• You are using the old High Contrast theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

The Heller Misdirection

Status
Not open for further replies.
"They", who's "they"? There are some members of this board that want that. That has little bearing on the gun issue. If I had my druthers, they'd have never had to come over here illegally in the first place, we'd have an open-gate policy for immigration.


It seems to me that as far as Hispanics/Mexicans are concerned, gun rights are FAR from the top of the priority list. Most all Mexicans, particularly those in this nation (most in this nation are recent immigrants, not second generation citizens) were raised in an environment where the culture and legal structure was viciously anti-gun. My experience has shown me that most Mexicans really cannot comprehend what American democracy means, particularly in terms of firearms ownership. They are very readily given to the sort of emotionalist "for the children" plea that the Brady types are so fond of making.

The areas with the most stringent gun-laws are generally the areas with the most immigrants and the most non-European/white people. This is not a racist statement but rather a statement of fact. It would make sense that white western people, whose ancestors in Western Europe established the basic ideas of what became Western civilization, would understand and appreciate their centuries old handed down heritage, much more deeply than immigrants who come from an entirely different culture with an entirely different historical tradition.

It's one of the reasons why democracy is not going to work in Iraq, nor will it work in a place such as Zimbabwe. To a man in Zimbabwe democracy means that a tribal headcount is taken, and the tribe with that is strongest in numbers has thus acquired some mandate to wipe out the minority tribes. To a man in Iraq, democracy seems to mean that he can vote his ideological/religious/personal enemies out of existence by killing them.

With every non-westerner that is brought into the USA, the USA becomes less and less western. We see it reflected in how many citizens have permanent "no go" areas, and in how the infrastructure is crumbling to the point where the American Society of Civil Engineers awards this nation a GPA of a D in terms of overall infrastructure (bridges, dams, water supply, roads, etc). We've been operating under the peculiar notion that immigrants (mainly those from non-European nations, as I contend that Europeans, due to a shared heritage, have an infinitely easier time adapting) will simply become wonderful flag-waving Americans who love and understand the constitution, just by being plucked out of whatever country they come from, Burma, Nigeria, Somalia, etc, dropped here in the USA and given citizenship without a care in the world.

That doesn't happen. What does happen is that we, the United States, become less of what we were, and more of what their countries are. We're not changing them, they're changing us, and I don't like the way we're being changed.

To sum it up, I believe in an open-door policy of immigration for Western European nations, a relaxed policy for Eastern/Southern European nations, and a closed door policy for third world nations, aside from a few rare and exceptional, generally temporary circumstances.

Most of the problems in this nation are approximately four decades old in terms of origin. The main thing that happened four decades ago was the Immigration Reform Act of 1965, which saw the USA begin a slow decline from a 92% white nation to what it is presently at today, approximately 62%. No nation/empire in the history of the world has ever made such a demographic transition without MASSIVE internal upheavals that usually resulted in their ultimate demise. The Soviet Union was 90% Russian at their height of power, and had slipped to about 75% Russian by the time it finally fell. Of course there's no forgetting the example of Rome, but I won't simplify the matter by declaring it to be solely racial/ethnic/cultural, but tribe/culture/race/etc surely played a major role in Rome’s woes.

What it seems you want is to allow people into this nation who are supplanting our traditions (such as personal firearms ownership) with their traditions (such as tribal collectivism), and I do not want that one single bit. People who do not or will not understand and appreciate our culture and our traditions, do not belong here. I don't care if they're getting off a boat from Poland or from Nigeria, if they cannot or will not adapt, they don't belong here. The issue is that few Poles, few Irish, few Italians, etc, have ever tried to demand that the USA become more like Poland, Ireland, or Italy. It'd be denying reality to make that claim about third world immigrants, who often parade under their own flags, demanding their languages be enshrined alongside ours and taught in all the schools.
 
Really? Assume the United States is the world. Bam! A Constitution-based NWO.


That's a very naive and simplistic view. If we were the world we would no longer be a nation, but rather an empire in possession of many doubtlessly oppressed and disunified colonies. I have no desire to see the USA in possession of the world, nor do I have a desire to see it weighed down by having to deal with the baggage of the nations of the world.
 
As for adopting our mantle... How about our trade policies? Why don't we see any nations adopting those?

How about our immigration policies? Why don't we see any nation adopting those?

The USA is one of the dumbest nations when it comes to how the government conducts itself and treats its own citizens.

Americans want to be first-class in the world, while they've become second-class in their own homeland.
 
If you read the period history, you'll find a lot of compromise.
Your quote was of Patrick Henry, a radical even by revolutionary standards, and it took nearly 3 years for the anti-federalists of Henry's ilk to agree to a Constitution with stronger central government.

Not all colonists entered into the war with England quite so boisterously as Henry. The extreme anti-federalist ideal is an imbalanced sample (statistically speaking) if you are looking for a representative founding father flavor.

If not for the Anti-Federalists insisting on a Bill of Rights, there would arguably be none. No Bill of Rights, no 2A, no Heller, and a government unrestricted from taking rights by any constitutional inconveniences.

If Anti-Federalists were "radical," count me as glad they were around and made their voices matter.

Having graduated high school in 2004 I have every idea of how bad it is. Despite being an honor student and graduating magna cum laude, I still had approximately 70 days of suspensions on my record. I was suspended for things such as having an NRA hat in my locker, having a gun manufacturer catalog in my locker.

Congrats on being an honor student and magna cum laude. Your case seems like the basis of a lawsuit - did you investigate? At the minimum, if I were your parent, that principal would have had to deal with an earful on a frequent basis. :cuss:
 
Last edited:
Most all Mexicans, particularly those in this nation (most in this nation are recent immigrants, not second generation citizens) were raised in an environment where the culture and legal structure was viciously anti-gun.
So was Oleg Volk.
The areas with the most stringent gun-laws are generally the areas with the most immigrants and the most non-European/white people.
Oh, what you mean THE REST OF THE WORLD?
It's one of the reasons why democracy is not going to work in Iraq
Democracy is not trying to work in Iraq. A republic is trying to work. And why do you believe that because of someone's area, they automatically cannot comprehend freedom and equality under the law?
After all, "freedom" was first written in Iraq.
With every non-westerner that is brought into the USA, the USA becomes less and less western.
Western is BS. If the East was freedom-oriented and the West oppression-oriented (which has been the case in the past), would you still want to be Western?
We've been operating under the peculiar notion that immigrants (mainly those from non-European nations, as I contend that Europeans, due to a shared heritage, have an infinitely easier time adapting) will simply become wonderful flag-waving Americans who love and understand the constitution, just by being plucked out of whatever country they come from, Burma, Nigeria, Somalia, etc, dropped here in the USA and given citizenship without a care in the world.
Freedom is addictive. Especially freedom to live your life the way you want.
That doesn't happen. What does happen is that we, the United States, become less of what we were, and more of what their countries are. We're not changing them, they're changing us, and I don't like the way we're being changed.
What part of a nation of immigrants do you not understand? There is no such thing as "American", there is only people, and the different cultures, views and qualities that they possess.
To sum it up, I believe in an open-door policy of immigration for Western European nations, a relaxed policy for Eastern/Southern European nations, and a closed door policy for third world nations, aside from a few rare and exceptional, generally temporary circumstances.
Okay, 'cause Europe has NO gun control laws... :rolleyes:
Most of the problems in this nation are approximately four decades old in terms of origin.
The biggest problem, education, is about a century-and-a-half old, and it came from your privileged Europe.
92% white nation to what it is presently at today, approximately 62%
WHY DOES THIS MATTER AT ALL!?
Of course there's no forgetting the example of Rome, but I won't simplify the matter by declaring it to be solely racial/ethnic/cultural, but tribe/culture/race/etc surely played a major role in Rome’s woes.
Rome experienced a natural degradation of freedom, as is likely to happen with any system. It had nothing to do with the race of the people involved.
What it seems you want is to allow people into this nation who are supplanting our traditions (such as personal firearms ownership) with their traditions (such as tribal collectivism), and I do not want that one single bit.
Have you ever stopped to consider that freedom may just be an idea that doesn't need forcing on people? Freedom is for EVERYONE.
People who do not or will not understand and appreciate our culture and our traditions, do not belong here.
BS! I do not care what the Hell you (the immigrant) believe, if you abide by our laws, respect other people and do not force your ideas on anyone else, you can be Iosef Stalin for all I care!
The issue is that few Poles, few Irish, few Italians, etc, have ever tried to demand that the USA become more like Poland, Ireland, or Italy. It'd be denying reality to make that claim about third world immigrants, who often parade under their own flags, demanding their languages be enshrined alongside ours and taught in all the schools.
Many true-blue Americans have demanded the same thing. And I have no power to deny them the freedom to establish and practice that conversion all they want, as long as it does not interfere with other's freedom.
They can speak Swahili all they want. They may not be understood, but they can speak it. If the public schools are abolished anyway, then there's no problem, is there? You can't make private schools or households do anything.
 
That's a very naive and simplistic view. If we were the world we would no longer be a nation, but rather an empire in possession of many doubtlessly oppressed and disunified colonies. I have no desire to see the USA in possession of the world, nor do I have a desire to see it weighed down by having to deal with the baggage of the nations of the world.
Oh, contrare, assuming that a world government is automatically evil is naive and simplistic.
The USA is one of the dumbest nations when it comes to how the government conducts itself and treats its own citizens.

Americans want to be first-class in the world, while they've become second-class in their own homeland.
Oh, really, would you rather us be run like Germany? Canada? Sweden? I'm not even getting into the obviously derelict countries.
Oh, really? Americans are second-class? I guess you've never met the Seirra Leonian that lives in DC as I have.
 
BS! I do not care what the Hell you (the immigrant) believe, if you abide by our laws, respect other people and do not force your ideas on anyone else, you can be Iosef Stalin for all I care!



If you think Joseph Stalin had any qualities that would make for an ideal and productive immigrant, than you must not study history that much...



As for your recent post, about what I believe the USA should be like, how about the nation it was meant to be by our founders?

If you want an empire/commonwealth, then move to the United Kingdom. My nation, the USA, was never intended to be a globalist giant, let alone a global anything.
 
If you two are going to hog the dance floor, why not cut to the chase and get a room? ;)
 
I'm not going to discuss anything further with you as you clearly do not understand. If the parties involved in a discussion cannot agree on a few crucial points, then there can be no discussion.

To you, a Somalian fresh off the boat is as interchangeable as a fifth generation German or Italian-American. I cannot debate with somebody such as you, not without running afoul of the board guidelines.


However, addressing one last point about gun control in Europe. Most European nations had a degree of freedom until the first deluge of non-westeners that followed the First World War, and then the second deluge that followed the end of the Second World War. Europe today is a conquered and occupied continent.


With that said, I'm not going to discuss anything with you. If you're so narrow in your view as to declare that the fall of Rome had absolutely nothing to do with race. It wasn't Romans who sacked Rome, it was people who were non-Roman, who they invited inside their Empire, who did not want to be Rome but rather conquer Rome, who conquered Rome.


-Over and out-
 
If you think Joseph Stalin had any qualities that would make for an ideal and productive immigrant, than you must not study history that much...
Iosef Stalin, with the provisions that he doesn't interfere with other's livelihoods (which I realize pretty much negates him being Iosef Stalin), is fine by me. He can be as looney as he wants.
As for your recent post, about what I believe the USA should be like, how about the nation it was meant to be by our founders?
I do not believe the founders had any objection to people of other national origins entering the country legally.
If you want an empire/commonwealth, then move to the United Kingdom. My nation, the USA, was never intended to be a globalist giant, let alone a global anything.
I've said time and time again, I do not want that. What you cannot separate is a sovereign government with a large amount of land area under its belt from an empire.
I'm not going to discuss anything further with you as you clearly do not understand. If the parties involved in a discussion cannot agree on a few crucial points, then there can be no discussion.
Oh, I understand. I just don't agree. I am not an exclusivist. I do not believe "America is for the Americans" because the concept of an "American" as a race is a fallacy.
To you, a Somalian fresh off the boat is as interchangeable as a fifth generation German or Italian-American. I cannot debate with somebody such as you, not without running afoul of the board guidelines.
Yep. Until they prove otherwise, they are identical. And if you cannot continue civil debate in this manner, then perhaps you do not belong on this board.
But you have been fine so far, so I see no reason why you shouldn't return.
However, addressing one last point about gun control in Europe. Most European nations had a degree of freedom until the first deluge of non-westeners that followed the First World War, and then the second deluge that followed the end of the Second World War. Europe today is a conquered and occupied continent.
Wow. That's the most twisted thing I've heard all week. I don't know if I can respond to that in 500 words or less...
With that said, I'm not going to discuss anything with you. If you're so narrow in your view as to declare that the fall of Rome had absolutely nothing to do with race. It wasn't Romans who sacked Rome, it was people who were non-Roman, who they invited inside their Empire, who did not want to be Rome but rather conquer Rome, who conquered Rome.
"If you're so narrow in your view as to declare that all men are created equal..."
Funny how the narrow-minded think everyone else is narrow-minded for not immediately accepting their "truths".
 
I've decided to reply along one more vein, and then call it a day for this thread, lest, as I said, I run afoul of the rules...


I've said time and time again, I do not want that. What you cannot separate is a sovereign government with a large amount of land area under its belt from an empire.

I'll be simple and brief. Nations are drawn along racial lines, geographic boundaries are drawn along racial/ethnic lines. However, that is not always the case, as we can see with Iraq, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, etc, any number of nations where poor boundaries resulted in untold misery and suffering.

An empire is an entity comprised of many races and however many ethnic groups within those races. A nation is an entity comprised of one race and any given number of specific ethnic groups within that race.

A multi-ethnic nation can work and these nations have worked in the past, a multi-racial nation has never worked in the past nor will it ever work. People may get beyond ethnic identifications, but in keeping with human nature they cling to racial identifications.

The Somalian is not the same as the German. The USA did not go to Somalia, Mexico, or Nigeria, when it was looking for rocket scientists to help us get into space. I would wager you could still go to Somalia or Nigeria or Mexico today, and find either no rocket scientists, or at least no home-grown (domestically educated) rocket scientists.


I could easily debate all day, but I'm not sure if you'd care to hear anything from sources you'd instantly decry, such as CofCC, AmRen, etc.

As for "American race" being a fallacy, yes, that is true. American used to mean "generic white" as in, any sort of white European. Today American means virtually nothing. If it was 1910 and Japan was told "except the American ambassador to arrive tomorrow" they would know to prepare for a white Christian male to arrive. Today they might be expecting a bisexual she-male who subscribes to principles from four different religions, and identifies with three races and eight ethnic groups. In that sense, "American" has become a meaningless term as it can mean anything. A word that can mean anything, means nothing.


We're not here to debate race or race differences, are we? If you'd like to do so, then I suggest you drop me a PM.
 
EOTechRulesAll, just wanted to say everything you said makes sense and is true.
 
There's a mouthful of meaningless mush.


Why is that? Because saying it makes it so?


Right-wing means paleo-conservative (to me), and paleo-conservative views and values are very libertarian.
 
Liberal Fascism=Shark wearing dolphin skin.

It is still fascism, but in a Liberal Fascist society, you get to choose how you die, as opposed to Nazi-Fascism, where the government decides how you should die.

Thats the only difference. Period.

Scum is scum is scum.

I choose to defend the 2nd Amendment ALL DAY, EVERY DAY, ANY DAY!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top