Are Alabamians piling up in Colombia?
Draining Colombian resources?
This is very much a rush towards the better conditions, and we do not owe anything to any of these people.
-
Is that an insult to Alabama?
No, it is a reference to the various laws that Alabama's legislature passed against renting to undocumented people and hiring them in Alabama.
Are Alabamians piling up in Colombia?
Draining Colombian resources?
This is very much a rush towards the better conditions, and we do not owe anything to any of these people.
So. according to you, we have these people detained in prison like conditions, and they have no way to even feed themselves, so we should let them starve?
Should we take the children who have come here all the way from Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras and are waiting some sort of action on their cases and push them out, so they can trek all the way back through Mexico?
The person who wrote this article and Jeff Sessions are either dimwits who do not think through what they say, or they are simply cruel monsters, and deserve to be ignored.
-
Feeding people that are in our custody is a good idea.
How are we going to avoid putting all of South America on our dole?
We can feed these people better than they are able to earn, but not all of them.
If we are feeding so many because they have bad government, perhaps that is a good reason to give them better government.
-
Not all of South America does not wish to come to the US.
Most immigrants come from Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean.
There is no chance whatever that all of South America will come to the US and be on the dole.
I suggest that these people did not come here to be encarcerated and fed while waiting for some sort of judgment.
The problem is not bad government, the main problem is income equality and economies that do not provide adequate jobs.
The United States has a poor record at giving any other country better government. We suck at this, and so does every other country that has tried to give better government to another country. The cost of feeding this rather small number of people temporarily is a tiny fraction of what it costs to even attempt to "give them a better government".
-
Not all of South America does not wish to come to the US.
Most immigrants come from Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean.
There is no chance whatever that all of South America will come to the US and be on the dole.
Why not? Is there some impediment to every last one of them coming here and getting better food and income than they are able to earn at home?I suggest that these people did not come here to be encarcerated and fed while waiting for some sort of judgment.
The problem is not bad government, the main problem is income equality and economies that do not provide adequate jobs.
The United States has a poor record at giving any other country better government. We suck at this, and so does every other country that has tried to give better government to another country. The cost of feeding this rather small number of people temporarily is a tiny fraction of what it costs to even attempt to "give them a better government".
Yes because we have no income inequality to bother them.
We are not talking small numbers of illegal aliens and refugees.
The population of Belize is 340,844.
Our illegal alien population is like 32 Beliezes.
Why do you think a war would be more expensive?
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bh.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigrant_population_of_the_United_States
-
Wars are ALWAYS more expensive. Soldiers die in wars,and are wounded and the wounded and the widows and children of those killed need to be taken care of, often for the rest of their lives.
And again, what is the alternative to housing and feeding these people? They are waiting for a decision about their status because the law says they have a right to this. Congress could change the law, but it has not even tried. You cannot turn them loose in the US, you cannot throw them across the border, you cannot allow them to starve.
The main impediment to everyone not coming here is that they do not want to leave their homes, they do not want to have to learn another language, they like their country's food, music and culture. Most Mexicans would prefer to stay in Mexico. There are very few countries where a majority wants to leave. Perhaps Syria today. I have read that most Moldovans would like to live elsewhere.
-
Plane an uncontrolled border is not sustainable nor wise.
the border should be shut down....
with so many Americans out of work
why the hell are we allowing people to flood in here?
it is sheer insanity....(but well planned and intentional)
it will eventually lead to civil war
a segment of Americans will not tolerate
turning their country into a poor, socialist, shithole.
-
Your premise is wrong: the US Mexico Border is NOT uncontrolled.
Fewer people are crossing it than during the Juniorbush years.
If you need proof, just go across the border and try to get back in with no documents.
Many illegals came here on tourist visas and overstayed their visa.
-
No my premise is not wrong.....
tens of millions of illegals have made it across our porous borders in recent years.
how are millions here and more coming if our borders are secure?
because less happen to be coming right now....does not mean our borders are secure
inflow of youths/children traveling without parents has doubled since 2013, to 57,525 in the nine months up to July 2014.
the number of migrants who cross the border in so-called "family units" has spiked five-fold to 55,420, according to the border patrol's data.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/18/white-house-hid-huge-spike-of-families-crossing-border/#ixzz37wevSYy5
-
It is impossible to prevent each and every person who wants to come to this country from entering the country. There were lots of defections from East Germany to West Germany even when they had a 15 foot wall and the Volkpolitzei shot on sight.
The United States of America is NOT going to shoot immigrants on sight, nor should it even try.
There were constant defections from the USSR into Finland even during the Stalin years. Perfection at border security is an impossibility. Relative security si the best we can hope for. In the unlikely chance that a Republican is elected president, I fully expect that the nutballs who are presently ranting about this will be stricken dumb. Because this is about Obamahate, not border security.
The right wing should complement Obama on reducing the number of illegals rather drastically.
In the case of the children, they voluntarily turn themselves in to the Border Guards, as they understand that if they do, they will no longer be at risk of being raped, killed or kidnapped. If the Border Guards started turning them back, many more of these children would die. This country should not do anything to kill children who only want to be with their parents.
The Daily Caller is a lunatic right wing screed. More sane publications actually understand the nature of this issue.
-
It is impossible to prevent each and every person who wants to come to this country from entering the country.
It could easily be greatly reduced.
the endless bullshit sob story of "well we cant cut this bunch off" never ends
everyone here is cool....but no more....the gate needs to shut
Pick a cutoff date.....next year, two years, 5 years...whatever it is....the sooner the better.
Anyone after that date without proper documentation gets
No jobs, no housing, no gvt benefits, no utilities turned on, no vehicle titles, no medical care except dire emergency
if that happens in a significant way....they stop coming
they come because there is a benefit to them coming....duh
if the benefits are taken away....iron clad...they stop coming
it's actually rather simple....and most countries do not allow the bullshit sob story to ruin their country like we do
-
(https://classadz.vdata.com/SierraVistaCirc/images/logo.png)
National Sheriffs' group hears concerns of local ranchers
DEREK JORDAN | HERALD/REVIEW
Sun, 04/26/2015 - 6:32pm
SIERRA VISTA: Desperate for decisive action to stop the ever-present incursions across their lands by smugglers and illegal immigrants coming north, more than a dozen ranchers and residents from along Cochise County's border with Mexico spoke to representatives of a national sheriff's group on Saturday.
Invited to the area by Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels, two leading members of the National Sheriffs' Association visited with locals at the Turquoise Valley Golf Course in Naco to better understand the origin of an issue that has had a national impact.
"This is really where it starts. The sheriffs along the border, whether it's Arizona, Texas, New Mexico or California, it doesn't matter, they're the ones that catch the brunt of it. They're the ones that get the call from the citizens, like those ranchers we heard from. But, when those people get here, get across our border uncontested, then it becomes a national problem," said Harold Eavenson, the third vice president of the National Sheriffs' Association and sheriff of Rockwall County, Texas.
Decades of repairing broken fences, burglaries, home invasions and other crimes associated with smuggling activities have left many border residents disillusioned with U.S. Customs and Border Patrol enforcement, which they see as ineffective, and with elected officials in Washington who are either unaware of the problem or do not consider it a priority.
"The border can be secured, we've proved it in a lot of different areas where the Border Patrol has shut it down, but they've diverted them farther and farther out into the country, into these peoples' backyards. It can be secured, but they have to have a desire to do it, and they have to actually have some directions on how to do it," said Gary Thrasher, a large animal veterinarian who has worked with the ranching community in Cochise County for years.
Rancher Fred Davis lamented what he called a lack of innovation in Border Patrol efforts in Cochise County.
"They never try anything new here, they just pound their head against the wall, the same way they've done it forever," Davis said.
The source of the issue extends to the nation?s capitol, however.
"The main thing is, there's no will in Washington to shut down the border, and that?s our main problem," he said.
Many of the local ranchers spoke up in support of the efforts of the Cochise County Sheriff's Office, and called on federal leaders to work more closely with local law enforcement.
"What we really need is more involvement with local police and local sheriffs, in directing how to do it in their area, and they can specifically shut down those areas," Thrasher said.
When local agencies work closely with their federal partners, they produce results, said Sheriff Mark Dannels.
An example provided by the sheriff was the early success of a joint task force, the Southeastern Arizona Border Region Enforcement team, established in 2013 and made up of deputies and federal agents from the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
"The first six-to-eight weeks they were in operation, they took down 30 people. This is a collaborative effort," Dannels said. "What we're doing at the local level are solutions."
A number of other sheriffs from across Arizona were also present at Saturday?s meeting and spoke on the impacts that poor border security was having in their communities.
"The best way to explain it is, it's like a wave. It hits here, five hours later, it's hitting up there," said K. C. Clark, sheriff of Navajo County. "We have illegals going through there. We get into pursuits with them. They wreck cars, or drive them through communities."
Earlier this month, Pinal County Sheriff's Deputies pursued a man going over 100 m.p.h. on the interstate carrying a load of illegal immigrants. The driver, once caught, was found to have been departed from the country 20 times.
"We've got to enforce the law. There's got to be real consequences," said Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu.
Leaders in Washington need to take what is known to work and apply it on the border before a catastrophe occurs, he said.
"The culture of Mexico and Central America, they fear their military, and they all realize and know the American military is the most powerful in the world. Keep in mind they want to go without detection into the United States. So we have all these things working for us. We need to deploy armed soldiers, for a period of two years, not to militarize the border, but to gain control of the border, all nine sectors of the US. Border Patrol," Babeu said.
The National Sheriffs' Association can do more and will do more to get the message heard from local ranchers out to national leaders, Eaverson said.
"Someone made the point that, if you're going to fix the problem, you need to talk to the people that deal with it on a day-to-day basis, and you need to get them involved in the process, and he?s exactly right," he said. "It starts here, but it doesn't end here."
http://www.svherald.com/content/sierra-vista-news/2015/04/26/395733
-
The thing is, it has been drastically reduced, and those who piss and moan are pissing gallons instead of pints and moaning at even louder decibel rates. They will never be satisfied, because some of them actually WANT cheap illegal labor to keep flowing in, since they benefit from it. They say they do not because desperate illegals will work for even less.
They could do a lot more to prevent those from hiring illegals from doing so, bit they refuse because they have set up this phony goal of "sealing the border".
This can be done better in steps than in insisting that the border be "sealed" before anyone does anything.
The reality is that we will NEVER send back 11 million illegals. NOT gonna happen. Many of these people are hard workers, and some of them should and will be given a way to become citizens.
-
The thing is, it has been drastically reduced
But it is still HUGE!
It's not as big as it was....but still HUGE.
So lets not pretend it has been anywhere near solved.
They could do a lot more to prevent those from hiring illegals from doing so
Of course they can!
But the corruptness in Washington doesn't give a rats ass what the American People want.
The reality is that we will NEVER send back 11 million illegals. NOT gonna happen.
The one's here are not the primary problem....
the larger problem is cutting off the faucet.
we have enough already
we don't need millions more new illegals in the next decade
we don't need you saying in ten years "we cant send back 18 million illegals"
-
I would definitely not say our borders are unsecure but room for improvement I would agree. I was in mexico two years ago and it took me a legal naturalized citizen with documentation over 2.75 hrs to get back to the U.S. so unsecure is not the right word. I even got questioned. it`s not like I can blend in mexico.
-
There are somewhere near 12 million that are here illegally. Even if a few million are overstayed Visas, that leaves millions crossing thru what you call a secure border. In 2014 alone tens of thousands of women and children, many children unaccompanied by their parents, came to the United States from Central America. Most simply crossed the Rio Grande and turned themselves into to the Border Patrol. Already Obama called for an appropriation of $4 billion for this latest illegal invasion.
-
It is impossible to prevent each and every person who wants to come to this country from entering the country. There were lots of defections from East Germany to West Germany even when they had a 15 foot wall and the Volkpolitzei shot on sight.
That is a good example .
People had a lot of motivation to leave the strict and poverty stricken socialist state , so much that the place would have emptied without that very tough border.
In this case the poverty stricken state is not trying to slow the transfer , the wealthy one is.
If the problem is about one third less right now it seems that the main reason is that it is 33% more difficult to get a basic job .
So thanks President Obama , I don't know how you did it , but eventually when our standard of living is equal to that of Guatemala there will be no immigration problem whatsoever.
-
So thanks President Obama , I don't know how you did it , but eventually when our standard of living is equal to that of Guatemala there will be no immigration problem whatsoever.
================================================
True, you don't know how he did it, because HE DIDN'T DO IT. There are NOT "millions of people" entering illegally every week, month or year: that is CRAP.
When Reagan granted amnesty, all you reactionaries worshiped his sorry wrinkled ass, and still do. You elected Olebush, and more illegals came, and you were mute. You remained mostly mute through eight years of Clinton and eight more of Juniorbush. Now Obama has lowered the rate of entry considerable, deported more than his predecessors, and suddenly you ate blathering on about how the US will have the standard of living of Guatemala. The entire population of Guatemala is less than those who arrived between the time of Reagan and Juniorbush.
The thing is the idiot Republicans will do nothing until illegal crossings are zero, and even if they were zero they would simply LIE about it, because a large number of Republicans WANT illegals here and scared shitless of being deported. You are being used and lied to and are too effing stupid to admit it.
You should be THANKING President Obama for the job he has done. He has done a better job than anyone since Eisenhower at this. And we all know who did the worst job: REAGAN.
Take a look at any US/Mexico border sometime, with twelve lanes of traffic in both directions, and then maybe you would understand how no president will EVER manege to cut the rate of illegal entry to much lower than it is today/
-
There are NOT "millions of people" entering illegally every week, month or year
There better not be....that would be over a 100 million a year!
But there is still way too many!
-
What exactly was done , that reduced the influx of illegal immigrants?
Can we do more of it ?
Or would we starve from it?
-
Obama hired a lot more Border Patrol people, more walls and fences have been constructed.
It is less easy to get into this country than it has been in decades.
-
What exactly was done , that reduced the influx of illegal immigrants?
Governmental terms were changed, that dealt with how counting illegal immigrants was done. Specifically, they changed the parameters of deportation, by adding simple border crossings, that no other administration had done and whalaaa.....sudden "increase" in deportations, and related decrease in the influx of illegal immigrants
Can we do more of it ?
Sure, change more words.....change illegal to legal, and you've abolished the whole problem of illegal immigration
-
Obama hired a lot more Border Patrol people, more walls and fences have been constructed.
It is less easy to get into this country than it has been in decades.
You mean that the primary demand of the Republican Congressmen was given?
-
The border will NEVER be 100% secure. The fact is that Obama has done more to make the border more secure than anyone in this century.
The rightwing clowns that are backing inaction on immigration reform WANT insecure borders. They ENJOY hiring illegals who are terrified of being deported. They drive down the wages they have to offer and cause no problems with strikes, demands for a safer workplace and higher wages.
-
The border will NEVER be 100% secure.
No border, on the globe is "100% secure". That would include North Korea. So you can dispense with the irrelevent tangent, that that's what's expected with increased border security. The goal is to lessen illegal border crossings
The fact is that Obama has done more to make the border more secure than anyone in this century.
The fact is not only has he NOT made it more secure, he's pushed policies, even now unconstitutionally, to broadcast to all other nations, that if you can get here, you're in. His policies, and that of these so called "sanctuary cities" are a proverbial magnet for increased illegal immigration, with numbers now that dwarf any other time in history, as it relates to illegal immigration (not to be confused with legal immigration, which is fully supported by us "rightwing clowns
The rightwing clowns that are backing inaction on immigration reform WANT insecure borders.
Now here's where you really fall off the deep end. There is not one hard core conservative, ANYWHERE, who supports or wants "insecure borders". Immigration reform is absolutely necessary, BUT you have to stop the copious bleeding and incentives to cross 1st, which includes secruing the border, FAR BETTER, than it currently is. Not 100%, but with the goal of making it as secure as we possibly can. THEN we can start some serious dialog on actual immigration reform.
But it is beyond absurd to think that folks like myself or Cu4 actually wants a more pourus open border :o
-
There are all manner of industries, especially in meatpacking and agriculture, that depend on illegals for their cheap labor. And they contribute to the same rightwing politicians that blather about "sealing" the border.
-
And one more time...NOT ONE CONSERVATIVE I'M AWARE OF SUPPORTS THE IDEA, MUCH LESS WANTS, A POURUS UNSECURE BORDER. Quite the polar opposite in fact. But on planet Xo, up is down, and left is right apparently :o
-
Again.in the real world, NOTHING is EVER 100%
-
and AGAIN, NO ONE IS EXPECTING 100% SECURE, EITHER
-
You claim that 100% of all conservatives are for "secure borders" . I am pretty sure that this figure did not emerge from any serious poll that you took.
All I hear from the immigrant-hating right is how they refuse to do anything until the "border is secure". But they never, ever, provide any figures regarding what they would consider a secure border. Unless it is absolutely demonstrably 100% secure, then, they will continue to repeat this mantra, never giving what they consider to be acceptable figures.
And establishing a plan to allow someone who a job that he does well has lived here for a dozen years and has several children born here is unrelated to other people ostensibly sneaking into the country. All we hear from the ratbag right is "no amnesty!, no amnesty!" to any and all proposals, even those that deal with people whose children were born here and have been model citizens. Of course, the ratbag right knows that most of these people will not vote for Republicans who think of them and their kind as undesirables. I suppose a hideous bigot like Tom Tancredo might get 2% of the Mexican American vote, but the other 98% want affordable health care, better education for their children, job training for the unemployed and other things that the ratbag right thinks of as "Socialist".
Mexico has three major political parties: two of them have some form of the word "Revolucion" in their names, and the third, Acción Nacional, is affiliated with the Catholic Church, which these days is no best buddy of neocolonialism, either.
-
You claim that 100% of all conservatives are for "secure borders" .
NO, I DID NOT CLAIM THAT. I said there's not 1 conservative that has ever come out to support or want an "unsecure border". Understand the difference now of what I claimed vs how you twisted into something I never did?? That's what you practice, on a daily basis. But by all means, prove me wrong, and name a prominent conservative that does want an unsecure/porous border.
All I hear from the immigrant-hating right is how they refuse to do anything until the "border is secure".
Because until that is done FIRST, the motivation for those to come here illegally, remains. The policies being pushed by Democrats, the unconstitutional acts being performed by Obama, and the exisitance of so-called "sanctuary cities" create the waves of increasing illegal immigration, where we are literally importing poverty.
Not to mention that the "ILLEGAL immigrant hating right, can't trust a Democrat as far as they could throw one. So to expect that taking the word of someone like Obama, or any other Democrat that they'll eventually get tough on border enforcement, after all forms of concessions regarding immigration reform, is a non-starter
THAT's why securing the border comes 1st.
It slows down the massive waves of ILLEGAL imigration,
and
It demonstrates that Democrats are actually serious about dealing with ILLEGAL immigration, that can then be applied towards some serious immigration reform, that conservatives like myself actually do support and WANT.
It has absolutely squat to do with some nefarious under-the-table want of an unsecure border
-
In Vidalia the onion fields depend on migrant harvesters, a few years ago a crackdown almost shut down the whole harvest.
There used to be Americans harvesting these Onions, now it is presumed that American labor would raise the price of these onions to the rates of luxury food.
If the economy of our southern neighbors improves enough to keep these people at home , will we pay enough for our onions to hire Americans , or raise the pay of migrants enough to draw them across the border?
-
The cost of picking an onion is only a teensy pert of the cost. The problem with harvesting crops is that it is sporadic. You have lots of work one month, then none for the next eleven months. There is no system for making this sort of work into a job that someone with a family could depend on.
sirs is, as usual fuller of crap than the proverbial Yuletide turkey. A plan to provide some sort of permanent residency for people who have worked here for years is entirely unrelated to people sneaking across the border next Tuesday. It fills me with glee to demonstrate to him that he is so utterly full of it.
-
From my vantage as a Union member , Sirs is far too mild .
Illegal immigration drives down the floor for wages.
As an onion consumer , it is the opposite, it is good for me that the cost of harvest is small. The cost to pick is only a small part of the total cost as long as there are energetic workers willing to be quite productive for small pay.
So I am both ends of the problem, and from both directions I am disappointed in our government.
Not just recently, our immigration policies have been a mess for decades.
-
sirs is, as usual fuller of crap than the proverbial Yuletide turkey. A plan to provide some sort of permanent residency for people who have worked here for years is entirely unrelated to people sneaking across the border next Tuesday.
Wrong yet again. ITS ABSOLUTELY RELATED. Intimate in fact. FAILURE TO SECURE THE BORDER JUST INCENTIVIZES THAT MANY MORE MILLIONS TO ILLEGALLY sneak across our border next Tuesday, IN HOPES OF "Working here for years". It's a perpetual self fueling POVERTY spiral, which provides me with glee to demonstrate to you that he you are AGAIN so utterly full of it. ::)
-
Illegal immigration drives down the floor for wages.
Absolutely it does!
-
uhm if it`s bad to drive down the floor for wages doesn`t that mean it`s a great idea to increase minimum wages.
-
If you work in an old folks' home in Miami, you must be there 24 hours a day.
It pays $60, it you are lucky.
But you do get free food and a cot to sleep on.
If you are illegal, you get paid piecework wages. If they say you can pick 30 bushels an hour, then that is what you get. A minimum wage of $8.00 an hour comes to 26 cents a bushel.
-
uhm if it`s bad to drive down the floor for wages doesn`t that mean it`s a great idea to increase minimum wages.
both are bad because they are artificial
the illegals are just that....they're illegal
so they should not even be here
minimum wage is also artificial in that the market is not setting the wage
raising the minimum wage is a hidden tax on soccer moms and everybody else.
Burger King simply raises the price of their food to cover the increased cost of wages
-
the market has set the wages in the past and it`s the reason minimum wage came about and since it`s been around the economy seems to bar the brunt and flourish even extremely well. this new increase is simply a cost of living adjustment due to the past decade of delays. any damage cause from it will becauses businesses did adjust wages in timely manner. seriously if you inventory goes up in price exactly what excuse do you have for not adjusting wages also. labor is overhead also.
-
Some states have their own minimum-wage standards that are higher than the federal rate
the states are free to demand that workers earn more per hour than the federal $7.25 level
but may not pass laws that pay workers less.
I hope California raises their minimum wage to $20 an hour
and even more companies would say "Cya"!
-
not $20 but $15 and it doesn`t look like their packing up . it`s been calculated for fast food the wage increase would overall be less than 30cents per item. so it`s very unlikely large business will leave due to wages. costly regulations is another matter.
-
No one is going to pack up a McDonald's in LA and move it to Texas.
Some businesses can move and others cannot.
Texas may be a great place to OWN a business, but California is a better place to work in one.
-
Or in most of the cases, those small businesses just close up, here in CA....so no one works
-
it`s already happening but then I notice those that closed already had two thing against them. 1. their places I don`t normally goto 2. I never heard of them till they closed. meaning they were likely gonna go away . all the places I liked that closed are due to lack of business any that closes now will more likely close due to lack of business also.
meaning increased wages is not likely the main problem. thiers a limit to how many Egyptian themed trinkets you can sell in san Francisco, hemped handsbags,organic shoes, Chinese porcelain.
it`s a very sad inside fact us Chinese don`t care for Chinese porcelain and still stores keep popping thinking we`ll buy enough to support their business.
-
Texas may be a great place to OWN a business, but California is a better place to work in one.
There you go!
That hits the nail on the head.
Most businesses are started by entrepreneurs.
Most businesses are directed by executives.
If more businesses were founded and run by the employees the California method would work better.
-
The minimum wage has failed to rise with inflation for many, many years.
-
texas has great potential. the current trend is for businesses to only hired ready made employee and never bother to train. texas instrument doesn`t not follow that model and is famous for it`s training program. I`m very partial to T.I. way of doing businesses. if other texas business is similar then it`ll not lose due to talent unlike others are complaining about the lack of talent currently.
I`m not supporting the increase of wages due to inflation. I`m supporting due to it`s effect to the economy. lower wages means lower profitable spending. lower spending on higher items means no profit for businesses. a nation of Walmart spenders will mean no home,car or computer owners
-
Higher minimum wages are not enforced on illegal aliens nor on black market labor.
If you raised the minimum wage higher , you do get a larger black market of labor.
Some year lets raise minimum wage high enough to put everyone out of legal work, the result would not be no one working, the result would be the conversion of the entire economy to black market labor .
On the black market , no one can demand more for their labor than it is worth.
-
yes the black market will be larger but not to large their are natural limits for how much a business can spend under the counter. so it`ll never be at a serious blatant level. notice all thoses nanny scandals from politicians.
-
yes the black market will be larger but not to large their are natural limits for how much a business can spend under the counter. so it`ll never be at a serious blatant level. notice all thoses nanny scandals from politicians.
There are also natural limits to how much the government can declare value by fiat.
When the government approaches these limits , it destroys jobs and potential jobs.
Some of these jobs move to other jurisdictions , some of them become black market jobs, and some of the jobs are just gone.
How many people are pumping gas for the customer now?
The demand for full service gas stations never was lessened , but the value was less than could support the higher minimum wage.
Since full service gas stations are hard to make secret, hard to move elsewhere, this job was destroyed entirely.
-
actually it`s partially that . my family used to own a service station and people eventually preferred to pump their own gas instead of paying extra for the service. we eventually had to let him go and made all the pump self-service. it really pissed all those fake handi-capped drivers. they tend to be the only ones who want full service
-
There are probably some people who are too incapacitated to pump their own gas, like those extremely fat folks that require a wheelchair to get around in.
But they are a small number compared to people who were just too lazy.
Australia has a minimum wage of $16 per hour, and a booming economy. People who talk about abolishing or refusing to raise the minimum NEVER mention Australia, though we know they would if it did not disprove their right wing theories.
People have to earn enough to feed, clothe and house themselves.
-
food and clothes yes but housing is not exactly viable. the chaos in that market is so high that the topic of wages is hardly possible. I`m quite amazed we`ve haven`t made living in our cars acceptable. it`s would totally make owning a suv more popular
-
Texas may be a great place to OWN a business, but California is a better place to work in one.
yeah ask the employees that stay after their company leaves how great it is to be out of a job
(Texas=#14th best in nation in unemployment......Cali is #43rd best in nation in unemployment)
http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm
and ask the one's that move how it is selling a "shit home" for
$400K in Cali and getting a beautiful home in Texas for the same or less.
-
The poorest counties in the nation are in Texas.
It is hard to beat out Mississippi, this deserves some sort of commendation.
The amount a job pays in both CA and TX depends on the sort of job it is.
And then there is the weather. It is pretty hard to beat Houston or Brownsville for world-class mugginess.
I would prefer New Mexico to either, actually.
-
The poorest counties in the nation are in Texas.
Texas is so big...people can probably if they try hard enough find the best and worst of a bunch of stuff.
People "vote with their feet"....and that's a big reason why Texas is growing so much faster than California.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_growth_rate
According to you.....Cali is so much better for the worker....but it's funny people aren't flocking there
like they are flocking to the state with "the poorest counties in the nation"......ha ha lol
But I'm glad you like where you are and other places....because we already have enough people moving here.
-
Like Texas, Florida has an idiot for a governor.
We have too many people here as well. But still, I like it better than my home state of Missouri.
There is lots of room in Texas. There is Loving County, with the highest per capita income in the state.
And in 2010, it had 82 residents.
It had the first female sheriff in the state, and *gasp* she never carried a gun.
-
(http://s16.postimg.org/g7vfx1hv9/Texas_God.png)
-
It had the first female sheriff in the state, and *gasp* she never carried a gun.
Context *gasp* means everything. Are you implying she didn't have immediate access to a gun, if she needed one? Or that there was no violent crime in her area, such that she didn't have a need to carry one?
-
A cursory quick looksee to check out the latest xo "claim" leaves us again......wanting for some facts. Who exactly are you referring to, xo? Emma Banister, who simply stayed on the last 3 months of her husband's term.......in 1918??
-
judging from the still rising prices in my surrounding area. I`m not exactly convinced thiers that great of a migration of Californians to texas. cost wise texas is very attractive so it`s still a wait and see situation.
p.s. $400k?? try 550k+ I wasn`t kidding about the rising prices. California is the place to work then cash it all to retire elsewhere.
-
Loving County was the home of the first elected female sheriff in Texas, Edna Reed Clayton Dewees. Dewees was appointed to the job in January 1945, then won an election to continue in the office through 1947. She never carried a firearm, and reported only two arrests during her entire term. Later she would return as a county district clerk, a job she held from 1965 to 1986. After retirement she lived on a ranch near Mentone[6] until 22 January 2009 when she died in Del Rio.[7]
This is from the Wikipedia entry for Loving County.
sirs apparently is not good at looking or seeing.
-
You didn't claim "'elected". You claimed 1st female texas sheriff, in which case that'd be Bannister. Now that you've clarified the "who" you were referring to, what exactly is the context in which she didn't carry a gun? No violent crime, so no need? Pretty paltry population, even in her time, less than the fictional Mayberry, it would seem. Could she access one, if she needed one right away?
-
...... Could she access one(gun), if she needed one right away?
In Texas, ....
This seems like a silly question.
-
Well Plane, the initial tangential inference was along the lines that the sheriff didn't carry a gun, but no actual context as to why, much less any factual support for the claim to begin with. ???
-
She did not carry a gun because she did noit think she needed to, and after years as a sheriff, this proved to be a correct decision.
Notice how sirs likes to quibble. It is all he does: quibble, quibble quibble.
-
She did not carry a gun because she did noit think she needed to
And if that were actually the case, (which we still have absolutely nothing in factual back up to this claim of yours), ....good for her. With folks like myself its always been about rights and freedom to exercise those rights. If one doesn't think they need to carry one, fine....don't. If this sheriff lived in such a rural county, where the greatest crime was oversleeping, then its likely that's why she didn't believe she needed to carry one, although I'm just as sure, that as sheriff, she would have amble ability to access one, lickity-split
Contrary to twisted thought, no one, outside of Plane, is supporting the notion that everyone SHOULD be made to have a gun, much less carry one. Nor should anyone be "shamed" into thinking they need to carry one. That's a personal decison
Notice how sirs likes to quibble.
Notice how xo fails to provide any factual back-up. All he does is deflect, deflect, deflect
-
I think it is obvious why a cop would not carry a gun, and that is because they do not think they have a need for it.
Of course, sirs HAS to have LOTS of guns because the Constitution spoke to him and told him so.
-
I think it is obvious why a cop would not carry a gun, and that is because they do not think they have a need for it.
I think I just said that already. Glad you agree with me ::) of course, at this point, its still just your say so, vs actual factual back-up
Of course, sirs HAS to have LOTS of guns because the Constitution spoke to him and told him so.
The Constitution gives me the right. It didn't speak to me, any more than it spoke to me about the right to free speech. And I only have 3. I don't think that gets anywhere close to the notion of "lots". then again, a liberal's dictionary is pretty mutated, where anything greater than 1 is probably "lots"
-
You have at most two hands. I agree that many people have more than that. But three is more than you can use at once.
-
From a safety standpoint, you would never use more than 1 at any time, regardless of 2 hands or 20 hands ::)
-
...and before the obligatory response comes in proclaiming how if that's the case, why the hell do I have 3, if I only need one?.......because it has nothing to do with "need". You aren't limited to set limit on words, when exercising your free speech. You aren't limited to how many religions you can practice, under the 1st amendment. Nor is this advocating that anyone should have access to an infinate # of firearms either. Only those lawfully able to have a firearm should posess them.
That said, a responsible gun owner can have as many as they can safely manage, as far as I'm concerned. It's about "rights", not need
-
What is the maximum number you can "safely manage"?
-
What is the maximum number you can "safely manage"?
That is a good question.
Someone who wants a collection should consider this.
I have met a collector who would have needed a week to inventory, and he didn't know me.
Working in his house his eyes never left me.
-
What is the maximum number you can "safely manage"?
If you take the appropriate safety measures, there is no "max number". What's the max number of religions you can practice?
-
Each of the Big Three Sand people religions claim that you can have but ONE religion.
If you pick Judaism or Islam, you cannot pick Christianity, because of the bit about the Trinity.
If you pick Judaism or Christianity, Mohammad is not recognized as a prophet.
If you pick Christianity or Islam, Judaism does not recognize Jesus as a Messiah or a Messiah as a son of God.
Each claims to be the one true religion. If you are a follower of one of them, you cannot follow any other.
You can be a Taoist and a Buddhist, and there are people who follow Shinto and Buddhism.
Buddhism does not address the afterlife at all. Taoism and Shinto and Confucianism deal with reverence for the ancestors, and may recognize the presence of spirits, but do not advocate the worship of spirits, certainly not all of them.
There are many fewer religions than guns. I don't see any relationship. If you are worshiping firearms, you are some sort of wacko.
It is not like you could kill someone or defend yourself with a religion, or even hunt with one.
-
Each of the Big Three Sand people religions claim that you can have but ONE religion.
Didn't ask that, now did I. I asked, that in this country, are you limited by how many religions you can practice. The answer is NO. You are also not limited to how many words you can express when criticizing the Government, under the 1st amendment. That concept applies to EVERY ONE of our rights, as American citizens
-
There are two questions implied.
What should be the legal limit?
What is the practical limit?
For religions and guns the limits need to be infinite else we allow the government to be in the business of mind control and have no fear of the population.
Practical limits are very different.
There are a lot of religions that make bad parings, but it should not be a matter of law else we invite the government to evaluate and regulate religion.
Having a lot of guns can bust a poor mans budget, and no one should have even one gun that is carelessly handled or kept vulnerable to theft. But allowing the government to call this number tempts the government to make itself safe from the people.
-
Having a lot of guns can bust a poor mans budget, and no one should have even one gun that is carelessly handled or kept vulnerable to theft. But allowing the government to call this number tempts the government to make itself safe from the people.
BINGO....which is why I prefaced my comments, that as long as the gun owner is acting responsibly and safely, they can have as many as they wish, as far as I'm concerned. Rights should have no limits, until someone acts recklessly, or worse, criminally. That's when rights are revoked. But not until then. Nor do you punish the law abiding for the acts of those set on killing by trying to limit, if not ban various firearms. The Constitution is specifically designed to LIMIT government intervention --> oppression. Especially the 1st 10. Not the other way around
-
The government at the time the Constitution was written did not have the power to take away anyone's guns.
-
That makes no sense...especially if you're inferring that when they do have the power.....they can/should?? Seriously? If that's not what you're inferring, why write into the Constitution, of all things, that which they couldn't do in the 1st place??
-
As I said before, the historic basis of the US was expansion of White settlements to the West, onto land occupied by Indians, who often took umbrage at the palefaces taking their land and preventing them from hunting on it, and slavery, which tended to result in slaves escaping and not willing to return to the degree that they attacked the patrolers whose job it was to bring them back, and rebellions. Both required the citizens to have access to firearms, which gave them an advantage over the Indians and the escaped slaves.
I think it is pretty clear from European history that disarming the populace was a common thing for governments to do. The Spanish painter Goya, in his "Disastres de Guerra" etchings show men garroted with a knife tied around his neck with a cord and a sign saying "he had a knife" The French removed Fernando of Spain and put Napoleon's brother Joseph upon the throne. The English did not like this and invaded Spain and there was a very bloody campaign in which the British soldiers, who were few, taught the techniques of guerrilla warfare to the Spanish. These were the techniques the same British officers had learned from the American patriots, who, in turn, learned them from the Indians.
So your Cherished Holy Amendment was written into the Constitution because the Founding Fathers knew that weapons in the home were essential in giving an advantage over the White settlers over their red and black potential enemies. They also anticipated a time in which the government would have the power to disarm the populace. There were Abolitionists in this country from before its founding. John Adams and his son, to name two.
-
The government at the time the Constitution was written did not have the power to take away anyone's guns.
When the British occupied Boston they confiscated a lot of arms , the inventory of captured arms is one of the best evidences we have of the number of guns percapata in the pre revolution population.
I would make the exact opposite connection between abolition and guns than you do.
Justice Taney wrote of the Dred Scott case that it was impossible to recognize the citizenship of a black person without also recognizing his right to own a gun , which he considered ridiculous.
There was a lot of gun control intended to prevent non-citizens, like Indians and Black people ,from having any relief from vulnerability.
After the Civil War there was no longer any legal force in rules that would prevent the rights of citizenship to Black people , but there was a defacto extralegal set of rules that often amounted to the same thing. In a few instances armed Black persons defended themselves successfully, where this could not be done vulnerability was still the rule.
I don't know whether Indians have ever gotten relief from gun control , I better look that up before further comment.
-
As I said before, the historic basis of the US was expansion of White settlements to the West, onto land occupied by Indians, who often took umbrage at the palefaces taking their land and preventing them from hunting on it, and slavery, which tended to result in slaves escaping and not willing to return to the degree that they attacked the patrolers whose job it was to bring them back, and rebellions. Both required the citizens to have access to firearms, which gave them an advantage over the Indians and the escaped slaves.
and Absolutely NONE of that has a damn to do with the purpose and rationale of the 2nd amendment ::) The ink to the Constitution, and Bill of Rights in particular, was long dry before we started heading out to do the settler chaa chaa with your redskins, nor did it have anything to do with trying to keep your blackies in line. That's an effort on your part, and like minds, in trying to rewrite history, while ignoring the clear words of the Constitution itself
-
It has EVERYTHING to do with it.
Damn, you are ignorant. You don't know shit about this country.
There are people in Zamboanga that know more.
-
It has EVERYTHING to do with it.
Alas, you have SQUAT facts support that claim. What you have are selected historical references, and somehow you magically connect that to the basis of the 2nd amendment. That'd like me claiming that the 1st amendment was specific to teachers who could also preach under the same roof, in some outback location in Tmbukto, Kentucky. Because x happened, doesn't mean that's why a was the basis of it
What, you are horribly ignorant is, is the history of the Constitution, and why it came about. NONE of it had squat to do with settlers heading west or slaves. If it did, there's be actual written reference to that connection. There is none, because there is no connection. The wording is cyrstal clear as to why the Constitution came to be......we just won a war against an oppressive Government, and our Founders put in place the legal mechancisms that we should not become one ourselves
-
What a sorry rant that was!
-
What a sorry excuse for refuting it, that was ::)
-
......., there's be actual written reference to that connection. .......
There is something in the Declaration of Independence. Where the crimes of the king are enumerated.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
This is true too, this is why Tecumseh died in a British officers uniform.
The Indian wars were one reason that almost everyone needed a good weapon.
Distrust of government was another one.
I am not aware of any federal effort to ensure that Slave catchers would be armed, since they were bounty hunters I expect that mostly they armed themselves.
From our distance slave catching seems like a disgusting practice and its approval in federal law a disgrace.
But we think of escaping slaves as decent people seeking freedom, the abolitionist POV has won out in the end.
These people were closer to Denmark Vessey and Nat Turner than they are to us, and often regarded disobedient slaves with fear.
Nor was it universally accepted that Negro people were people. Darwin thought that they were,Louis Agassiz thought that they weren't, this was the state of science at the time.
Just like now , when a science question is politically important , the quality of the science suffers.
(http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Am_I_not_a_man-276x300.jpg)Am I not a man and a brother? (The Offical Medallion of the British Anti-Slavery Society)
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/top-10-letters-human
-
There are people in Zamboanga that know more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zamboanga_City
Why wouldn't there be?
-
With all due respect Plane, .... a vague reference to the Declaration, is hardly a direct connection to why the 2nd amendment of the Constitution. Our anti 2nd amendment liberal professor may wish there were a connection, and thus make one up....that hardly makes it so, however
-
Thanks for the due respect, that is the way to play.
The best understanding of these documents comes from understanding their context and the intent in which they were written.
The King absolutely did confiscate a lot of arms , his soldiers were on their way to confiscate more when fighting broke out in Concord.
The People in general hated this and felt alienation towards the king for it.
There were more bears in the woods then, and Indian wars and slave uprisings and bandits .
And Hessians , don't forget the Hessians.
If the King had succeeded in confiscating all of the muskets and cannon that the people owned his job of governing the colonies might have been a lot easier.
Notice how alarmed the writers of the declaration of independence were at the deal the king made with Canada.
If the King had of won, Canada might have a border with Mexico.
Having guns made a lot of difference in how well our people could be bent to the kings will.
-
The Second Amendment was not designed to arm slave patrols, just to allow them to arm themselves without government interference.]
The British disarmed some Colonials, and surely some patriots disarmed British partisans. Neither side had a sterling code of ethics. It was a war.
-
................. and surely some patriots disarmed British partisans............
Oh?
I know about some that were shot and some that were exiled , who got disarmed?
-
The Second Amendment was not designed to arm slave patrols, just to allow them to arm themselves without government interference.]
That was neither its intention nor function. It merely was happenstance
-
Thanks for the due respect, that is the way to play.
I respond to that how I am treated
The best understanding of these documents comes from understanding their context and the intent in which they were written.
The King absolutely did confiscate a lot of arms , his soldiers were on their way to confiscate more when fighting broke out in Concord.
The People in general hated this and felt alienation towards the king for it.
There were more bears in the woods then, and Indian wars and slave uprisings and bandits .
And Hessians , don't forget the Hessians.
If the King had succeeded in confiscating all of the muskets and cannon that the people owned his job of governing the colonies might have been a lot easier.
Notice how alarmed the writers of the declaration of independence were at the deal the king made with Canada.
If the King had of won, Canada might have a border with Mexico.
Having guns made a lot of difference in how well our people could be bent to the kings will.
Pretty much the point I've been making all along. The intentions of the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with settlers or slaves, and everything to do with trying to prevent the very thing they just fought a war over, an oppressive Government (or Monarchy, if you want to use the more accurate term of the time), gaining more and more power, at the expense of more and more freedoms from its citizenry
-
Yeah, Jefferson, Adams, Washington, NONE of them had a clue that there were savage Indians and all manner of lawless people of every race that posed a threat in the sparsely populated parts of the country. They were ENTIRELY UNAWARE that a majority of the population of this country were near subsistence farmers, and that the wealthiest Plantations were staffed b slaves that did not enjoy being slaves and dreamed of escaping./
They were, however entirely aware that in 2015 there would be a bunch of fanatic gun nuts led by a has been actor that would yearn to own entire arsenals of firearms that had not yet been invented that could pop off dozens of bullets as fast as the shooter could pull the trigger. The were keenly aware that suburban gun nuts thought that they should own as many guns as they could afford so they could overthrow the government when it started harassing the people with black helicopters and drones.
-
Yeah, Jefferson, Adams, Washington, NONE of them had a clue that there were savage Indians and all manner of lawless people of every race that posed a threat in the sparsely populated parts of the country.
Of course they did. That however still wasn't the foundation, nor intention, for the 2nd amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. ::)
-
Because before you were even born, you read their minds.
All the Founding Fathers were NRA members before they were even born.
-
actually, after I was born, I read the Constitution. No mind reading necessary. Here's a hint....there's NOTHING in there that references, or even infers that either settlers or slaves as the rationale to the 2nd amendment. There IS however direct reference to inhibiting an over-zealous Government from over-stepping its power/authority, as a foundation to the entire Bill of Rights, the 1st and 2nd, particular
-
The reality of the nature of the United States was known to the Founding Fathers, and they were writing a Constitution for that country. Not Belarus or Turkmenistan, Tannu Tuva or Outer Mongolia.
The Constitution was not written by God. God did not even dictate it.
-
Cudos on the misdirection, but the point still stands.....the Constitution, was put in place, with specific and clearly written references in limiting what the Federal Government could do to the people of the United States. The Bill of Rights, in particular. THEN AS WELL AS NOW
NO WHERE, DOES IT REFERENCE THAT THE 2ND AMENDMENT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH SETTLERS OR SLAVES
-
It did not need to refer to settlers or slaves. That was a given.
It does not mention food in the Constitution, or pavement or that rivers have water in them.
-
It did not need to refer to settlers or slaves. That was a given.
Yes it did. There was no "given", merely happenstance. You can't just make up some bogus connection, and claim its just there, thereby supposedly justifying how out of date the 2nd amendment really is. The 2nd amendment, as the rest of the Bill of rights, can't be made any clearer.....and they have NOTHING to do with settlers or slaves. They ALL have a direct connection to limiting the power the Federal Government
Now, once you get past the Bill of Rights, the 14th amendment DOES have a direct connection to slaves
It does not mention food in the Constitution, or pavement or that rivers have water in them.
You're right.....and......you have some point to make?? :o You have no "right" to food, or pavement, or water in rivers. You have every right to enjoy any and all of them, wherever you can get them
-
It did not need to refer to settlers or slaves. That was a given.
I don't think that it is a given.
The Second Amendment mentions that a Militia is needed , then states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.
I take this in the context of the objectionable behavior of the King a few years before, denying to the people their right to form militia and arm themselves against the threats that they perceived .
The different threats might be given more or less weight as you please, that is just opinion.
But what the Second amendment specifically forbids is behavior like the king had indulged in just a few years before.
Who is it forbidding this behavior?
The government is forbidden this behavior.
All of the first ten amendments are limits on government power.
-
Yet we have no militia as we did until the Mexican American War. After the Civil War, local militias vanished. In the South, the Whites hated the Union and did not want to defend it. They preferred to join the Invisible Nation of the KKK. In the North, people were sick of war. Originally, the local militias only required members to sign up for a year or less. During the war, a lot of militia members were dragooned into the armies of the USA and the CSA and not permitted to go home after their militia obligations were fulfilled.
The militia is no longer a valid excuse for unrestricted hoarding of firearms.
-
There is just as much risk as ever there was that the government might become irredeemably oppressive.
The Militias were never really abolished , they have just become much less common.
Perhaps we should have them back?
-
Militias as formed by communities before the Mexican American War are not rare, they are totally nonexistent. There are some buffoons who dress up in camo and pretend to be militias, but they are not authorized by any local government. Militias as mentioned in thr 2nd Amendment are extinct.
-
Not having them does not prove that we do not need them.
What are those "buffoons" failing to do?
If they do the same as Abraham Lincoln did when he became a militia captain what makes them different?
-
What our anti-gun Professor fails to accept, in which it has been presented multiple times before is that there are 2 forms of "militia". One is the "organized" version, that would be an arm of the Government, such as the National Guard, so is immediately NOT the militia that the Founders were referring to in the 2nd amendment. The other is the "unorganized" version which is defined as all able bodied males NOT part of the organized militia
In other words, its we the people......which is 100% consistent with the context of the rest of the Bill of Rights. Its ludicrous to think that the Founders wrote the Constitution, and specifically, the Bill of Rights, referencing all Americans......except the 2nd most important amendment, (only behind freedom of speech/press/religion), which would only pertain to some specific subset of America. That makes as much sense as the pulling out of the air notion that the 2nd amendment was about slaves & settlers.
The 2nd amendment to the United States of America, just like the rest of the Bill of Rights, was/is:
- Specific limitations placed on the Federal Government
- Inclusive to every American, that could be legally applied to
Period
-
There are "two kinds of militia"? That is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.
The concept that the collective body of gun nuts, firearm collectors and obsessed wackos does not constitute any sort of militia.
-
Yea, there are. The organized version, which would be at the control of the Government, such as the National Guard, and the unorganized version, that would be everyone else. As noted before, the concept & context is consistent with the rest of the Bill of Rights, which applies to "everyone else"
-
The idea that any fool with a gun is officially a defender of the country is idiotic.
The National Guard is not at all what the Founders had in mind as any sort of militia, which was something organized by towns and counties.
The militia as mentioned in the Constitution has been extinct for well over a century.
-
The idea that any fool with a gun is officially a defender of the country is idiotic.
Yet, that IS the idea
The National Guard is not at all what the Founders had in mind as any sort of militia, which was something organized by towns and counties.
Which is why I made it clear that it wasn't, since the National Guard is an organized version, and more importantly, an arm of the Government ::)
The militia as mentioned in the Constitution has been extinct for well over a century.
The militia, as mentioned in the Constitution, is alive and well, in every able bodied American, who can legally own/carry a firearm, and not a member of an organized militia, such as the National Guard
-
Cornell University Law School (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311)
U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
Current through Pub. L. 114-9. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
AS IN EVERY ABLE BODIED AMERICAN WHO CAN LEGALLY OWN/CARRY A FIREARM