A three point plan to end illegal immigration

[Cugalabanza]

26 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Also important questions which are certainly part and parcel to the culture and heritage portion of the discussion.

 

I'd ask anyone forwarding those concerns to define the idea of a melting pot, which requires cultural assimilation of immigrants; vs. that of a tapestry which does not, and instead serves to protect the immigrants pre-existing culture which they are importing.

 

I'd also ask anyone making that case to speak to differences in the cultures of those we have allowed to immigrate in the past, vs the culture of those we are examining today, as well as accounting for differences in volume, and how increased volumes may or may not lead to more cultural dilution than in the past.

 

I'd also ask about the difference in relative standard of living, educational levels, immunization levels between those immigrating in the past to Americans of those time periods to today's situation.

 

And finally I'd ask about any differences in economic impacts to the existing citizens both in the past and today dictated by differences in social safety nets.

 

Again, these are all important questions, and they all need to be examined honestly by all parties involved in the discussion.

 

I agree, those are all good questions.  Some on the left have been guilty of implying that it's somehow inappropriate to ask some of those questions.

 

I'll say, on the idea of "melting pot":  For me, assimilation is not a huge concern.  At least, I don't think it's something worth trying to control.  Where I come from on this point is:  People are people and how they fit in with others is a fluid thing.  As long as it's understood that the rule of law applies to everyone, I'm ok with groups of people defining their cultural identity how they please.  How the ingredients come together in that soup, I'm willing to let myself be surprised how it turns out.  Whether it's more of a consommé or bouillabaisse, I'm ok with it.

 

 

EDIT:  Full disclosure... I did in fact google "kinds of soups" in order to help make my point.

 

Edited April 5, 2018 by Cugalabanza

[TakeYouToTasker]

8 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

I agree, those are all good questions.  Some on the left have been guilty of implying that it's somehow inappropriate to ask some of those questions.

 

I'll say, on the idea of "melting pot":  For me, assimilation is not a huge concern.  At least, I don't think it's something worth trying to control.  Where I come from on this point is:  People are people and how they fit in with others is a fluid thing.  As long as it's understood that the rule of law applies to everyone, I'm ok with groups of people defining their cultural identity how they please.  How the ingredients come together in that soup, I'm willing to let myself be surprised how it turns out.  Whether it's more of a consommé or bouillabaisse, I'm ok with it.

 

 

I think I wasn't being clear when I spoke of "culture".  I was more speaking to political cultures and histories.  I, and most others I would imagine, couldn't care less about a person's manner of dress, what holidays they observe, what sorts of wedding ceremonies they prefer/require, etc.

 

What I care deeply about is if, and how, their core belief structures differ from those of traditional America.  Are those cultures compatible with ours.

 

I hope that makes more sense.

Edited April 5, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Cugalabanza]

20 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I think I wasn't being clear when I spoke of "culture".  I was more speaking to political cultures and histories.  I, and most others I would imagine, couldn't care less about a person's manner of dress, what holidays they observe, what sorts of wedding ceremonies they prefer/require, etc.

 

What I care deeply about is if, and how, their core belief structures differ from those of traditional America.  Are those cultures compatible with ours.

 

I hope that makes more sense.

 

That’s something I haven’t given much thought to.  Honestly, it’s not something I would lose sleep over.  I trust that people who come here want (fundamentally) the same things we do.  Maybe that’s naïve.  It’s something I should give more thought too.  At this moment, my relatively unexamined take is that human nature would cause things to remain balanced enough that our democracy would not be threatened.  I mean (half seriously), what are they gonna do, establish a paralyzing corporatocracy in order to obliterate the middle class?  That’s already been done. 

 

 

I hasten to point out, I do not believe in unlimited immigration.

 

Edited April 5, 2018 by Cugalabanza

[LA Grant]

8 hours ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

I’m not able to watch videos at the moment, but I think I hear you.

 

When I used the word “principles” before, I should have put it in quotes because I was talking about the divisive ideological schemes that obfuscate real issues, not actual fundamental moral principles that many people might be surprised to find are generally shared in common.

 

I’m not sure how fundamental you want to get, but at the heart of it, those axiomatic values would be the well-being & security of those that I care about and simultaneously preserving the liberties we enjoy and expect as Americans.  I think the more deeply people look at what are the foundations of their beliefs, the more they would realize that they value the same things as the people they’re arguing with.

 

When you talk about “structural systems and accompanying foundational belief systems” I have to admit I get a bit lost.  How people build these constructs and make them work in the world—that’s complicated ****.  It’s hard for me to explicate.  It’s also how institutions and political parties and platforms come about, which are things that limit actual understanding and dialectic.

 

I’m more interested in the ideas themselves.  The heart of these issues, for me, is the tension that exists among the ideas of Freedom (to do whatever I want), Responsibility (including compassion and acknowledging the freedoms of others to somewhat trespass upon me) and Fear (of vulnerability and harm coming to me/us).

 

Not sure if that’s what you’re getting at, but I do agree that it’s important for people to say what it is they are trying to do when they advocate a position.  And what it is that they think is important fundamentally, worth preserving or fighting for.  I think the more people do that, the less divisive the conversation becomes because it tends towards humanizing and finding common ground.

 

Ok, I realize I’ve probably gotten a bit too abstract about it all.  Sorry if I’ve gotten off track or misrepresented anything you were trying to say.

 

Since you brought up the gun debate — and you're interested in finding common ground, and you're talking about the relationship between freedom, responsibility, and fear — What do you support for gun reform?

 

You're correct that compromising seems to be more & more difficult to come by these days. Especially in this area. Where any proposal for reform is seen as the beginning of a slippery slope to take away individual rights. And so then it becomes abstract to the point of meaninglessness.

 

Yet it seems to me that the best solution is "a fair compromise" — the proposals for Universal Background Checks appear to have the most support & make the most sense for all. Guns are more controlled, or "well regulated" and the individual American still has "the right to bear arms." 

 

Personally, I'd even be willing to put a time-limit on it — say, 10 years, enough for at least two different presidential administrations. Re-evaluate after that with the new data. Did it make a difference in reducing mass shootings? Are legal gun owners more oppressed than they were before; are they unable to hunt or defend themselves? If it seems satisfactory, it can be renewed. If there are problems, it can be revised.

 

What do you think?

 

10 hours ago, Azalin said:

You know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not going to debate the meaning of the word "American" with you or anyone else.

 

I do know what you're talking about. Do you understand the point I'm making? I ask because it doesn't seem so. What point do you think I am making?

Edited April 6, 2018 by LA Grant

[Azalin]

1 hour ago, LA Grant said:

 

I do know what you're talking about. Do you understand the point I'm making? I ask because it doesn't seem so. What point do you think I am making?

 

 

I know what you're trying to do, and as I've already stated, I'm not going to play. Our country has had various policies toward immigration over the years, some more lenient, some more restrictive. Right now, we have a policy for allowing legal immigration into the US, a privilege we extend to outsiders who meet the prerequisite criteria.

 

That's all there is to it.  Don't like it? Lobby to change the law, don't try to excuse willing disregard for our laws on the part of people who knowingly attempt to circumvent it.

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, Azalin said:

 

I know what you're trying to do, and as I've already stated, I'm not going to play. Our country has had various policies toward immigration over the years, some more lenient, some more restrictive. Right now, we have a policy for allowing legal immigration into the US, a privilege we extend to outsiders who meet the prerequisite criteria.

 

That's all there is to it.  Don't like it? Lobby to change the law, don't try to excuse willing disregard for our laws on the part of people who knowingly attempt to circumvent it.

 

I'm guessing his point was "Guns are bad.  I win!"  

[LA Grant]

1 minute ago, Azalin said:

I know what you're trying to do, and as I've already stated, I'm not going to play. Our country has had various policies toward immigration over the years, some more lenient, some more restrictive. Right now, we have a policy for allowing legal immigration into the US, a privilege we extend to outsiders who meet the prerequisite criteria.

 

That's all there is to it.  Don't like it? Lobby to change the law, don't try to excuse willing disregard for our laws on the part of people who knowingly attempt to circumvent it.

 

I don't know that you do know what I'm trying to do here. My point, if you'll take it, is that the first "Americans" didn't come here "legally." Settlers didn't apply; they forced their way in as immigrants. African-Americans didn't apply; they were brought here as slaves, to be used as resources. Irish-Americans were demonized for decades, a number of laws passed were targeting their arrival & integration.

 

I'm asking if you think the immigration laws as they are make sense. If so, why? Immigration Courts are broken. The application process is absurd if you get into the weeds of it. The current enforcement with ICE is targeting blue-collar workers like farmers. This is the current state. 

 

If people are immigrating to the US to work & be peaceful... why can't their process to citizenship be streamlined to be more effective for them, and thereby, all of us?

 

Is your life any different because of illegal Mexican immigrants working farming jobs in California or Texas?

10 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

I'm guessing his point was "Guns are bad.  I win!"  

 

You're bad at this but don't let that stop you.

[Azalin]

2 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

I don't know that you do know what I'm trying to do here. My point, if you'll take it, is that the first "Americans" didn't come here "legally." Settlers didn't apply; they forced their way in as immigrants. African-Americans didn't apply; they were brought here as slaves, to be used as resources. Irish-Americans were demonized for decades, a number of laws passed were targeting their arrival & integration.

 

I'm asking if you think the immigration laws as they are make sense. If so, why? Immigration Courts are broken. The application process is absurd if you get into the weeds of it. The current enforcement with ICE is targeting blue-collar workers like farmers. This is the current state. 

 

If people are immigrating to the US to work & be peaceful... why can't their process to citizenship be streamlined to be more effective for them, and thereby, all of us?

 

Is your life any different because of illegal Mexican immigrants working farming jobs in California or Texas?

 

 

Our immigration laws make perfect sense as far as I'm concerned. I can tell you that more lax immigration laws would have made my own life significantly easier, because my wife is an immigrant. An ocean separated us - so the Mexican and Canadian borders didn't come into play.

 

Why do you believe we should have Latino immigrants working in the fields picking our fruit, or slaving away as a dishwasher in a restaurant? Do you support having a second class of citizen, one who is forever stuck performing menial work for a pittance of what you or I would make for the same thing? Why do they not deserve the same opportunity as the rest of us?  That's a bullsh!t argument, and one I will not engage in.

 

Despite all the problems we have in this country, I would prefer living here than anywhere else I've visited. I do not blame anyone for wanting to live here, and we have been very generous over the last few decades with regard to who we allow in, as well as who we allow to stay, but entry into our society, whether as a legal resident or ultimately as a citizen, needs to be based on WHAT WE HAVE TO GAIN AS A NATION AND A SOCIETY, and not as a display of our compassion as a nation.

 

 

[Cugalabanza]

12 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

Since you brought up the gun debate — and you're interested in finding common ground, and you're talking about the relationship between freedom, responsibility, and fear — What do you support for gun reform?

 

You're correct that compromising seems to be more & more difficult to come by these days. Especially in this area. Where any proposal for reform is seen as the beginning of a slippery slope to take away individual rights. And so then it becomes abstract to the point of meaninglessness.

 

Yet it seems to me that the best solution is "a fair compromise" — the proposals for Universal Background Checks appear to have the most support & make the most sense for all. Guns are more controlled, or "well regulated" and the individual American still has "the right to bear arms." 

 

Personally, I'd even be willing to put a time-limit on it — say, 10 years, enough for at least two different presidential administrations. Re-evaluate after that with the new data. Did it make a difference in reducing mass shootings? Are legal gun owners more oppressed than they were before; are they unable to hunt or defend themselves? If it seems satisfactory, it can be renewed. If there are problems, it can be revised.

 

What do you think?

 

 

Well, I haven’t gotten into the nuts and bolts of gun reform.  I’ve never been a gun guy and I don’t know the ins & outs.  For example, the semantics of what constitutes an “assault” rifle and the technical difference between automatic and semi-automatic… I’m no expert.

 

Generally, I think you have to accept that gun ownership is a part of the USA.  The 2nd amendment is with us for good.  And gun owners need to concede that some level of regulation is necessary and reasonable.

 

I don’t have any specific proposals.  But this is the conversation that needs to happen.  What you’re talking about with background checks is definitely in the ballpark.  What’s the right level of intrusion, I don’t know.  I like the cars analogy.  Yes, you have the right to drive a car, but we don’t let little kids do it and you have to show that you’re competent and you have to follow some rules.  Because the fundamental concern, of course, is Safety.  I remember as a kid how pissed people were when seatbelt laws started getting passed.  Many saw it as a serious threat to civil liberty.  And car companies had spent a lot of money to further those arguments and to block & stall those laws.  Kind of like how the NRA is running interference today.  People have (for the most part) a different perspective on the seatbelt debate now.

 

Also, I feel like GUNS have kind of been a red herring for a lot of societal ills.  What tools are available to maniacs who want to commit mass killings is part of the discussion, but it’s not the whole discussion.  And I feel like gun owners have (understandably) some resentment that the arguments made from the other side have demonized responsible gun owners and tried to place the blame on them for violent acts committed by a few crazy people.  That’s just one example of how divisiveness gets bred and the conversation gets derailed.

[row_33]

You can bring in people for utilitarian reasons as they can add to the knowledge pool of a country, they help repopulate a society that is more about death than life (as North American popular culture is a death culture by far)

 

you can bring in people for humanitarian reasons, rescuing them from truly dangerous situations 

 

The reasons are a function of priorities at the time, they shift constantly

 

 

 

[Nanker]

 

 

[Taro T]

5 hours ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

Well, I haven’t gotten into the nuts and bolts of gun reform.  I’ve never been a gun guy and I don’t know the ins & outs.  For example, the semantics of what constitutes an “assault” rifle and the technical difference between automatic and semi-automatic… I’m no expert.

 

Generally, I think you have to accept that gun ownership is a part of the USA.  The 2nd amendment is with us for good.  And gun owners need to concede that some level of regulation is necessary and reasonable.

 

I don’t have any specific proposals.  But this is the conversation that needs to happen.  What you’re talking about with background checks is definitely in the ballpark.  What’s the right level of intrusion, I don’t know.  I like the cars analogy.  Yes, you have the right to drive a car, but we don’t let little kids do it and you have to show that you’re competent and you have to follow some rules.  Because the fundamental concern, of course, is Safety.  I remember as a kid how pissed people were when seatbelt laws started getting passed.  Many saw it as a serious threat to civil liberty.  And car companies had spent a lot of money to further those arguments and to block & stall those laws.  Kind of like how the NRA is running interference today.  People have (for the most part) a different perspective on the seatbelt debate now.

 

Also, I feel like GUNS have kind of been a red herring for a lot of societal ills.  What tools are available to maniacs who want to commit mass killings is part of the discussion, but it’s not the whole discussion.  And I feel like gun owners have (understandably) some resentment that the arguments made from the other side have demonized responsible gun owners and tried to place the blame on them for violent acts committed by a few crazy people.  That’s just one example of how divisiveness gets bred and the conversation gets derailed.

 

On your own property, you do have a right to drive a car.  

 

On public land, such as public roads & highways, people are granted the PRIVILEGE of driving.

 

There is a difference between a right & a privilege.  

[Cugalabanza]

7 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

On your own property, you do have a right to drive a car.  

 

On public land, such as public roads & highways, people are granted the PRIVILEGE of driving.

 

There is a difference between a right & a privilege.  

 

Correct

[LA Grant]

5 hours ago, Cugalabanza said:

Well, I haven’t gotten into the nuts and bolts of gun reform.  I’ve never been a gun guy and I don’t know the ins & outs.  For example, the semantics of what constitutes an “assault” rifle and the technical difference between automatic and semi-automatic… I’m no expert.

 

Generally, I think you have to accept that gun ownership is a part of the USA.  The 2nd amendment is with us for good.  And gun owners need to concede that some level of regulation is necessary and reasonable.

 

I don’t have any specific proposals.  But this is the conversation that needs to happen.  What you’re talking about with background checks is definitely in the ballpark.  What’s the right level of intrusion, I don’t know.  I like the cars analogy.  Yes, you have the right to drive a car, but we don’t let little kids do it and you have to show that you’re competent and you have to follow some rules.  Because the fundamental concern, of course, is Safety.  I remember as a kid how pissed people were when seatbelt laws started getting passed.  Many saw it as a serious threat to civil liberty.  And car companies had spent a lot of money to further those arguments and to block & stall those laws.  Kind of like how the NRA is running interference today.  People have (for the most part) a different perspective on the seatbelt debate now.

 

Also, I feel like GUNS have kind of been a red herring for a lot of societal ills.  What tools are available to maniacs who want to commit mass killings is part of the discussion, but it’s not the whole discussion.  And I feel like gun owners have (understandably) some resentment that the arguments made from the other side have demonized responsible gun owners and tried to place the blame on them for violent acts committed by a few crazy people.  That’s just one example of how divisiveness gets bred and the conversation gets derailed.

 

Yeah. I think we agree on basically all points. Going to respond in, er, bullet-form.

• Personally, I don't think you need to be a "gun guy" to have an opinion. Similarly, you don't need to be an expert coder or programmer to have an opinion on Facebook/social media. Trump doesn't need to be fully literate to be president. So I respect that you are cautious in asserting your opinion before you feel like you understand all of the previous arguments better, but at the same time, you're entitled to your opinion based on what you do know, based on how this issue affects you or society. To be clear, I'm not advocating for "ignorance" -- I'm saying, broadly speaking, the ignorant don't mind being loud one bit, while the more thoughtful people tend to shy away from jumping in because they assume they don't know more. I'm advocating against "technocratic rule" -- the idea that you're not allowed to have a vote in the matter if you aren't an expert. I hate that approach, I think that is an anti-American view, frankly. I think the burden should be on the experts to succinctly explain things clearly & plainly -- the burden should not be on the general public. 
• We agree that gun ownership is part of the USA, and that gun owners need to concede some level of reasonable regulation.
• I also like the cars analogy. The seatbelt comparison is good.
• It's why I think "Universal Background Checks" are the best compromise - think of it like the DMV. Competency tests, annual registration, etc., just like the DMV. And just like you might be pulled over in traffic if your tag is expired, if your registration lapses, then it should be acceptable for Local Police to get a warrant to investigate your home for illegal unregistered weapons. This will help crack down on "bad guys with guns." 
• The other comparison I like, with Universal Background Checks, is to include a behavioral assessment, similar to what you might take if you applied for a job at Walmart. All of this would necessitate a waiting period for the application to be reviewed. It would prevent 18-year-old psychotic person Nikolas Cruz from buying an AR-15 to act out his nihilistic revenge fantasy.
• I appreciate your compassion toward both sides. I am becoming less patient with the "responsible gun owner" contingent, or at least, the folks who claim to be "just innocent good guys" yet who staunchly oppose any reform. It's a contradiction. If you don't support reform, you are not responsible. The idea that they are being demonized is a self-applied Martyr complex -- in truth, you can see it trickling down from the NRA. "They're demonizing you! They're blaming you! Don't let them!" You know, it's ridiculous. It's saying -- we need to fix this aspect of society. To do so, it will require some compromise. The folks who will need to compromise most are the "good guys with guns" who will suffer the inconvenience of an added bureaucratic step. I have yet to see any reasonable argument on why this should be unacceptable other than, "I don't want to, and guns aren't the problem." At that point, it's back to step one, and the question is — are the mass shootings acceptable, or unacceptable? If we are a moral, ethical society, then that shouldn't be a debate.
• We also need to understand the 2nd Amendment does not say "guns." It does not say "firearms." It says "arms." What is an arm? An arm is a weapon. So then the question becomes -- why did we draw the line where we did, in defining "arm" for practical law? Does that line make sense?
• Again, that's why I think the best solution is not to ban individual guns, necessarily (although I see the argument on bump stocks, AR-15s, etc., I get why proponents of those plans support them) -- the best solution is to say -- everything that is a crossbow and above, you need to be "well regulated."  If you, Joe Citizen, want to own firearms that increase your ability & rate to murder beyond your natural abilities, then you need to go through a softer version of Boot Camp, essentially. You need to be trained & demonstrate you can wield the power of a firearm responsibly.

I think all of the above is entirely fair and reasonable. What do you think?

[LA Grant]

14 hours ago, Azalin said:

Our immigration laws make perfect sense as far as I'm concerned. I can tell you that more lax immigration laws would have made my own life significantly easier, because my wife is an immigrant. An ocean separated us - so the Mexican and Canadian borders didn't come into play.

 

Why do you believe we should have Latino immigrants working in the fields picking our fruit, or slaving away as a dishwasher in a restaurant? Do you support having a second class of citizen, one who is forever stuck performing menial work for a pittance of what you or I would make for the same thing? Why do they not deserve the same opportunity as the rest of us?  That's a bullsh!t argument, and one I will not engage in.

 

Despite all the problems we have in this country, I would prefer living here than anywhere else I've visited. I do not blame anyone for wanting to live here, and we have been very generous over the last few decades with regard to who we allow in, as well as who we allow to stay, but entry into our society, whether as a legal resident or ultimately as a citizen, needs to be based on WHAT WE HAVE TO GAIN AS A NATION AND A SOCIETY, and not as a display of our compassion as a nation.

 

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.  

Edited April 6, 2018 by LA Grant

[IDBillzFan]

6 hours ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

Well, I haven’t gotten into the nuts and bolts of gun reform.  I’ve never been a gun guy and I don’t know the ins & outs.  For example, the semantics of what constitutes an “assault” rifle...

 

For starters, there is no such thing as an assault rifle.

 

It does not exist.

 

There is no more an assault rifle than there is an assault shoe or an assault rubber band.

 

Unless you are a devout leftist in favor of removing individual rights, in which case, an assault rifle is any gun that looks scary.

[Cugalabanza]

7 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

For starters, there is no such thing as an assault rifle.

 

It does not exist.

 

There is no more an assault rifle than there is an assault shoe or an assault rubber band.

 

Unless you are a devout leftist in favor of removing individual rights, in which case, an assault rifle is any gun that looks scary.

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

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.

Edited April 6, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, LABillzFan said:

 

For starters, there is no such thing as an assault rifle.

 

It does not exist.

 

There is no more an assault rifle than there is an assault shoe or an assault rubber band.

 

Unless you are a devout leftist in favor of removing individual rights, in which case, an assault rifle is any gun that looks scary.

 

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."

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

On 4/5/2018 at 9:49 AM, TakeYouToTasker said:

I think, in the interests of intellectual honesty, that those individuals seeking out changes to our immigration policy should outline the end goals of the policy changes they are advocating.

 

And I don't mean bumper sticker slogans, I mean what structural goals is the policy forwarding.

 

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.

Edited April 7, 2018 by joesixpack