A three point plan to end illegal immigration

[LA Grant]

6 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

I'll point out that Grant's belief that people ignorant of the ideas being discussed should be encouraged to have strong opinions about them and seek out legislation to those ends is a horrible idea.

 

We don't need people legislating things they don't understand, being led around by their noses by people driving agendas.  We need an informed citizenry.  We need to challenge people to become experts on all sides of subjects which they care about, and only then to voice strong opinions. 

 

The situation Grant describes as ideal is a ground made fertile for bad actors, painting themselves as experts, to herd people like lemmings into situations they don't understand because they have been told to do so.  Governing by emotional, angry mob who don't understand the issue is a terrible idea, will lead to nothing but violence, and is the antithesis of a free society.

 

Important to note:  in the same post Grant celebrates governance via ignorance, and the outsourcing of critical thinking; he also tells you whom the experts are that you need to believe, while summarily dismissing the experts on the other side of the issue as evil.  Consider how dangerous this is.

 

He tells you not to bother understanding all sides of the issue, then tells you what to think, and who to believe.  And what he's telling you to do is to surrender not only your rights, but the rights of all Americans including those of your children, and the rights of billions of Americans not yet born.

 

But you should trust him.  And you should be passionate and unthinking in your devotion.

 

This is 100% incorrect and misrepresenting my post. That is probably why Tasker chose to not quote my post in his response to it. He's been doing this lately, trying to get away with pot-shots against my name without directly engaging me. Hard to find any other definition for that behavior besides "cowardly." Tasker has countless posts accusing others of dishonesty, or attacking straw-men, yet just as frequently pulls these shenanigans. Every attack from a conservative ends up a projection of their own guilt, it seems.

 

The one thing we agree on is "We need an informed citizenry. " What we apparently don't agree on is: "We also need an active citizenry." 

 

Tasker fancies himself an intellectual. "The smartest man in the room." Which is a joke, you can smell the fedora from across the country... but his belief is real. Rather than a democratic society, it sounds like Tasker would prefer an oligarchy of technocrats, of which he imagines himself one. If their policies affect you & you don't like it --- "sorry, tough luck. Leave it to us, the experts!" Tasker wants the political process to be as exclusionary to the public as possible, apparently.

 

In Tasker's view, you aren't entitled to your opinion on society... unless you agree with him. Until he deems you "expert" enough. He will "Take You To Tasker" through a fundamentally anti-democratic anti-American viewpoint — like he is now, advocating against voting rights — then just as soon lecture you on how actually it's exactly what the Founders intended. Ludicrous.

 

The irony here is that Tasker, an ignoramus, thinks himself superior. I'm "dangerous" because I'm advocating for your basic right to vote. Boyst can't read above a third-grade level, and he still gets one vote. Trump, similar ability, is president. The trouble with intelligent people is they tend to be cautious -- they have become intelligent because they're willing to learn, whereas the ignorant are supremely confident in what they think they know.

 

Tasker's misbegotten confidence is a pure example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. He's stated multiple times he thinks Trump will be regarded as a hero equal to George Washington in the history books, for just one example of why Tasker is a very confused and silly, silly man.

 

Quote

The situation Grant describes as ideal is a ground made fertile for bad actors, painting themselves as experts, to herd people like lemmings into situations they don't understand because they have been told to do so.  Governing by emotional, angry mob who don't understand the issue is a terrible idea, will lead to nothing but violence, and is the antithesis of a free society.

 

Everything you described there ... also works as a description of Trump's election. How else do describe MAGA rallies than "emotional angry mob who don't understand the issue... lead to nothing but violence... antithesis of a free society"? Try to tell me any of that doesn't apply. So your worst case scenario description matches what you think is the realization of your fantasy. In other words, it's where we are at now. The difference is you refuse to recognize MAGA Trump voters as the "emotional, angry mob who don't understand the issue" because then you would be worst case scenario. So that's present day. That's our starting point. 

 

Quote

 

Important to note:  in the same post Grant celebrates governance via ignorance, and the outsourcing of critical thinking; he also tells you whom the experts are that you need to believe, while summarily dismissing the experts on the other side of the issue as evil.  Consider how dangerous this is.

 

He tells you not to bother understanding all sides of the issue, then tells you what to think, and who to believe.  And what he's telling you to do is to surrender not only your rights, but the rights of all Americans including those of your children, and the rights of billions of Americans not yet born.

 

But you should trust him.  And you should be passionate and unthinking in your devotion.

 

 

Consider that in Tasker's post above, he is quite literally telling you what to think, accusing me of the same. Except, I don't tell "you" what to think. I tell you to not rely solely on provably junk news sources. I advocate for including the NYTimes in one's daily reading; not as the only source, but as a consistent one. Tasker says "don't believe that; only believe me and my sources. I'm an expert." 

 

Decide for yourself. Do so by looking at a variety of sources. My point, again, is that you are entitled to your vote, and therefore, your opinion. Don't let any fool here tell you otherwise. 

Edited April 7, 2018 by LA Grant

[3rdnlng]

7 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

This is 100% incorrect and misrepresenting my post. That is probably why Tasker chose to not quote my post in his response to it. He's been doing this lately, trying to get away with pot-shots against my name without directly engaging me. Hard to find any other definition for that behavior besides "cowardly." Tasker has countless posts accusing others of dishonesty, or attacking straw-men, yet just as frequently pulls these shenanigans. Every attack from a conservative ends up a projection of their own guilt, it seems.

 

The one thing we agree on is "We need an informed citizenry. " What we apparently don't agree on is: "We also need an active citizenry." 

 

Tasker fancies himself an intellectual. "The smartest man in the room." Which is a joke, you can smell the fedora from across the country... but his belief is real. Rather than a democratic society, it sounds like Tasker would prefer an oligarchy of technocrats, of which he imagines himself one. If their policies affect you & you don't like it --- "sorry, tough luck. Leave it to us, the experts!" Tasker wants the political process to be as exclusionary to the public as possible, apparently.

 

In Tasker's view, you aren't entitled to your opinion on society... unless you agree with him. Until he deems you "expert" enough. He will "Take You To Tasker" through a fundamentally anti-democratic anti-American viewpoint — like he is now, advocating against voting rights — then just as soon lecture you on how actually it's exactly what the Founders intended. Ludicrous.

 

The irony here is that Tasker, an ignoramus, thinks himself superior. I'm "dangerous" because I'm advocating for your basic right to vote. Boyst can't read above a third-grade level, and he still gets one vote. Trump, similar ability, is president. The trouble with intelligent people is they tend to be cautious -- they have become intelligent because they're willing to learn, whereas the ignorant are supremely confident in what they think they know.

 

Tasker's misbegotten confidence is a pure example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. He's stated multiple times he thinks Trump will be regarded as a hero equal to George Washington in the history books, for just one example of why Tasker is a very confused and silly, silly man.

 

Consider that in Tasker's post above, he is quite literally telling you what to think, accusing me of the same. Except, I don't tell you what to think. I tell you to not rely solely on provably junk news sources. I advocate for including the NYTimes in one's daily reading; not as the only source, but as a consistent one. Tasker says "don't believe that; only believe me and my sources. I'm an expert." 

 

Again. The attack is a projection of his own guilt.

 

Decide for yourself. Do so by looking at a variety of sources. My point, again, is that you are entitled to your vote, and therefore, your opinion. Don't let any fool here tell you otherwise. 

Sometimes posters don't quote another poster because they are sparing all the posters that have that poster on "ignore" from having to read hisshit. I've been around here for years, as well as Tasker has. We don't always agree, but I've never found him to be dishonest. You, on the other hand were probably pegged here from your first few posts by the majority of people who post here. You are not only intellectually dishonest but lack any depth. Honestly, I don't know why I even responded to you since you are not worth any of my time.

[/dev/null]

2 hours ago, joesixpack said:

 

My end goal? Eliminate illegal immigration. Also of note: nations like Japan, Australia and Canada all employ FAR stricter standards than we do. We could use a higher quality of immigrant.

 

The end goal with immigration should be to attract productive contributors, not to reward consumers of public services in the hope that in a generation or two or three their offspring might be productive

[row_33]

4 hours ago, joesixpack said:

 

My end goal? Eliminate illegal immigration. Also of note: nations like Japan, Australia and Canada all employ FAR stricter standards than we do. We could use a higher quality of immigrant.

 

Australia is crazy strict

 

 

[Azalin]

21 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

OK so then you likely saw with your wife's example, the difficulty of applying for visas with the lottery system; the need for an employer to sponsor you; the convoluted path to citizenship; the whole mess of legal red-tape before you even get to take a damn Citizenship test. Did she go through things like that before you were married? If you've seen people go through the ridiculousness of it, it's easy to understand why the current laws are a mess.

 

I don't want second class citizens. That's not the argument I'm making. I'm saying, if you're working, if you're peaceful, if you want to be here -- why shouldn't you be allowed to be here? That's the exact principle this country was founded on.  I'm saying Latino immigrants working in the fields or restaurants do deserve the same opportunity. The path to legal citizenship should be simpler. The current Immigration laws are broken, they are not practical. I am also saying, being here illegally because the laws are impractical, does not necessitate ICE doing raids through poor neighborhoods, targeting farmers for their citizenship paperwork. The crime does not fit the punishment. It is cruel and unusual. It is some Gestapo like sh*t.  

 

Actually, my experience didn't involve a lottery - there were legal complications with our case that made getting a marriage visa extremely complicated. I would have preferred it to be otherwise, but it wasn't. I would have loved it to be less expensive, but it wasn't. We wanted to do everything legally, so we did. I expect everyone else to have the same respect for our immigration laws that I did. If they don't, then to hell with them. It's really that simple.

 

There are many Europeans and Asians who would love to immigrate here, but there are oceans for them to cross, so they are forced to do it legally. A physical barrier between the US and Latin America is only fair, all things being equal.

 

You say you do not want anyone to become 2nd class citizens, but that's exactly what happens with the vast majority of Latinos who cross the border illegally. They get a few social services tossed in their direction, but they stay in their non-English speaking enclaves, being taught in Spanish at public schools, and do not integrate into our society, depriving themselves of the access to opportunity that the rest of us have. I know a number of illegals from Mexico. They're great folks, but they will always be held back by their inability to interface like you or I do.

 

What many people, apparently including you, do not seem to understand is that we already have a system in place for legally immigrating to the US. The driving factor behind this entire issue/debate is not an inadequate immigration program, it's because too many people disregard the laws we already have.

 

If people continue to ignore our immigration law, then the law is not the problem. A lack of enforcement of that law, and the wanton disrespect for that law are the problems.

 

It's not any more complicated than that.

 

 

Edited April 7, 2018 by Azalin

[keepthefaith]

Immigration need to be limited, selective, follow an orderly and legal process and without unfair burdens on citizens. 

 

That means immigrants in the right numbers, of good character, following our laws and of self sufficiency. 

[row_33]

9 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

Immigration need to be limited, selective, follow an orderly and legal process and without unfair burdens on citizens. 

 

That means immigrants in the right numbers, of good character, following our laws and of self sufficiency. 

 

That was the rule until Obama cynically said everyone can come in, without even bothering with a medical or criminal check.

 

 

[LA Grant]

16 hours ago, Azalin said:

Actually, my experience didn't involve a lottery - there were legal complications with our case that made getting a marriage visa extremely complicated. I would have preferred it to be otherwise, but it wasn't. I would have loved it to be less expensive, but it wasn't. We wanted to do everything legally, so we did. I expect everyone else to have the same respect for our immigration laws that I did. If they don't, then to hell with them. It's really that simple.

 

There are many Europeans and Asians who would love to immigrate here, but there are oceans for them to cross, so they are forced to do it legally. A physical barrier between the US and Latin America is only fair, all things being equal.

 

You say you do not want anyone to become 2nd class citizens, but that's exactly what happens with the vast majority of Latinos who cross the border illegally. They get a few social services tossed in their direction, but they stay in their non-English speaking enclaves, being taught in Spanish at public schools, and do not integrate into our society, depriving themselves of the access to opportunity that the rest of us have. I know a number of illegals from Mexico. They're great folks, but they will always be held back by their inability to interface like you or I do.

 

What many people, apparently including you, do not seem to understand is that we already have a system in place for legally immigrating to the US. The driving factor behind this entire issue/debate is not an inadequate immigration program, it's because too many people disregard the laws we already have.

 

If people continue to ignore our immigration law, then the law is not the problem. A lack of enforcement of that law, and the wanton disrespect for that law are the problems.

 

It's not any more complicated than that.

 

It is quite a bit more complicated than that, actually. You've seen the experience with your wife; you live in Austin, I'm in LA.

 

So I've asked you to consider who ICE is targeting & why, and consider the Immigration Court system. Let's consider amnesty and let's consider DACA.

 

DACA and Dreamers. Here is a common story, I personally know several people this fits: Born in US, or have lived here since infancy. Parents visa expires. They stay. That kid is now an adult, technically illegal. To deport this person means sending them to a country they've never been in their lives, or haven't been since before they could walk. 

 

Trump wants to repeal. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/02/what-is-daca-and-what-does-trump-administration-want-to-do-with-it.html

 

Why is that the solution instead of providing a simpler path to citizenship? 

 

Maybe I'll make another post about it another time but Trump & the "caravan of criminals" specter -- this is all theater, the worst kind. Trump wants to change the headlines away from... everything he's doing. He's not a subtle mind -- the plan for 2018 re-elections is to target the most fearful contingent of white people in his base & get them worked up about brown people.

 

The caravan thing is ridiculous - it comes from Fox & Friends, which even Breitbart (a !@#$ing openly nativist conservative site) issued a correction on. The full story, if you read into it, is the precise opposite of "caravan of criminals," it's literally people trying to immigrate as legally as possible, doing so in a group to protect & educate each other -- but of course that would take actually listening to people instead of just believing the story from Fox & Friends, as President Trump did.

Edited April 7, 2018 by LA Grant

[DC Tom]

9 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Trump wants to repeal. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/02/what-is-daca-and-what-does-trump-administration-want-to-do-with-it.html

 

 

Here's a key point that everyone like you keeps missing: DACA is not law.  It's a DHS memo saying "we won't enforce the law for this group of people."  Which means it grants no legal status of residency or citizenship to anyone.

 

I repeat: IT GRANTS NO LEGAL STATUS OF RESIDENCY OR CITIZENSHIP TO ANYONE.

 

The DHS memo creating it says exactly that much:

 

Quote

SUBJECT: Exercising Prosecuorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to thei.Jnited States as Children

Quote

This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship. Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights. I

 

Anyone such as yourself who demands DACA say in place is part of the problem: you're perpetuating a system in which people remain illegally in residence because you have constructed an outright lie acting as a smoke screen to make them and other believe that they have been granted legal rights.  They have not.  In advocating for DACA to remain in place, you - SPECIFICALLY YOU - are !@#$ing those people over.  Not Trump.

 

If you were even a quarter as smart as you think you are (or 20 times smarter than you actually are), you'd insist on the retraction (NOT repeal - it's not a law) of DACA and the immediate creation by Congress of an equivalent law that allows people brought here illegally as kids who grew to adulthood here a legal right to residence and path to citizenship, rather than a vague promise of "We'll just look the other way and pretend you have rights" that a candied yam can rescind on a whim.  

 

But you wouldn't do that.  Because you're not a quarter as smart as you think you are, nor twenty times smarter than you actually are, and you think your own personal histrionics on the subject are far more important that properly formulated and implemented public policy.   

[LA Grant]

11 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Here's a key point that everyone like you keeps missing: DACA is not law.  It's a DHS memo saying "we won't enforce the law for this group of people."  Which means it grants no legal status of residency or citizenship to anyone.

 

I repeat: IT GRANTS NO LEGAL STATUS OF RESIDENCY OR CITIZENSHIP TO ANYONE.

 

The DHS memo creating it says exactly that much:

 

 

Anyone such as yourself who demands DACA say in place is part of the problem: you're perpetuating a system in which people remain illegally in residence because you have constructed an outright lie acting as a smoke screen to make them and other believe that they have been granted legal rights.  They have not.  In advocating for DACA to remain in place, you - SPECIFICALLY YOU - are !@#$ing those people over.  Not Trump.

 

If you were even a quarter as smart as you think you are (or 20 times smarter than you actually are), you'd insist on the retraction (NOT repeal - it's not a law) of DACA and the immediate creation by Congress of an equivalent law that allows people brought here illegally as kids who grew to adulthood here a legal right to residence and path to citizenship, rather than a vague promise of "We'll just look the other way and pretend you have rights" that a candied yam can rescind on a whim.  

 

But you wouldn't do that.  Because you're not a quarter as smart as you think you are, nor twenty times smarter than you actually are, and you think your own personal histrionics on the subject are far more important that properly formulated and implemented public policy.   

 

Hi Tom! Great to hear from you again.

 

1) Correct. I'm not suggesting DACA is law, or rather, I wasn't intending to but I guess by saying repeal, I did. So you've got me there, sh*tbird. What I'm saying is Dreamers shouldn't be targeted by ICE or deported because they're not protected legal status, and they should have that status.

 

2) I agree, and have said, what I would like to see is a simpler path to citizenship, which, if you'd consider what I'm saying instead of using it as another excuse to get an ulcer, would realize we obviously agree.

 

You are correct this would require action from Congress. Right now both legislative & executive branches are in the hands of Republicans. If this is something you like, as a conservative, perhaps you could email your favorite representative. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/dan_newhouse/412660

 

3) This is also why I keep advocating for an increased House of Reps, because it increases the chance of laws like you propose of finding momentum & finding a majority. 

Edited April 7, 2018 by LA Grant

[Wacka]

1. Deport all illegals.

2. If they try to sneak back in, shoot them.

3. You want to immigrate- apply legally  like my grandfather did.

 

Also you must take the citizenship test in English.  Learn English before coming here or teach yourself, like my grandfather did.  He was a tinsmith at Buffalo Forge. He only new a few word in English. There were no classes for new immigrants. He taught himself by reading the paper and talking to people.  This was before there was radio.

[3rdnlng]

24 minutes ago, Wacka said:

1. Deport all illegals.

2. If they try to sneak back in, shoot them.

3. You want to immigrate- apply legally  like my grandfather did.

 

Also you must take the citizenship test in English.  Learn English before coming here or teach yourself, like my grandfather did.  He was a tinsmith at Buffalo Forge. He only new a few word in English. There were no classes for new immigrants. He taught himself by reading the paper and talking to people.  This was before there was radio.

I guess you're a chip off the old block, eh?

[Wacka]

10 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I guess you're a chip off the old block, eh?

I guess the Mac spell checker grew up in Kaisertown!

[Koko78]

3 hours ago, LA Grant said:

DACA and Dreamers. Here is a common story, I personally know several people this fits: Born in US, or have lived here since infancy. Parents visa expires. They stay. That kid is now an adult, technically illegal. To deport this person means sending them to a country they've never been in their lives, or haven't been since before they could walk.

 

If they're born in the US, they can't be deported.

[Azalin]

5 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

It is quite a bit more complicated than that, actually. You've seen the experience with your wife; you live in Austin, I'm in LA.

 

So I've asked you to consider who ICE is targeting & why, and consider the Immigration Court system. Let's consider amnesty and let's consider DACA.

 

DACA and Dreamers. Here is a common story, I personally know several people this fits: Born in US, or have lived here since infancy. Parents visa expires. They stay. That kid is now an adult, technically illegal. To deport this person means sending them to a country they've never been in their lives, or haven't been since before they could walk. 

 

Trump wants to repeal. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/02/what-is-daca-and-what-does-trump-administration-want-to-do-with-it.html

 

Why is that the solution instead of providing a simpler path to citizenship? 

 

Maybe I'll make another post about it another time but Trump & the "caravan of criminals" specter -- this is all theater, the worst kind. Trump wants to change the headlines away from... everything he's doing. He's not a subtle mind -- the plan for 2018 re-elections is to target the most fearful contingent of white people in his base & get them worked up about brown people.

 

The caravan thing is ridiculous - it comes from Fox & Friends, which even Breitbart (a !@#$ing openly nativist conservative site) issued a correction on. The full story, if you read into it, is the precise opposite of "caravan of criminals," it's literally people trying to immigrate as legally as possible, doing so in a group to protect & educate each other -- but of course that would take actually listening to people instead of just believing the story from Fox & Friends, as President Trump did.

 

For starters, people who are born here are automatically granted citizenship, whether their parents are legal or not.

 

Secondly, an easier path to citizenship? Do you mean for all the people who came here illegally, or the children that they smuggled in with them? I support making a legal path for the DACA children - possibly by their service in the military, or by some other legal means. But their parents are a different matter as far as I'm concerned. If we actually prosecuted them (yes, I know - it's a civil offense, not a criminal one) then maybe we could remove some of the incentive to sneak into the country.

 

I absolutely do not believe in making it easy for anyone to become either a legal resident or a citizen if they have displayed disrespect for our immigration laws in arriving here. We offered amnesty back in the 80's as a way of showing compassion to those who were here illegally, and all it ultimately did was encourage more people to sneak in.

 

If it was my decision to make, I would allow X amount of people in total, every year. For argument's sake lets use an arbitrary number like 1 million. I would accept applications for residential entry divided into three general groups of 333,000 per year: one third from Latin America, one third from Asia, and one third from Europe. All would need to have a clean police record, and would need to stay out of trouble while here or be bounced back to their country of origin.

 

 

 

 

[DC Tom]

53 minutes ago, Azalin said:

Secondly, an easier path to citizenship? Do you mean for all the people who came here illegally, or the children that they smuggled in with them? I support making a legal path for the DACA children - possibly by their service in the military, or by some other legal means. But their parents are a different matter as far as I'm concerned. If we actually prosecuted them (yes, I know - it's a civil offense, not a criminal one) then maybe we could remove some of the incentive to sneak into the country.

 

Doesn't even have to be that difficult.  Say...if you're under the age of 18, and can demonstrate at least 10 continuous years of US residency, a high school diploma with a grade average above a B-, no criminal record, and proficiency in English, you can bypass visa requirements for residency (i.e. not deal with the State Department, since you're already here), and petition USCIS for some sort of an expedited Green Card (file an I-485EZ or something, that includes an N-400 filing, both at reduced cost).

 

Logic being that...if you've been here continuously since you were 8, and got good grades and kept out of trouble and can speak fluent English, odds are you're far more American, culturally, than you are of your parents' country.  It's not a complete solution...but it doesn't punish kids who through absolutely no responsibility of their own don't have legal residency, and gives those who deserve it an expedited path to citizenship, while not expediting it so much that it becomes burdensomely unfair to others.

 

No reason you couldn't extend the same principle to more groups, too...only have six years of continuous US residency?  Create a "Petition for Continuation of Childhood Residency Visa," that grants them the equivalent of an immigration visa that allows them to pursue legal permanent residency and citizenship. 

[Azalin]

26 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Doesn't even have to be that difficult.  Say...if you're under the age of 18, and can demonstrate at least 10 continuous years of US residency, a high school diploma with a grade average above a B-, no criminal record, and proficiency in English, you can bypass visa requirements for residency (i.e. not deal with the State Department, since you're already here), and petition USCIS for some sort of an expedited Green Card (file an I-485EZ or something, that includes an N-400 filing, both at reduced cost).

 

Logic being that...if you've been here continuously since you were 8, and got good grades and kept out of trouble and can speak fluent English, odds are you're far more American, culturally, than you are of your parents' country.  It's not a complete solution...but it doesn't punish kids who through absolutely no responsibility of their own don't have legal residency, and gives those who deserve it an expedited path to citizenship, while not expediting it so much that it becomes burdensomely unfair to others.

 

No reason you couldn't extend the same principle to more groups, too...only have six years of continuous US residency?  Create a "Petition for Continuation of Childhood Residency Visa," that grants them the equivalent of an immigration visa that allows them to pursue legal permanent residency and citizenship. 

 

All of that is reasonable as far as I'm concerned. I admit that my own experience has biased my opinion, but I'm adamant in my belief that there is a disproportionate number of people crossing the southern border illegally, to the detriment of the country, immigrants from other parts of the world, and ultimately to themselves. 

[IDBillzFan]

On 4/6/2018 at 2:20 PM, DC Tom said:

 

Actually, there is such a thing as an assault rifle.  It's a personal firearm with a detachable magazine that fires an intermediate round (i.e. between pistol and rifle), and can be selected for semi, burst, or full automatic fire.  The first example of which was the StG-44, and the archetype of which is the AK-47.  It's actually a pretty strict definition.

 

There's no such thing as an assault weapon.  That's a made-up, senseless legislative definition that means nothing more than "looks scary."

 

That's the second time I've been adjusted recently because I wrote something that was not entirely accurate.

 

I'm starting to wonder if I'm really not a closet Democrat.

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, LABillzFan said:

 

That's the second time I've been adjusted recently because I wrote something that was not entirely accurate.

 

I'm starting to wonder if I'm really not a closet Democrat.

 

A Democrat would have insisted I was wrong, then accused me of "just wanting to kill children," and finally played the "NA NA NA NA NA I-can't-hear-you!" card.

 

So you're good.

[3rdnlng]

12 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

A Democrat would have insisted I was wrong, then accused me of "just wanting to kill children," and finally played the "NA NA NA NA NA I-can't-hear-you!" card.

 

So you're good.

Thanks for the reminder. Is a rifle a weapon?