Obama isn’t anti-gun, he’s anti illegal guns.

[archerships]

Pro border control folks often bristle when you accuse them of being anti-immigrant.

“I’m not anti-immigration, I’m anti-illegal immigration. I have no problem with immigration, so long as they follow our laws, and don’t try to jump the line.”

You know what–they’re right. It’s not fair to accuse them of being against all immigration.

It’s just like how Obama is often accused of being anti-gun. But Obama isn’t opposed to all gun ownership. He only opposes illegal gun ownership.

Granted, in Obama’s utopia, it takes 10 years and $20,000 to buy a gun. In most cases, you can get a gun only if one of your relatives already owns a gun, or you’re sponsored by a business willing to pay thousands in attorney’s fees. Temporary permits that let you shoot only at certain gun ranges are capped at a few thousand each year, allocated by lottery.

But these are mere common sense restrictions on gun ownership. Just imagine what would happen if we relaxed gun laws. Poor people would buy guns. Uneducated people would buy guns. Many of them would commit crimes. Do you really want poor, uneducated people owning a gun in your neighborhood? Just look at how many of them already buy guns illegally! We can’t allow people who disrespect our laws to own a gun! Only until we’ve secured the existing black market in guns, can we possibly consider increasing legal gun ownership.

You say you’re at risk from a stalker? You own a convenience store in a bad neighborhood? Well, that’s no excuse for disobeying the law. You should stand in line with everyone else. Or hire a security guard. Or maybe you should’ve treated your ex better or spent a little more time cleaning up your neighborhood. If you had, maybe you wouldn’t need a gun in the first place.

And what about all the security guards, police officers, and other people who would lose their jobs if any shmoe on the street could just buy a gun himself? Do you want to put these hardworking Americans out of a job, just so some poor, uneducated slob can own a gun?

And what about the terrorists? Without strict gun laws, what’s to prevent Osama II from just strolling into a gun shop and buying a gun?

No, we must strictly vet every gun owner. Only then can we prevent terrorists from buying guns.

But just because Obama supports such common sense gun laws doesn’t mean he’s anti-gun ownership. That’s a calumny. He fully supports legal gun ownership. He’s merely anti illegal guns.

Just like pro-border control folks are merely anti illegal immigration.

Original: craschworks - comments

Comments

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Thanks! Yes, I wrote it.

Reality knocks.

[ernunnos.livejournal.com]

I am anti-immigration, at least at current levels. The reality of water shortages (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/04/water-shortage-california-drought) and other effects of population pressure don't care about your papers. The reality is that people from sick cultures don't assimilate (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/us/19immig.html) to relatively healthy norms because they are welcomed with open arms.

And I'm still waiting for all the nasty consequences of restricting immigration. Just two years ago Arizonans passed and started enforcing laws designed to make it unattractive to illegal immigrants. Since then, crime is down, DUI and traffic fatalities are down, water use is down (enough that Tucson is selling its water credits to balance its budget), the power grid is less stressed, the education system is less stressed (we've been able to close and consolidate a few schools, saving taxpayer money). Meanwhile, even though Arizona participated in the housing bubble to a degree only exceeded by California, Nevada, and Florida, (and what do all four of them have in common?) we now have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation.

It's not legal or illegal, it's about the effects. You could have just as easily said, "I'm not opposed to sex, I'm opposed to illegal sex." Or "I'm not opposed to driving, just illegal driving." But that sounds strange to us, because even though rape or DUI are illegal, it's not the legality that's at issue, it's the consequences. Most of us would be opposed to rape even if it suddenly was legal, and we'd probably try to outlaw it again, to bring the law into alignment with the consequences.

Those who call for open borders have yet to make their case based on consequences, just as Obama has failed to make his case on guns based on actual consequences. In the face of reality, many have given up, falling back on religious or ideological positions. Like Abraham sacrificing his son to appease YHWH, they're willing to accept the negative consequences as the price to be paid for joining a special club of chosen people. Although these days YHWH has been replaced by SWPL (http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/) status seeking.

And it is my sincere hope that they pay that price in full. I know I enjoy living with the consequences of my position.

Re: Reality knocks.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Right. You're up front about your opposition to immigration, which I respect. (Even though I vehemently disagree with you.) This is addressed to those who think they're not hostile to immigrants, yet support current immigration law.

I'm not going to address the other points because we've gone round and round this in the past, and a) you've proven hostile to even Pareto improvements in immigration law b) you assign much greater value to U.S. citizens than to non U.S. citizens. As a result, I think our moral calculus on this issue will always end up with vastly different results.

Re: Reality knocks.

[ernunnos.livejournal.com]

you've proven hostile to even Pareto improvements in immigration law

No, I just don't trust you to recognize what actually is an improvement. Open-borders types have a looong history of being penny wise and pound foolish, if not outright disingenuous in order to advance their ideology. It's the same reason I don't trust "reasonable" gun control. You know as soon as you give an inch, they'll take a yard.

I do assign greater value to U.S. citizens, because I am one, and because it's categorically impossible to save the whole world from the cesspit of misery. If you want to make a difference, you have to start somewhere, and it only makes sense to start in your own back yard.

Of course, if you want to join the rest of the world, be my guest. California's already well on its way. You should be pleased. You won't have to feel guilty about living so much better than the rest of the world.

Re: Reality knocks.

[kynn.livejournal.com]

...we now have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation.

No.

Re: Reality knocks.

[ernunnos.livejournal.com]

Yes (http://ernunnos.livejournal.com/1934287.html).

Re: Reality knocks.

[kynn.livejournal.com]

You're really kind of out of touch with reality if you're going on about how much the economy has improved in Arizona since we started "cracking down" on immigrants.

One of the reasons Arizona has a low(er) unemployment rate is that we're pretty well known as a place to retire to. Retirees aren't counted in the employment statistics, yannow.

[pasquin.livejournal.com]

::claps::

Bravo!

[crasch.livejournal.com]

whereas many opponents of illegal immigration just want to enforce the ones we have.

If gun laws were as restrictive as immigration laws are now, "enforcing the laws we have now" would mean only a small percentage of people who wanted to own a gun would ever be able to do so (at great cost). Would that be acceptable to you?

And I think the claim that nativists just want better enforcement of existing law is wholly inaccurate.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

A person owning a gun in this country does not appropriate resources from others due to their ownership of that gun.

What about the Columbine killers? The Virginia tech murders? Or all the other guns used in the commission of crimes? I happen to think that, on net, increased gun ownership results in lower crime, but I think it is inaccurate to suggest that gun owners do not impose any cost on other members of society.

Many illegal immigrants do by their presence in this country - by government seizing money from others to feed them, to provide for their medical care,and to educate, feed, and provide medical care for their children.

And I'm wholly opposed to such subsidies of any kind. And I think that increased immigration would actually decrease such subsidies. If people think that their tax dollars are going to strange immigrants, rather than people like them, they're much less likely to vote for them.

Also, I have no problem with restricting the franchise, if it would mean greater freedom to live and work where one pleases.

[ernunnos.livejournal.com]

What about the Columbine killers? The Virginia tech murders?

Both outweighed by the crimes prevented by gun owners. Open borders advocates haven't even begun to make the case that their policies would result in improvements that outweigh the costs. Certainly the example of California isn't encouraging.

And I think that increased immigration would actually decrease such subsidies.

It's a matter for observation, not speculation. This is not a hypothetical. We have generations of data. Higher immigration from mostly socialist (and often outright corrupt) countries leads to (surprise, surprise!) more socialism. If you want to live like the rest of the world, you already have... the whole rest of the world.

I like living in the exception. The rule kind of sucks.

[kleenestar.livejournal.com]

Hey, I'm curious what study you're citing about the 1.5-3m crime reduction. Can you point me? Thanks!

[crasch.livejournal.com]

You wrote:

A person owning a gun in this country does not appropriate resources from others due to their ownership of that gun.

This is not true. Some gun owners do impose costs on others. I agree that on net, gun freedom provides more benefits than it costs, but it's inaccurate to say that there are _no_ costs. And just as you believe that gun freedom is worth supporting because, on net, the benefits outweigh the costs, so I believe that immigration freedom is worth supporting because the benefits outweigh the costs.

As long as those subsidies are in place, illegal immigration, especially by the poorest immigrants, who are the largest number of the illegal immigrant population, will continue to impose a large cost that will be borne by taxpayers

Increased immigration actually results in less support for welfare. Even in Sweden: The Effect of Immigration on Support for Welfare State Spending:

Results from multilevel models reveal that multiple measures of immigration at the county-level have significant negative effects on support for the welfare state.

However, even if increased immigration resulted in increased support for public subsidy, I would still support it, because I think that a) we, as individuals can make much better decisions than government can, and b) government is just as likely to make things worse, as to make things better.

You want the government to restrict immigration to prevent the movement of people who support socialism.

But socialist ideas are arguably more efficiently spread via books, TV, radio, newspapers, and magazines. Should we allow the government to restrict freedom of the press to prevent the "wrong" ideas from being passed around?

Freedom of religion means that some people will become Scientologists or Catholics. Many other religious believers think that this damns them to eternal hell. Should we allow government to restrict this freedom to force people to believe the "right" religion?

Do you trust the government to decide for you what to read? Or what religion to believe? If not, why would you trust them to decide with whom you associate?

Note that "open borders" is a misnomer. In the absence of immigration restrictions, there would still be property rights and the borders associated with them. The choice is not between "borders" and "open borders", but between "socialist borders" and "private borders".

National border laws take away the rights of every property owner in the U.S. to decide who they allow on their own property, and subsitute them with the whims of bureaucrats in Washington.

Would you allow your town council to decide that you couldn't invite a black girl to your home because she might go on welfare or commit a crime? If not, why would you allow it at the national level?

[kleenestar.livejournal.com]

Question - and this is a genuine question, as I have no hat in the ring re: illegal immigration. What are your thoughts on highly educated immigrants, such as my friends T. and D. (Harvard-educated, highly skilled, making pots of money) who have not been able to get citizenship? Do you think they should be able to live here without struggling through years of bureaucracy, and if so, how do you think that should come about?

Also, what are your feelings on people who just happened to be born here who "appropriate resources from others?" (I'm deliberately using your phrase not to throw it in your face, but to try to understand what you mean by it.)

I hope it does not make you read me with hostility if I also mention that I found the original post funny, trenchant and wise. I am aware that I don't know much about this issue and I am reading (and asking questions!) to learn more.

[kleenestar.livejournal.com]

Thanks - this is helpful toward understanding your position. My main personal connection to this issue is my friends' situation but because of them I am trying to learn more. I am especially interested in understanding why so many people have very strong feelings on this topic, and I think your explanation has helped me see why you think the way you do.

[ersigh.livejournal.com]

I don't even see the relation between those two because I am anti-illegal immigrants and am not in support of Obama's ideas on gun ownership.

Admittedly, if we stopped letting anyone in for a few years, I'd be ok with that... or actually had a standard of some sort.

My upstairs neighbor (the people I FUCKING HATE because they're completely fucking rude blackmailing oxygen wasting pieces of shit) got her citizenship. Guess how many questions she had to answer?

THREE

Guess what language the questions were given to her... VERBALLY...

Let's just say, it wasn't English.

My russian friends... They got to answer 40 written questions, in English.

*mad*

A few weeks ago I made the statement that illegal immigrants should not be permitted to work here, that companies that hire illegal immigrants should be punished, etc... and I got the following response:

"ZOMG! That's racist! That's like saying black people can't work."

o_O

The whole room proceeded to basically yell at me about how horrible what I said was.

Whatever.

[radiantsun.livejournal.com]

If he were anti-illegal gun, and thought it should be easier for non-criminals to own guns, does that change your argument?

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Yes. If gun laws were reasonable (i.e. anyone who was not a convicted of a violent crime or mentally ill could easily acquire and use a gun), I wouldn't have a problem with being anti-illegal gun. But when the laws are such that one can only acquire a gun at great cost and hassle, if at all, being anti-illegal gun is equivalent to being anti-gun.

[radiantsun.livejournal.com]

So, if someone is anti-illegal immigrant and pro making it easier for immigrants to come here legally?

Cause what I heard you equate your argument with, is people who are anti illegal immigrant are anti immigrant/racsit.

I think it does everyone a great disservice to call people who are not in favor of illegal immigration to call them racist/anti immigrant, without finding out more info. Additionally, better immigration laws could ease a lot of the problems currently illegal immigrants have, esp. women and children.

At least currently, if you are an illegal woman immigrant and your husband is beating you, you can report it without it being likely that you get deported. Not sure about all the laws around that tho.

[radiantsun.livejournal.com]

(also, what is mentally ill? ADD? Depression? Bi-Polar?)