Is it okay to use the same argument on immigration as anti-gunners use for gun control?

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:41:09 -0500

I have been reading the news and social media too much lately on this temporary immigration/travel ban. One argument I keep hearing is if it saves one American life it is worth it. I have heard this same argument made on gun control. I know there is better arguments for this temp ban but the one I indicated is a poor one.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 31 at 2017 5:42 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:42:36 -0500

Good point! I'm in as long is it's for the children.

Response by SFC Pete Kain made Jan 31 at 2017 5:46 PM

SFC Pete Kain — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:46:01 -0500

That is just a silly argument. The Constitution guaranties Gun Rights. Immigration is a privilege. Why is that so hard to understand?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 31 at 2017 5:48 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:48:56 -0500

As I mentioned in an earlier post when you brought this up, the Constitution covers gun rights for American citizens, whereas the immigration ban is not covered under the Constitution.

Response by SSgt Christopher Brose made Jan 31 at 2017 5:57 PM

SSgt Christopher Brose — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:57:58 -0500

No. I would never use that argument because it's such an utterly crappy argument. It's especially crappy when gun controllers use it because there are so many documented instances of guns saving lives, but it would be equally crappy in any other context. All that has to be shown to discredit the argument is that more than one person could be harmed by whatever it is that's supposed to save just one life.

Response by SGT William Howell made Jan 31 at 2017 6:01 PM

SGT William Howell — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:01:51 -0500

One is a Constitutional right and one is for the security of the nation. They are not the same.

Response by SMSgt Timothy Cathers made Jan 31 at 2017 6:39 PM

SMSgt Timothy Cathers — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:39:18 -0500

Immigration to the USA is not a right. To keep and bare arms is a right. Apples and door knobs.

Response by SPC Casey Ashfield made Jan 31 at 2017 8:06 PM

SPC Casey Ashfield — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 20:06:37 -0500

I strongly dislike the "if it can save one life" argument. It is a logical fallacy that requires the ability to see into the future of what "might have been" in determining consequences.

Immigration is the legal process of entering a country to become a permanent resident and citizen. Illegal immigration is circumventing a nation's laws and entering a country illegally. It boggles the mind how people forget that little illegal part.

Response by SFC George Smith made Jan 31 at 2017 9:11 PM

SFC George Smith — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:11:52 -0500

it's the Liberal and Progressive "MO."... read the Book Rules for Radicals By Saul Alinski...

Response by MSG Steve Wiersgalla made Jan 31 at 2017 11:00 PM

MSG Steve Wiersgalla — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 23:00:57 -0500

As a service member that brought home a foreign bride through the long and expensive legal immigration policy I have been very upset about the lack of illegal immigration enforcement. Immigration is not a right. I am not against immigration however it must be done the same across the board. The argument of "if it saves one American life whether it be anti gun or immigration is a piss poor argument. The right to bear arms is a right not a privilege, immigration is a privilege that must be taken seriously and investigated and only granted to those worthy of such a privilege.

Response by SFC William "Bill" Moore made Feb 1 at 2017 8:01 AM

SFC William "Bill" Moore — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 08:01:44 -0500

Aside from being a right to firearms ownership with a Constitution backing it up, it would be similar to the "apples and oranges" comparison. Yes the are both, conceivably, dangerous (immigrants/firearms) or both fruit (apples/oranges), but drastically different. A single firearm, in the hand of a dedicated and trained individual can cause serious carnage, whereas a dedicated individual, with limited training can detonate a device with catastrophic results. Firearms are not fleeing to the US, demanding benefits, protesting, or creating areas governed by sharia law. Firearms are not wondering the streets on their own, in singles or gangs, accosting, raping and killing citizens. Firearms are not draining the coffers of entitlements, set aside for legal citizens. Firearms are not trafficking illegal drugs, killing folks while driving drunk, nor flooding the economy with cheap labor. On their own, firearms are not rioting in the streets causing millions of dollars of destruction, not mention, again, the death and injuries inflicted by fists, knives, fire, bricks and so on. A determined individual will kill you with whatever they have and are comfortable with using. Immigrants come to the US with, at times, vastly different values, ideologies, religions and intent. Firearms have no bias either way, no conscious thinking or intent, well,,,,,,because they are a tool, the same as a hammer or wrench. They can no more influence the actions of the carpenter or mechanic in, either, good work/intentions, or otherwise.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 1 at 2017 8:51 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 08:51:57 -0500

Immigration control is wrong for the same reasons gun control is wrong.

Freedom

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 1 at 2017 9:20 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 09:20:56 -0500

In both cases the left wants to punish law abiding citizens while victimizing, enabling, and supporting criminals all to support their own agenda.

Response by SPC Johnney Abbott made Feb 1 at 2017 9:32 AM

SPC Johnney Abbott — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 09:32:01 -0500

That's comparing Apples to oranges I think. Ones a right for your safety and the other is a temporary ban for the whole country's safety.

Response by MAJ Raymond Brooks made Feb 1 at 2017 10:35 AM

MAJ Raymond Brooks — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 10:35:24 -0500

The question is not about immigration. Immigration is LEGALLY coming to a country and following that countries laws, in order to meld into that society. Illegal aliens, coming to this country to either A - live off our welfare system, or B - try to force their beliefs and legal system on US citizens, or C - become involved in some sort of terrorist mission. "Gun Control" is not about guns, it is about control, and not what you or I think about when we talk gun control.

Response by CSM Thomas McGarry made Feb 1 at 2017 10:50 AM

CSM Thomas McGarry — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 10:50:17 -0500

Not really a yes or no question in my opinion-Guns in the right hands have on occasion saved lives and I suppose you can also argue that most illegal immigrants which I'm assuming you are referring to add something to our society. I think we as a sovereign nation have a right-no a responsibility to do what we need to do to protect our citizens. If this is in response to the President's recent temporary limits on immigration from 7 other countries I would at other Presidents including Obama have place temporary limits without all the fuss I see with our current President's actions!

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made Feb 1 at 2017 10:56 AM

Cpl Justin Goolsby — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 10:56:04 -0500

No. The main reason is gun rights are expressly written out in the Constitution whereas immigration not so much. Firearms are a right. Coming to this Country from another sovereign land is a privilege we allow... much in the same manner as driving is a privilege and not a right.

Honestly, I've never heard the anti-immigration argument you speak of until I read this question. I have heard that anti-gun argument many many times, but not in the name of immigration.

If you are looking for a better argument in favor of this temporary ban on immigration, then this is what I usually tell people.

We've been shown our vetting processes are ineffective. We need to create and implement better processes to ensure the safety and security of our people. This is not a permanent ban. It is a temporary hold until we can identify the failures in our own system.

If you have a car with faulty brakes, do you continue driving it, or do you wait until you get the brakes looked at and fixed. Sure we could continue to risk driving on the faulty brakes, but eventually we'll be driving down hill and our luck will run out.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 1 at 2017 11:36 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 11:36:05 -0500

There are laws in place for both subjects. We don't need new laws, just enforcement of existing laws. What makes anyone think that making new laws that won't be enforced either will do any good?

Response by SFC Dave Beran made Feb 1 at 2017 11:48 AM

SFC Dave Beran — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 11:48:10 -0500

You are talking apples and oranges. Your question covers all immigration. Not the current ban of 7 countries. Using it for straight immigration policies is ignorant. Using it on the vetting policy and ban is quite different. Also banning guns in citizens hands has ever saved a life, and firearms in the hands of trained citizens has been proven to save lives. I personally would not vote on this loaded question.

Response by CSM Richard StCyr made Feb 3 at 2017 3:53 PM

CSM Richard StCyr — Fri, 03 Feb 2017 15:53:35 -0500

I say no, because immigration to the US is a privilege not a rite. Gun ownership is a rite guaranteed by the constitution.